 |
| |
VOL. 27, NO. 33, May 02, 2008 (Baishakh 20 2065 B.S.) |
|
"In The Name Of New Nepal, We Have Committed Many Mistakes" - Laxman Prasad Aryal
LAXMAN PRASAD ARYAL, former judge of Supreme Court and chairman of Interim Constitution Drafting Commission, is a well known lawyer. With the completion of election for Constituent Assembly, a new situation has emerged with the possibility of a hung assembly. As there is no provision for the formation of majority government in the constitution (which only talks about consensus government), a political deadlock has appeared. Aryal spoke on various issues: Excerpts
As a chairman of Interim Drafting Commission, what do you suggest for settling the present political deadlock?
Simply, they need to summon the Legislature Parliament and amend the constitution to pave the way for new government. One must understand that this is an interim constitution drafted for a short period of time or just to hold the election for Constituent Assembly and frame the new constitution. This is the reason interim constitution follows the concept of political consensus.
At a time when no political party is in a position secure two third majority, what do you suggest for the formation of new government?
There is a way out. Political parties can amend the interim constitution to change such rigid clause, if it is necessary.
Don't you think experts like you are responsible for the present crisis?
We are not responsible for the present political deadlock.
Then, who is responsible for that?
If you want to analyze the present constitution, you must recall the lengthy process followed by the leaders of political parties. In first stage, we had submitted a draft to the political leaders. In second stage, they changed clauses and articles. Finally, they even amended those changes. In the first stage, we are solely responsible since we presented the draft but we were not involved in second and third stages. We were not even consulted in these two stages.
Do you mean that political leaders are responsible for the mess?
If you compare the first draft and the final copy, you can see our point of view. The present interim constitution looks like a political document drafted by politicians for their immediate benefits.
If that is so why didn't you resign when your draft was distorted?
We didn't have to say so because the draft was rewritten after we handed it over to them. We were just given the role to draft the constitution.
It means you were not consulted at the final stage of promulgation?
That was it.
Who wrote the part five of interim constitution where the article says prime minister is chosen either through the political consensus or two third majority?
That was there in our draft.
As a constitutional expert, what do you say whether a country should run under political consensus or as per the constitution?
One of the basic characters of interim constitution is that it was drafted just for an interim period. This constitution is a medium to cross over the interim period. We had proposed the political consensus in the functioning of the government as well during the interim period.
Don't you think legal bases are required for the formation of the government?
Actually, political consensus itself is a legal basis. Right now there needs to be a political consensus of seven parties to institutionalize the mandate of Janandolan II.
But there is nothing to clarify on what basis political consensus should be developed?
That is not there.
The interim constitution says the first meeting of CA will decide the fate of monarchy but you are saying that there is a need to summon the legislature parliament. Can the legislature parliament implement the Republic?
The first meeting of Constituent Assembly shall declare Nepal as republic, not the first meeting of legislature parliament.
So, only after completing the process through legislature parliament, will the CA be summoned?
The process of legislature parliament means to include all the new parties in political consensus. This meeting of legislature parliament will bring all other parties in constitutional framework through the amendment of the interim constitution. For instance, instead of writing seven political parties, there is a need to write the political parties elected in the CA. Only after amending the interim constitution, you can summon the CA. First of all you need to decide what kind of presidential system the country needs. Whether there needs to be a prime ministerial system or presidential system and so on.
Whether the prime minister should summon legislative parliament or CA, then?
Prime minister will summon the meeting as CA but it will work as a legislature. Constitutional Assembly has to play two roles. It plays legislative role as well as assembly role. It means first it will work as a legislature, which will amend the constitution, then after it will function as a constituent assembly.
How will the first meeting of constituent assembly decide the fate of monarchy?
Like the parliament, the Constituent Assembly will also have its own proceedings and rules. Legislature parliament will prepare the proceedings and rules for the assembly.
What will be the status of present prime minister following the summoning of CA? Does he need to resign?
It is a complex process. Of course, people's mandate is the basis to rule the country. The question now is whether we can strictly interpret the constitution or liberally interpret it.
How will you interpret the constitution when the constitution clearly said that the prime minister is selected either on the basis of political consensus or two third majority?
If one of the parties had secured two third majority, the present political stalemate would not have arisen.
Didn't you visualize these kinds of crises when drafting such articles?
In the name of New Nepal, we have committed many mistakes.
Who will nominate the 26 members?
After the formation of new government by legislature parliament, it will nominate 26 members.
Why are there so many loopholes and ambiguity in the interim constitution?
All the interim constitutions are like that because this is a period of political instability.
What kind of constitution you have made, which has already been amended three times in the past, and you are again suggesting for another amendment?
Actually, leaders of seven political parties distorted our draft constitution. This is the reason behind the present political deadlock. Had they proclaimed the interim constitution as drafted by us, the present crisis could have been avoided.
