NATIONAL7Spotlight Weekly)]

All-Out Assault

The fifth constitution of Nepal is pounded by persistent calls for amendment

By KESHAB POUDEL

Even after getting a new prime minister, Nepal descent toward instability may not have ended. In view of the speed with which political developments are moving, it seems the days of the present Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal-1990 are numbered.

PM Deuba : Searching consensun

After the appointment of Sher Bahadur Deuba as prime minister, the country has seen some unusual and unexpected political developments. As Deuba was busy meeting leaders of major political parties to develop a political consensus, former speaker of the House of Representatives Daman Nath Dhungana came out with a call for elections to a constituent assembly.

"We can no longer bypass the issue of constituent assembly. We have to settle it once and for all," said Dhungana, one of the architects of the present constitution, addressing a press meet in Biratnagar. "I am in favor of all-party meeting. If the people so desire, the constitution should be replaced." (Space-Time daily July 30, 2001). Was Dhungana speaking for himself or for the Maoists, with whom he is reportedly close to?

The spirit of the present constitution died in 1995 by a decision of the Supreme Court that limited the prime minister’s right to dissolve parliament and call fresh elections. It faced a second assault when the main opposition party compelled the leader of the ruling party to resign last month. This was part of a systematic onslaught on the fundamental values of the constitution.

The sustained attack on the basic law by the main opposition CPN-UML is understandable, since the party accorded "critical support" to a document it took part in drafting. But the demand made by Dhungana, who was sworn in as a speaker of the House of Representatives to defend, preserve and protect every word of the constitution, for a constituent assembly to frame the new constitution comes as a surprise. He is the first politician to demand elections to a constituent assembly and the framing of a new constitution.

CPN-UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal, another member of the panel that drew up the present constitution, has just demanded certain amendments. "If required, the constitution should be amended," Nepal has been saying in recent years.

Some prominent political scientists have also called for an alternative political system to replace the present one. The current situation seems to be ripe for amending the constitution. If there is a consensus for an amendment, it could be done without destroying or disturbing the basic features of the basic law. Moreover, the constitution itself provides mechanism for amendments.

In the ruling Nepali Congress Party, leaders like Nara Hari Acharya have already made it clear that the party is ready to begin discussions on amending the constitution. While all major political parties of the country are in favor of amending the constitution, smaller parties and political leaders are expressing similar views under the umbrella of Green Nepal Party.

While declaring a truce, the CPN-Maoist urged major political parties to prepare for an amendment to the constitution. As soon as Girija Prasad Koirala resigned as prime minister, amending the constitution has become the dominant issue of public debate.

Just two months after the royal palace killings, Nepal has seen the resignation of Koirala, the truce between the government and Maoists and, now, growing calls for amending the constitution.

"When those who drafted the constitution themselves have lost faith in it, others need not worry. The constitution needs people who can defend it. Today, our constitution is like an abandoned child," says a political analyst. In this situation, how can the constitution survive?

Significantly, leaders of mainstream parties had already proposed specific amendments, even before the Maoists came out with their demands. The constitution seems to have confronted enemies within the system.

The country today has a prime minister who had proved his efficiency in developing national consensus among the major political parties in ratifying the Mahakali Treaty on water resources development with India. One cannot rule out the possibility of a similar consensus to amend the constitution.

What kind of amendments do the political parties want? In their speeches and papers, politicians and intellectuals have made it clear that they are not bothered by clauses as long as the constitution is amended. The indication is that eventually, a Pandora’s box is going to open for all. Can the failure of those who framed the constitution be equated with the failure of the constitution itself?