These days, former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai is busy defending his party, the UCPN (Maoist), and its views on writing constitution in the virtual world. In the process, he has been able to coin amazing phrases to counter those he thinks are opposed to his or the views of his party, for which he deserves admiration. At the same time, it is unfortunate to see the Maoist ideologue ranged against thousands of young, sharp-witted and intelligent commentators, who have been demolishing his often esoteric, moribund and far-fetched arguments.

For example, his argument that the new constitution of Nepal should last, at least, for a century has been countered with infallible logic—that he did not make that remark for nothing; that he knew well enough that any constitution would seek to capture and address the highest possible ideals, principles and aspirations of the present time; and that these ideals and principles are arrived at after long and arduous discourses, passing through many compromises and concessions. So far, I have not read or heard Bhattarai defending himself against these views.

Not cast in stone

True, a constitution is a document of faith, but its articles are not as such cast in stone and, therefore, can be amended or changed. According to the law of nature, “Change is the only constant; everything else undergoes the process of modification or transformation”. In a democratic setup, which reflects unity among diversity, it is never possible to draft a constitution unanimously or with consensus. Such unanimity may be possible only in an authoritarian regime and that too through coercion and intimidation; certainly not in a democratic

dispensation. As stated above, a democratically written constitution tries as best as possible to accommodate the present-time aspirations, desires, choices and needs of a great majority of people. After a long and arduous negotiation with subtle interplay of give and take, a compromise is struck among the representatives of the various political parties. That is why the constitution is often called a compromise document, not a consensus document. The needs keep changing with times. Even within a decade, let alone a century, many of the provisions of the constitution may lose their relevance and demands would arise for time-suited amendments. The number game is always a powerful game changer in democracy. It is a given in a democracy that a political party with the advantage of required number on its side may always amend the constitution. And there is no denying that as astute a person as Bhattarai can be ignorant of this gross fact. One wonders why his views are so imperious all of a sudden, going against the liberal images he once projected of himself.

Not a silver bullet

Nonetheless, let that point be left aside. The deadline of January 22 has passed. The much-talked about protest rally of the opposition on Febraury 28 has also happened. Surprisingly, the mood of Kathmandu and that of rest of the country still remains unperturbed and indifferent. The response of Kathmandu and that of the country, before and after the rally, was one of cold and unfeeling detachment. This is reminiscent of the calm and quiet that was witnessed on the day after January 22, disproving some of the self-appointed political leaders’ prediction about the country getting into an inexplicable turmoil in case there was no new constitution by the deadline.

The total absence of excitement in public, on both occasions, may suggest many things. First, political parties are fast losing traction with people. Second, people seem to have lost interest in what the leaders say and do. Third, they are more than convinced that these leaders immersed as they are in their own petty, selfish agendas, will never reach a consensus to write a new constitution. Fourth, people seem to no longer believe in the false promises fed to them by the leaders, who say that the constitution, once promulgated, will help solve all the woes of the country. They now know that a new constitution is not going to be the silver bullet that will clean up the mess these political leaders have so far created in the country and that those in power will always remain impervious to the public’s suffering and hardship. This manifest public despondency may, therefore, be a presage of the turmoil to come.

Soul-searching needed

There is a saying: when the present is shaky and the future murky, it is time to pause and do some soul-searching. This is exactly where Nepal stands at this point in time. Such soul-searching must begin among all political parties in the Constituent Assembly (CA) as soon as possible, without the needless ratcheting-up of emotions. First, this requires them to give up unwarranted posturing, mistrust of each other and the futile war of attrition they are engaged in. Coming together, sitting together, putting ideas together and working together with the display of sincere, open-minded and impartial attitudes is the second logical step that should be taken.

More than a month has passed since the self-imposed deadline was over. Yet, the political deadlock continues, and the CA remains closed sine die. The political parties seem unaware, or rather pretend to do so, about the writings on the wall. They should act fast before the lull develops into a mighty storm and sweeps away all the gains made thus far. Trying to wage a war of words alone, like Bhattarai in the virtual space, though commendable, would ultimately lead us nowhere. Now that the show of strength is over, hopefully, the long overdue dialogue will begin pronto.

Thapa is a former Chief of Protocol at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (bhimsen29@ gmail.com)