We have been led to believe that Prime Minister Sushil Koirala has consented to hold a roundtable conference without consulting his coalition partners, let alone parties outside the coalition. We might assume it is part of his habit to hastily make decisions and be embarrassed later on. The issue of holding a roundtable conference at this late stage, however, is a serious one.

Old demands

The CPN-Maoist had raised the issue of a roundtable before the second Constituent Assembly (CA) elections. When the first CA was prematurely dismissed, the government lost its legitimacy to continue. A political solution could have been possible then by holding a roundtable with the parties represented in the CA. However, the parties were unable to agree. Somehow, an unusual way out was discovered by forming a non-political executive government headed by the sitting Chief Justice to hold elections to the second CA.

Now, we have a legitimate CA and an elected government. The process of drafting the constitution has also begun again. It is one thing for a force outside the political process to revive its old demand for the roundtable. But the PM is the person most responsible for writing and enforcing the new constitution. How could he take such an out-of-the-way decision to hold a roundtable?

Let us look at the intention behind the call for a roundtable. The CPN-Maoist, which works as the spokesparty for the so-called 33 party alliance, has claimed time and again that it will tear up a ‘constitution drafted by the illegitimate CA’ and will ‘enforce a people’s constitution from the streets’. Can there be a more mala fide intention? The whole nation participated in the election to the second CA, which the CPN-Maoist had pledged to disrupt, with a record turnout and the whole world as actively watching as bona fide observers. The nation had not only given the dissident party an opportunity to join the process but had also urged it to do so through repeated meetings and emissaries. Still, the parties did not break its obstinacy to boycott the November election. The real reason behind its decision was that it knew the people would turn it down. It was the lack of moral courage to face the people. Furthermore, the party failure to foil the election became another moral defeat.

Bad assurance

Coming back to Koirala’s assurance of the roundtable, from his track record, one cannot easily believe that he will act on it. He has repeatedly said that he is committed to enforcing the constitution within a year. Yet, he took more than two months to just form a Cabinet. Additionally, he has still not been able to recommend the outstanding 26 names for the CA. At this rate, the constitution can hopefully be completed by the end of the CA’s four-year term. Now, he has endorsed the dissenting parties’ demand for a roundtable, which was proposed as an alternative to the CA. But looking at the remarks of the CPN-Maoist, the roundtable is not going to fill the unseen gaps of the Assembly; instead, it will denounce the CA itself.  

The roundtable can be a useful tool when regular institutional provisions do not exist. It would have been useful before the elections to the second CA. Now that the CA has been duly formed and is already at work, there is no scope for the roundtable. At this stage, calling a roundtable as a substitute for the constitutional process of the CA is to put the horse behind the cart. It cannot move forward. In a democracy, legitimacy comes from an endorsement by the majority of

the people. The most legitimate agency to write the constitution, therefore, is the CA. The CPN-Maoist could have gone to the court for an appropriate injunction if it was dissatisfied. But it knew that it had no valid ground and no substantial evidence. Thus, the call for a roundtable is an attempt to save political face.

A pointless exercise

The CA’s Political Dialogue and Consensus Committee, led by former PM Baburam Bhattarai, has attempted to communicate with the CPN-Maoist. Bhattarai is a revered ex-colleague of the dissenting Maoists. The proper venue for dialogue, therefore,

this committee. It is rumoured that the CPN-Maoist has already declined to hold dialogue with the committee. The party seems to have failed to realise that such antics will only worsen its image in the eyes of the people. At this stage, though the dissenting parties can put forth irreconcilable claims at the roundtable, it will be very difficult to address them.

All said and done, the relevance of a roundtable is precariously limited. Even if an roundtable is actually held at this stage and some conclusions are drawn, the only entry point for those conclusions will be through the Bhattarai-led CA committee. As this entry has already been rejected by the CPN-Maoist, the whole roundtable exercise is going to be worthless.    

Sharma is a freelance political analyst ([email protected])