 |
|
| Kathmandu Wednesday March 20, 2002 Chaitra 07, 2058. |
|
Focus of constitutional
amendment
By Dr Alok K Bohara
The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language defines the word constitution as follows: the system of fundamental laws
and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or
another institution. A good constitution must be designed to guarantee freedom and good
governance. Good governance emanates from a structure with a system of built-in checks and
balances. Having a set of multiparty political machineries alone is not enough. There is a
good chance that, if unchecked, a political party machinery, motivated by money and power
dictated by a simple economics of supply (license, quotas, and business favours) and
demand (contributions and kickbacks), can be a part of the problem not the solution. Our
own ten years of experience has been very dismal.
Thus, making the political parties
accountable and responsible to the voters is the key to having a meaningful constitutional
mechanism. The government apparatus and resources belong to the voters, and the political
parties are the temporary custodians and managers chosen on our will. We give them
privilege to govern us and thus we must demand accountability, efficiency, and results.
Any constitution that gives political parties a supremacy over the citizens’ right
will be destined to fail eventually.
The current centrist system of governance in
our constitution without any devolution of power to the regional populations is the source
of our problem and discontent. I would like to argue that a federal system of governance
with five regional assemblies should be the cornerstone of the new debate.
Now, lets go straight to the demand of the
Maoists — republic state. A little more than ten years ago, Nepal adopted a
multi-party democratic system of government with constitutional monarchy. As a symbol of
strength and unity, the institution of monarchy was preserved. Thus, the idea of a
republic government – a political order without a monarch — was rejected in
favour of constitutional monarchy. The second half of the meaning of the word republic,
according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is a political order in which the supreme
power lies in the body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and
representatives responsible to them. Obviously, the Maoists waged their insurgency for a
socialist republic state with no provision for monarchy, and yet with their brand of
citizen’s power but without any electoral competition — a one party communist
state.
The current rumour about their gesture to
come to the table for a negotiation is indeed good news for this impoverished nation. But,
what is the common domain for negotiation? By now, they must be convinced that the
majority of the Nepalis, the government, and the army are quite resolute on two issues:
monarchy and the multiparty system. Odds are that the Maoists must have decided to give up
on these two issues. Thus, one remaining non-trivial issue that the Maoists will and can
fight for during the negotiation is in the area of citizen’s right — making the
elected representatives responsible to the voting citizens. After all, have they not been
fighting for the common people and for making their voices heard? The government should
take advantage of this situation to lure them back to the negotiation table and offer a
compromise — a federal system, not a republic.
The current unitary system of government has
centralised power and politics in Kathmandu, especially in the hands of a few. The biggest
challenge for the Maoists is to extract that political decision making power from the
centre and devolve it across the nation. It will be wise for them to demand and settle for
a federal system of government under which five regional governments make political,
social, and economic decisions for themselves. This indeed will be a brilliant move on
their part. In fact, with some exception, many of the points put forth by the political
parties for incorporation in the constitution are self-serving and cosmetic. Most
importantly, the constitution is not to be tinkered with to solve every single problem in
the nation. Having a sound political and governing framework can create a conducive
environment that will then over time address many of the issues currently faced by the
country.
One cannot guarantee economic prosperity for
a certain group of people by merely writing those words in the constitution. The
constitution should articulate an institutional framework that guarantees fair treatment
and not the special treatment. Thus, making the practice of untouchability
unconstitutional is the right thing to do. It is the natural law. Further, an attempt to
use the constitution to guarantee some level of economic benefit for certain group of
people is just preposterous. Many of these types of suggestions must be kept out of the
constitutional debate.
Who would have thought that a decade old
democracy would already be embroiled in a debate to change its constitution. Right or
wrong, the debate will heat up and there will be changes in the constitution. But I am
afraid that the change will happen for the wrong priorities, such as strengthening the
office of the Prime Minister and guaranteeing a share of the pie –a role in the
election commission or even a provision for an interim government during the election
time. And of course, who could oppose devoting a few lines for Dalits and the women in the
constitution? Then we have to worry about the Madhesis and the Paharis and the Newars and
the Tharus. Don’t forget the popular land reform programme. There are the Magars, the
Gurung, and the Rais. The bottom line is that it is quite dangerous to use the
consitutional mechanism to cure every conceivable social and economic ills of the country.
The constitution is more than a piece of
paper; it is the heart and soul of a country, and any change must be done for a
fundamental reason. Basically, the proposal is to create five regional assemblies and to
devolve to them appropriate responsibilities along with the accountability.
There are many arguments that can be made on
behalf of the federal system of government for Nepal at the regional levels, and the
rationality includes arguments such as, accountability, economy of scale, efficiency, and
a sense of regional pride and self-determination. By the way, the concept of federalism
can co-exist with monarchy and it is not to be confused as a substitute for
decentralisation. An average of fifteen districts within each region can form a stronger
voice against the central government, and it minimises the possibility of marginalisation
of smaller fragmented district and village units. The central government can use a
built-in mechanism of equalisation grant to ensure the economic wellbeing of the less
developed areas such as the western part of Nepal.
As for the division of responsibility, the
central government can look after bigger issues such as, national defence, foreign
affairs, dams, highways, telecommunication, citizenship, immigration, national parks,
airports, monetary and fiscal policies. The regional governments on the other hand can
manage issues such as, education, health, feeder road, tourism, electricity. The current
fragmented district and village level units lack the economy of scale and thus a
collective bargaining power against the central government. Importantly, by giving
responsibility and accountability to the regional level government, the country can expect
a reduction in regional discontent and violence.
Ironically, the political parties who enjoy the fruits of the
centrist system of government are the same ones who will be engaged in changing the
constitution. Do you think they will devolve their power? Probably not! Sadly, a lack of
constitutional assembly without any broader participation makes the process narrow and
self-serving. I would like to urge all the concerned citizens, the policymakers, and the
intellectuals to take this issue seriously, and ask the government to make federalism the
central theme of the constitutional debate.
Other Stories
|
