Saturday, August 6, was the deadline for the Constituent Assembly’s (CA) Political Dialogue and Consensus Committee (PDCC) to resolve contentious issues of the constitution, according to the CA calendar. The deadline passed without the parties having resolved any of the outstanding issues. A proposal to extend the deadline was opposed and instead, the PDCC will now be presenting both resolved and outstanding issues to the CA. In the meantime, the PDCC will continue inter-party talks. Pranaya SJB Rana spoke to Nepali Congress (NC) General Secretary and Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee Krishna Prasad Sitaula on the reasons behind the failure to reach consensus, the NC’s stances on federalism and forms of governance, and ongoing talks for a High Level Political Committee (HLPC).
The constitution-writing process has arrived at the same place as the last CA, and once again, it seems deadlocked.
The process started late this time around. The CA drafted its rules with the understanding that there would be talks with parties outside of the CA and gave this mandate to the PDCC. But the parties outside the CA refused to sit for talks with the PDCC; the Mohan Baidya-led CPN-Maoist said that it would only talk with the government. This whole process caused delay. Hopefully, it will be sorted out in a few days time. The PDCC and the government should both have taken the process forward and reached a conclusion by now. Any conclusion would have sufficed, whether consensus was reached or not. Initially, I did not see much seriousness; some leaders even joked about pushing back the CA calendar. If they had been serious then all other work would have been put on hold to focus on writing the constitution.
Couldn’t the three major parties—NC, UML and Maoists—have started deliberations among themselves on contentious issues, instead of waiting for parties outside of the CA to join the process?
It would have been best if the three parties could have sat down but things did not work out like that. All parties have their own stances and though talks have been broached, it does not look like any conclusion is close. The PDCC, which includes the top leaders of all the parties, was supposed to hold talks among the parties and try to reach consensus, but it was focussed on trying to bring parties outside the CA to the table for talks.
Whose weakness do you see here?
The weakness is collective, as the PDCC includes all the political parties represented in the CA. It is not about blaming others; we cannot write a constitution that way. Whatever weaknesses the CA has and whatever achievements the CA has made, they are our collective responsibility. Whatever the reasons for the delay, and there has definitely been a delay, we need to sit together and take the process forward. The January 22 deadline for the constitution cannot be pushed back. Looking at past experience, if we push back the deadline once, it will keep happening again and again.
How long can the PDCC keep pursuing consensus among the parties before other tasks, like taking a draft to the people, must be completed?
According to the CA rules, the PDCC will prepare reports on both agreed-to and outstanding issues and send these to the CA. After whatever decision the CA takes, the issues will be forwarded to the Drafting Committee, which will prepare a draft and again send that to the CA. Discussions will again be held at the CA, after which, the draft will be taken to the people for discussion for about a month. When the draft comes back with suggestions from the people, the CA will again send the document to the PDCC for deliberation. So the role of the PDCC will continue until the very end of the constitution-writing process. The Drafting Committee will only compose a constitutional bill [bidheyak] in Mangsir [January]. So consensus can be pursued during this entire time. Up until the time the constitution is announced, the PDCC has the mandate to keep the dialogue and consensus process ongoing. There is a misunderstanding that the time for consensus has expired or is expiring. There is opportunity for consensus even after the constitutional bill is prepared.
There have been complaints about the government’s lacklustre performance in leading the constitution-writing process and creating a proper environment.
What really can the government do? Only the CA can take constitution-writing forward and all the top leaders are in the PDCC. To move ahead with the process, the parties need to come to consensus on certain issues. The prime minister cannot dictate to the parties, he can only assist them in coming together. Earlier, the prime minister had left for the US for treatment and in his absence, issues that needed his presence, like talks with the CPN-Maoist, were put on hold. But now, he is actively pursuing consensus. PM Sushil Koirala looks better now than he did before his cancer diagnosis. So I do not think that his health will be an impediment anymore.
This time too, all parties seem to be sticking to their respective stances. Could you elaborate on the NC’s stance on federalism and form of governance, the two most contentious issues?
Looking at all of the parties’ stances, it seems that we all want to ensure inclusion. I feel that the best way to do this is through a parliamentary system and a council of ministers that is answerable to the parliament. Since we’re going for federalism, we cannot have one system at the centre and another system at the state level. If we opt for a directly-elected president, the executive head of the states will also be directly elected. To elect a president, we can have a broad electoral college that includes the participation of the central parliament and the various state councils. If citizens at all levels are able to vote for the president in some way, it will ensure widespread symbolic ownership of the head of state.
On federalism, if you look at it from the viability angle, the number of states should not exceed seven. Nepal is a diverse country of many cultures, religions and languages so it is a country of multiple identities. No ethnicity has a sizeable majority in any area. We can talk around seven states but 10 and above would not be practical.
As the largest party in the CA, how flexible is the Congress on these issues?
It was under the Congress’ leadership, under Girija Prasad Koirala, that a federal republican state was declared and we will not abandon this. But there is still room for flexibility to take the process forward and reach consensus.
Now that the talks process with the Baidya-led coalition of 33 parties that remains outside the CA has started, what agendas will be discussed at the all-party roundtable?
We will sit with them and listen to their demands for inclusion into the constitution. We might find common ground through discussions as Mohan Baidya and the CPN-Maoist were also part of the former CA until the very end. They played a significant role in the 12-point agreement, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Interim Constitution. The three major parties might also find a new avenue for consensus through these talks. But again, the gist of my argument is that there cannot be any more delay.
On a different note, UCPN (Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has been in pursuit of a High Level Political Commission (HLPC) to resolve differences over contentious issues and complete the remaining tasks of the peace process.
I do not quite understand this HLPC that the media keeps bringing up. The highest level political forum for constitutional issues is the PDCC, given its mandate and the presence of all the top leaderships. But another political forum can be developed to complete the outstanding tasks of the peace process. To address the pain of the 10-year conflict, there is still a need to form a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and a Disappearance Commission. We have passed a transitional justice bill and formed a recommendation committee but the commissions have yet to be formed. If these two commissions are not able to function properly, there is a danger of the entire peace process falling apart. So the parties that signed the 12-point agreement and the CPA need to sit down together, discuss these issues and come to a political understanding that will ensure lasting peace.
Will the Madhes-based parties be included in this political forum, as demanded by the UCPN (Maoist)?
The 12-point agreement and the CPA were signed between the then Seven Party Alliance (SPA) and the Maoists. So it is with these parties that the political mandate for the peace process rests. The leading parties from the SPA are the NC and the CPN-UML. The Maoist party has splintered since then but Prachanda still leads the UCPN (Maoist) now, as he did then. So I think it would be best for just these three parties to sit for talks on the peace process. But in constitution writing, all parties must be involved.
