Next week, the three-political party consortium that has an overwhelming majority in the Constituent Assembly (CA) will finally unveil the new constitution of Nepal. The constitution of any country, however, is just a means, not a magic wand, to develop the country and enable its people to enjoy the generally accepted freedoms and lead a better life. In our college days, we were told that the main function of any constitution is to bind the government and those who run the government by the laws, conventions and traditions of the land.

The tradition of writing a constitution can be said to have begun with the American Revolution and the written United States Constitution of 1789 which began with the words, “We the people”. Though the French Revolution took place before the American fight for liberation from the British, it dragged on for a long time. So, the first French constitution was adopted as late as 1791. We, the people of the world, have since, more for less, followed the American example of a written constitution. It may be interesting for our legislators to find out just how many constitutions France has had since the Revolution till the Charles de Gaulle constitution of 1958 that established the present French Fifth Republic.

Run up to the statute

With the decision to promulgate the new constitution, which will become the supreme law of the land from Sunday onwards, the stage is set for celebrations by the supporters of the three parties in many parts of the country. Rest assured, the top leaders of the three parties will sit back and relax now that the arduous task of constitution writing is over. Whether the event is celebrated or not or whether the top leaders breathe a sigh of relief or not, the main question remains: if we are still a united nation and not a fractured one, how will the new statute help the people overcome their poverty and bring about peace and tranquility in the country? Constitutional experts alone will be able to tell us how things might turn out in the future. But common people like us can only look back at the events and marvel at the way the constitution has been written.

Nepal’s first CA was the result of the decade-long armed revolt by the Maoists, not so much against the then prevalent monarchy, than against the multi-party democracy. King Gyanendra’s takeover of power came much later. The Maoist war began in 1996 and by the time it ended in 2006, 15-17,000 people had died, not to mention the thousands more who were displaced. This was the price the nation paid for the estalishment of the first CA that finally materialised in 2008. Yet, despite the huge loss of lives and the sufferings endured by the living, the first CA failed to deliver a constitution because of the irrevocable differences between the then largest party and other parties due to the diametrically opposite political ideologies they held. The main differences continued to persist in the second CA but then the unexpected happened: the Great Earthquake of April 25 and the pouring in of aid amounting to billions and billions from foreign governments, donor agencies, and individuals. The result was that the large political parties in the CA were able to forge a determined consensus despite the inherent difference in their ideologies.  

Wrong priority

The parties, if one were to ask them, would surely state, in no uncertain terms, that they did what they did in the larger interest of the country and because the people  were badly in need of a constitution; therefore, the hurry. As one watched the proceedings of the CA live on television, it was surprising that all the articles of the constitution that numbered over 300 were passed within four days (Sunday to Wednesday) with nary a discussion even on controversial provisions. One could not help but wonder why the political parties kept the country in transition for so long when they were capable of agreeing on a statute within months after the April earthquake and getting it endorsed from the CA within a few days. The untimely death of about 9,000 people, the destruction of countless houses, and sheds seemed to have accomplished what the death of over 17,000 people in the so-called People’s War could not achieve.

This is because, despite the large scale violent protests and the resultant death of almost 50 people against the new constitution, the main political parties decided to go on with the task of promulgating the new constitution. The die is already cast and there is no turning back, which is why the most of the CA members could not help but abide by the party whip. The major political parties in the CA, however, seem to be unaware of what a layman thinks about the whole process. They seem to be unaware that the people think that the first priority should have been the restoration, rebuilding, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the country devastated by the recent natural disaster rather than tinkering with controversial matters that unfortunately killed 50 people in the anti-constitution protests.

What next?

The ruling coalition along with the Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led UCPN (Maoist) party have termed the protests, including the ‘bandhs’, as illegal forgetting that they too resorted to similar tactics in the pre-April 2006 protests. What was right then cannot be wrong now simply because there is a different form of government now. Protests take place under dictatorial regimes as they do under democratic systems. The difference is that dictators do not listen to such protests and suppress them while democracies pay adequate attention to them and try to resolve the problems. But since the die has already been cast, we will have a constitution soon. But what will its result be for the country? Hopefully, the new statute will not fragment the country and disturb the harmonious relations that exist among the people who profess different beliefs and live in different parts of the country and yet take pride in calling themselves Nepalis. Constitution or no constitution, we have to keep our territorial integrity and national identity safe now and forever.