Nepal is
now undergoing a transitional phase. The 1990 constitution is absolutely
dysfunctional now. The country now finds itself in a confused and chaotic
state. There is a pressing need for a new constitution that is positively
different from its predecessors because it is impossible to govern the country
without a constitution. The way a constitution is framed dictates in one way or
the other the kind and quality of the constitution. The 1990 constitution, for
example, lacked many things that Nepali people want because it was presented to
the Nepali people as a fait accompli by the then three political forces viz.
the king, the left-wing political forces and the Nepali Congress. To ensure
that the constitution addresses the problems of all segments of the society, it
is imperative that all the people indirectly play a pivotal role in the
formation of the constitution by participating in the election to the CA.
Election
to Constituent Assembly was postponed two times. The first time it was
postponed would make us less hopeless than we can be when it was postponed
second time. This means the second time it was adjourned would make us more
hopeless than we can be when it was postponed first time. There is a
discrepancy between the way it was postponed first time and the way it was
postponed second time. When it was postponed first time, those who decided to
postpone it spoke about when the election would take place next time. To many,
the postponement seemed bad. But, at the same time, despite the sadness they
felt as the result of the postponement, they were also happy in a certain sense
to hear that the election would be held after about six months. The happiness
they felt resulted not from their comparison between the postponement of the
election and the determination of the new date for the election but from their
juxtaposition between fixing and not fixing a new date for the election. Their
comparison between the postponement of the election and the determination of a
new date for the election definitely leads them to be worried. The
determination of the new date cannot make up for the loss incurred by the
postponement. Some thing is better than nothing. Fixing a new date for the
election is better than not fixing it. Taking this into account by excluding
the postponement from the mind will cause us to be happy. The determination of
the new date for the election made them get rid of the confusion over when
election will take place. When it was postponed second time, no new date was
fixed.
As I
have already argued above, fixing the new date for the election is better than
not determining it. That the election was postponed second time without
determining the new date for it is really sad in this sense. But, there is one
sense in which the postponement of the election without the determination of
the new date for it cannot be deemed to be sad. What is really needed is not to
postpone the election. If it is not possible, that is, if the postponement is
bound to occur, or it occurs for any reason, what is needed is not only to
determine the new date but also to ensure that the election is held within the
date fixed. As is obvious from our experience with the second postponement of
the election, it is not the determination of the new date that ensures the
holding of the election within the specified period of time. The problems that
affect the electoral process adversely must be resolved prior to the
determination of the new date. We should not fix the new date for the election
without being sure whether it is possible to hold it within the fixed date.
There is no sense in saying that the new date should be determined as soon as
possible if we lack an understanding of how long it takes to hold the election.
Our option is not to choose between fixing and not fixing the new date for the
election. In a situation in which it is uncertain that the election will take
place in the immediate future, on the contrary, we should choose not between
fixing and not fixing the new date but between fixing the new date and solving
the problems that may not allow the election to take place in the immediate
future. One may say here that we should do simultaneously- fixing the new date
and solving the problems, rather than choosing between them. I wish doing both
at the same time were the best possible option. But, the fact is that though it
is the best option, it is not the best “possible” option. This means it is the
best but impossible option. Fixing the new date is not difficult because it
takes place inside the mind. But solving the problems is not a mental process
unlike fixing the date. It takes place not inside the mind but outside the
mind. It requires us to struggle with reality.
What is
the Election to the Constituent Assembly for? The answer we give to this
question in interest-specific. It is this characteristic feature of the answer
that accounts for the current political impasse in the country. Many political
forces (for example, Nepali Congress, Rastriya Prajatantra Party, etc.) just
want that the CA election should be held as soon as possible without paying
heed to what kind of constitution the Constituent Assembly is likely to
formulate. They also wanted to hold this in Mangsir 3 though it was certain
that this was not good enough to lead to the constitution that addresses the
appropriate demands being raised by the marginalized groups in the country.
There are two reasons behind this. First, they are not wise enough to fathom
that the kind of electoral system adopted will dictate whether the constitution
the Constituent Assembly makes addresses these problems. The only thing they
know or they want or purport to know is that the CA election should be held as
soon as possible, no matter whatever constitution it gives rise to.
This piece of
writing was published on 3rd of May, 2009 in my
blog entitled " Beyond the Orthodoxy".
0 Comments