Despite so many dissenting voices, demonstrations, killings and shootings, the Constituent Assembly (CA) has at last delivered the long-awaited constitution. It is the outcome of almost 70 years of struggle by the people, a bloody civil war, and subsequent mass protests, and a continuous political dialogue that lasted nearly two decades. The constitution is, therefore, a welcome step, a point of departure in that it provides a political platform on which the country and its people can stand. But the question is: how long will it last? While the statute may represent the culmination of a long political transition, but large parts of our population still believe that their demands and voices have been ignored in it. So the first and foremost responsibility of the government is to now bring opposing voices into the mainstream. If their demands are genuine and pragmatic, they must be addressed.

Support and dissent

Even I have many reservations over the provisions in the new constitution on federalism, secularism, citizenship and forms of governance. The document is too long, boring, and lacks clarity. The preamble to any constitution is supposed to be lucid, but there is so much ambiguity here. Moreover, the new constitution represents merely the interests of a few political parties and their bosses, not the will of the people in general. It must, nevertheless, be seen to open new doors

and platforms for further political conversation on dissenting issues between all political stakeholders. In that case, the new constitution could come to be celebrated as a victorious and historic accomplishment through which all political forces will be able to seek peaceful solutions to our problems.

The document is certainly comprehensive in providing fundamental freedoms and human rights. It incorporates a complete set of civil, political, economic and social rights—all on an equal footing. It means that the new constitution goes much further than its predecessors in securing the rights of the people, and its fundamental rights go far beyond anything provided by any country in the world. But can the state translate them into reality?

A step forward

There are so many hopes and aspirations among our people who wish to escape from poverty and the daily struggles of life. They would like to live a dignified life doing as they please. However, all human rights are costly to realise. In this context, it is important to ponder if the state has sufficient resources to provide all rights in the near future. Moreover, will the given rights have any real meaning unless they are backed by strong economic, social and institutional enforcement mechanisms?

First, the rights enshrined in the new constitution will only provide avenues towards achieving the desired goals. To realise any rights in a proper manner, the state will need to formulate proper strategies. The rights themselves will need to be backed by strong policies, in turn, by consistent and liberal laws, rules and regulations. For that, the state must amend its attitude, manner and way of working, and provide efficient service to its people. Otherwise, the newly granted constitutional rights will remain nothing more than black letter laws as they were before.

Second, the constitutionally enshrined fundamental rights must not be used purely to benefit the interests of a few dominant groups who have traditionally had better access to the courts and other institutions. We must utilise these rights to empower the poor and the vulnerable.

The first and foremost plan of the state must be to provide and fulfil the minimum essential level of housing, health and food for all. Special focus must be placed on those who are living below the poverty line. Any law or constitution that fails to support the poor and the marginalised is doomed

to failure.

Third, strong and dynamic mechanisms must be introduced to realise and institutionalise the given rights. Clear institutional responsibilities must be established. Changing the rules regarding how decisions for meeting basic needs will create incentives for the state to fulfil its obligations. The courts of law must be accessible to all. Several specific factors facilitate the use of judicial mechanisms for human rights enforcement, including access to court and legal resources, removal of procedural hurdles, capacity building for group litigants, a nonpartisan judicial appointment process and a construct of legal competence through legal training. The human rights commission and anti-corruption bodies must be made more independent of the government. Armed forces must be trained. A culture of respect for human rights must be established at all levels of politics.

Dynamic political document

Finally, one of the most important aspects of the peace process is addressing the rights violations, abuses and extra-judicial killings of the conflict era. Without that, the peace process will never be complete. The transitional justice commissions are already working on this, but all the stakeholders, political forces and the new government must genuinely help to establish the truth of what happened, to punish the perpetrators and to compensate the victims. If we wish to establish durable peace in the country, violence, killings and vandalism must never become a political tool for change. Such acts must be interpreted as crimes against the people and against humanity as a whole. The lives of individuals must not be treated as cheaply as they have been before.

A constitution is a dynamic political document, and its making is a never-ending political process. Interpretations by the apex court and the making of liberal laws and policies to back up the provisions of the fundamental rights will make the given rights more pragmatic and achievable. The comprehensive set of fundamental rights as enshrined in the new constitution must be used as a weapon to make a difference in the lives of ordinary people. These rights must be used to empower the powerless and to grant a voice to the voiceless. Otherwise, the very essence of human rights will be meaningless. Continued dialogue and persuasion are vital to legitimise the rhetoric of human rights and empower individuals making rights claims.

Basnet holds a PhD in human rights from Lancaster University