Though the process to start the new CA committee does not immediately force a vote on the constitution, it gives a clear message that the NC-UML coalition wants to move forward unilaterally in the constitution project without taking the opposition on board.

Enforcing the constitution through a vote without broad agreement from major stakeholders could lead the country back to a period of instability similar to the one that existed in the early years of the peace process. The opposition said on Friday that they could stay away from the CA process if Chairman Nembang tries to form the committee without their consent. That could have disastrous implications. We have consistently argued in these pages that it is essential that at least the four major political stakeholders—the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, the UCPN (Maoist) and Madhesi parties—have ownership over the new constitution. We fear that a constitution without the support of any of these groups cannot be implemented.

Friday’s decision by Nembang will only deepen the opposition’s suspicions that the chairman of the Assembly, a senior UML leader, is guided more by partisan interests than by a desire to deliver a durable constitution that enjoys widespread legitimacy. We can’t overstress the value of consensus in these polarised times.

Nepal’s history since 2006 shows that the country has faced political crises each time the major parties have failed to make compromises on broader issues. On the other hand, the political process has moved forward wherever they have. This was the case after the dissolution of the first CA and this was the case even after the 2013

elections.

Even though the UCPN (Maoist) performed poorly and initially decided to boycott the process, it eventually agreed to participate in the new CA after there was consensus that the second CA would own up the decisions made by the previous one and the letter and spirit of the landmark transition agreements would continue to be the framework of the political process and constitution writing.

All three of the foundational documents of this current period—the 12-point agreement, the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Interim Constitution—state that all decisions of the peace process will be taken in consensus. The parties will have to reach a compromise on a federal system that recognises the identity of marginalised groups while at the same time preventing the domination of one group over another in the new federal set-up. The parties have come very close to an agreement.

One major sticking point is regarding the placement of five districts in the Tarai—Jhapa, Morang and Sunsari in the East; and Kailali and Kanchanpur in the Far West. This is an issue that can be resolved in a number of ways: Their status could be resolved by a group of experts; they could be governed by the Centre until a durable

solution is found; or the people in these districts could be given the choice to go for a referendum at some point in the future to decide what they want.

A lot has been written about the hardline position taken by UML Chairman KP Oli in recent months and how he has polarised public opinion. It is time questions were now asked about the role of the prime minister and president of the Nepali Congress, Sushil Koirala.

Has the head of the government and leader of the country’s largest party been able to bring a divided nation together during his time in office? Is he, along with Oli, trying to codify an intolerant form of Nepali nationalism, which would stifle minority groups and their aspirations? Is this plan even tenable in this day and age when marginalised groups—Madhesi, Janajati, Dalits and women—have become assertive and are actively seeking a dignified place in our nation? What if the government’s actions lead the country to a period of deeper polarisation, constitutional drift and even violence through renewed conflicts?

There is already talk that the failure of the CA process can only encourage radical activists like CK Raut and Netra Bikram Chand. If the government pushes a unilateral constitution, other such radical actors bent on undermining the Nepali state will emerge.

At the moment, Nembang bears a lot of responsibility. Will he take the nation towards polarisation and possible conflict? Or will he avert the danger and seek a constructive path forward? We suggest that the venerable chairman, instead of pushing for a hasty CA process, consider a “cooling period” of about week or so.

Starting as early as Sunday, he could put the Assembly on recess, let tempers on either side of the aisle cool down, and help common sense prevail. This should allow greater room to renew cross-party negotiations, hopefully in a new atmosphere of amity. That means convincing the NC-UML to put the CA process on deciding the Questionnaire Committee on hold for now. This should encourage the opposition alliance, not least the UCPN (Maoist) and the Madhesi parties, to stay in the CA process and look for a solution from within.