National 1 (Spotlight Weekly)

Eureka!

Political leaders are acting as if tinkering with the statute would solve all of the country's problems

By KESHAB POUDEL

Just as Archimedes, who discovered a method detecting the amount of alloy mixed with gold in the crown of the King of Syracuse, exclaimed "eureka", Nepalese political leaders are using exclamations of all kinds these days, as if amending the constitution would solve the country's problems. From ruling Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala to main opposition CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal, politicians are pushing for amendment of the constitution as panacea.

NC and UML leaders : All for change

The leaders of major political parties see the amendment issue as a noble discovery for resolving the Maoist violence, improving the law-and-order situation and reviving development activities. "Amendment of the constitution is one of the pre-requisites to solve all the problems the country is facing today," said UML lawmaker Subhas Nembang, chairman of the House of Representatives Public Account Committee and one of the powerful central committee members of main opposition party.

"As the UML and the Nepal Congress have more than two-thirds majority in parliament, we can easily amend the constitution," Nembang said in an address to an interaction program organized by Political Science Association of Nepal.

Nembang is right. The constitution has clearly mentioned that any part of the document — barring the four unchangeable features enshrined in the preamble — can be amended by a two-thirds majority in parliament. The Nepali Congress and the UML control 75 percent of the votes in the House of Representatives. But why are Nembang and other pro-amendment politicians stressing the obvious? Can't Nembang recommend to his party allies and like-minded members in the ruling party to amend the constitution quietly?

"If the two major parties do not want to listen to the voice of others in amending the constitution, then why are they howling on the top their voice?" asks a constitutional lawyer. "If they don't want a debate on the matter, what keeps them from pressing ahead quietly on their own?"

The Nepalese people are concerned about issues of day-to-day survival. But political leaders, who live under heavy security protection in the relative comfort of the capital, do not realize the difficulties and hardship of the people. Had politicians felt the pulse of the common people, they would not have raised such unnecessary demands. But Nepalese politicians believe their voice is the people's voice.

Before the third amendment of the Constitution of Nepal in 1980, the Panchayat government, which today's leadership continues to demonize, sought the advice and suggestions of the people. Ironically, democratic leaders who never tire asserting how accountable they are to the people, do not see the need to consult public opinion on a matter as momentous as amending the basic law of the land.

Whenever the constitution needs to be amended, the practice is to encourage open and uninhibited public discussions on the nature and scope of the proposed changes. Political parties are only a medium of expressing the voice of people. In a democratic set-up, parties cannot claim to supplant the people.

The leaders of the two major political parties hold the key to amending the constitution. "If political leaders are so confident that they can solve the problems of unemployment, poverty and violence, why didn't they think of amending the constitution a long time ago?" asks another constitutional lawyer.

The constitution is an abstract document and the political actors need to inject life into it. At a time when the country is facing burning problems on multiple and the people are more concerned with their safety, the people's voice is being muted in the amendment debate. Political parties are busy defining the discussions from a narrow political perspective.

Advocates of amendment argue that a state of emergency is not a barrier to fine-tuning the constitution. They could draw lessons from India, where then-prime minister Indira Gandhi amended the constitution during the emergency imposed in 1975. The timing and nature of the amendment may have pleased the prime minister and loyalists that never tired of claiming "Indira is India, and India is Indira". But that amendment, as Gandhi's stunning defeat in the 1997 elections showed, did not have the consent of the people.

If the Nepali Congress and the UML believe amending the constitution would be in the long-term interest of the country, they should take their case directly to the people. Before that, they should stop behaving like they are the people.