Diversionary Ploy

The motive of both sides is the same: to divert attention from the country's main issues

By KESHAB POUDEL

For the first time in 12 years, intellectuals and politicians who had joined hands to overthrow the Panchayat regime stand bitterly divided. The issue: whether to amend the constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990. Their arguments, however, are aimed at diverting the people's attention from genuine to artificial issues.

Backed by Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, ruling Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala, Rastriya Prajatantra Party leader Surya Bahadur Thapa and Nepal Sadbhavana Party leader Badri Prasad Mandal, CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal is leading the camp calling for amending the constitution.

Upadhyaya : Defending constitution

Although Nepali Congress leader and former prime minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai and House of Representatives Speaker Taranath Ranabhat are yet to come out with a clear stand, they are backing former chief justice Bishwonath Upadhyaya, Supreme Court justice Laxman Prasad Aryal and senior advocate Daman Nath Dhungana in opposing any amendment. For the average Nepali, the issue has not fired much enthusiasm. Even Nepali Congress leader Shailaja Acharya, who is known for her frequent erratic remarks, has joined the ëno' camp.

At a time when the country is neck-deep in trouble on a variety of fronts, Nepalese politician and intellectuals are locking horns in a futile debate. Is this the time to be talking about amending the constitution or to be working sincerely to solve the country's problems? One hears variations of this question frequently among the common people these days.

"Which articles are hindering the country's progress and what difference would amending the constitution bring?" asks an analyst. "Nobody is providing answers to the core questions. The current debate is completely irrational. Worse, it would divide the country at a time when  Nepalis need to act in unison to resolve their problems."

The sad part is that the political parties and the intelligentsia who are supposed to unite the country are themselves fortified on rival camps. One group of politicians and intellectuals is firmly pushing for an amendment, while the other is equally fierce in its opposition.

"This is not the right time to amend the constitution," said Bishwonath Prasad Upadhyaya, former chief justice and chairman of the panel that drafted the constitution, at a program organized by Reporters Club. "I don't see any lapses in the constitution."

UML leaders : Mindset for amendment

The main opposition UML struck back saying it saw a conspiracy behind the effort of Upadhyaya and his associates to block a constitutional amendment. "Members of parliament have the right to amend the constitution and nobody should question that right," said UML politburo member Radha Krishna Mainali. "Every document needs to be improved over time. Moreover, it is interesting that the man responsible in 1995 for weakening the parliamentary system is defending the constitution." Mainali's reference was to a judgment Upadhyaya delivered as chief justice in 1995 which critics say has restricted the prime minister's power to dissolve parliament and seek a fresh  mandate.

In parliament, on the streets and in newspapers, the rival groups have been working hard to place their issues on the national agenda. But neither side has picked momentum. Few believe that an amendment would make much difference to the country. Analysts and common citizens alike recall how Nepal's administration was run in 1990-1991 when almost all the articles of the constitution were suspended.

UML leader Nepal's favorite argument is that the constitution itself has laid down provisions for amendment. But what can he and his allies add at a time when some articles remain suspended under the state of emergency.

Such questions seem to matter little to either group, especially since they seem to be guided by the shared motive of diverting public attention from the country's real problems. Political leaders and intellectuals have failed to understand the country's core problems and challenges, but they do not want to admit it. Instead, they have found in the constitution a convenient scapegoat.