Constitution amendment
We have in this space repeatedly pointed out the need for common understanding on constitution amendment among at least the four main political forces—Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, CPN (Maoist Center) and the Madheshi Morcha—that own up post-2006 political changes. Leaving out even one of these four major actors will be fraught with risks for the new federal democratic republic. But the ruling Maoist and Congress parties are preparing to unilaterally table a bill on constitution amendment in the parliament. UML is vehemently opposed to any such changes in the constitution unless the ruling parties can justify the amendments. Incidentally, even senior Morcha leaders have clarified that any amendment made without their approval will be rejected. With UML not on board and the Morcha too unclear about its stand, it is hard to see what the unilateral amendments will achieve. Apparently, efforts to woo UML and Morcha will continue even after the filing of the amendment motion. But this is circular logic. Isn’t it far better to first get their approval and then proceed to amend the constitution? We have already seen that it is futile to amend the constitution without the approval of all major political actors.
UML, in the process of opposing the proposed amendments, has raised some valid concerns. For instance, will it be acceptable for the people of hill districts who now find themselves in province five to be kept in province four or seven instead? Why should all top government posts be open to naturalized citizens, when nearly all countries limit top posts to the native-born? If the federal lower house is to be elected on population basis, doesn’t it make sense to elect the upper house based on geography so that some regions in the country are not completely neglected? And what is the guarantee that the Madheshi parties will own up to these amendments? These are legitimate concerns and they cannot be brushed aside just because they are not palatable to certain political forces. We believe not enough has been done by the ruling parties to take the main opposition into confidence on these crucial issues. Nor have there been substantive discussions with Madheshi parties to get their consent.
We would thus like to see the ruling parties engage all stakeholders of the peace and constitution process that started with the signing of the CPA exactly a decade ago. The legitimacy of the amendments—if Congress and Maoists can muster two-thirds majority in parliament—will again be questioned if the second biggest political party is left out. We would also like to urge UML to be flexible and if reasonable proposals on amendment are forthcoming, to accept them and clear the way for the three sets of elections. UML surely doesn’t want to be seen as obstructionist, holding the country hostage even as other parties are ready to give Nepal a way out of the prolonged political impasse. The Madheshi parties too must be ready to make some hard compromises if they are committed to ending the logjam. In the end, we would like to remind our mainstream political actors that disunity among them at this critical juncture could play into the hands of extremist forces. And if national polity goes out of the hands of mainstream actors, it will be extremely hard for them to wrest it back. Sadly, our political actors seem incapable of seeing this big picture.
Now the government will build homes and sell them!
