National 1 (Spotlight Weekly)

What Has Gone Wrong?

Blaming the constitution for the country's political crisis, political leaders and intellectuals are ignoring the real factors

By KESHAB POUDEL

"However good a constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad if those who are called to work it happen to be a bad lot. However, bad a constitution may be, it may turn out to be a good, if those who are called to work it happen to be a good lot. The working of a constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the constitution. The constitution can provide only the organs of state such as the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The factors on which the working of this organs of the state depend on the people and political parties, their wishes and their policies," said B.R. Ambedkar, father of the Indian constitution.

Dr. Ambedkar's remark provides a good lesson in today's Nepalese context when the framers and supporters of the constitution see flaws in the basic law. Those who until recently claimed that the Nepalese constitution was among the best in the world now want to rewrite it. Quoted in the Pyjee Constitutional Government in India, Ambedkar's remark shows what the constitution really is.

Be it Bishwanath Upadhyaya, former chief justice and chairman of the commission that drafted the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990, Dr. Lok Raj Baral, former Nepalese ambassador to India and political scientist, or advocates of an assertive monarchy, all have their own views on sorting out the current crisis.

Upadhyaya leads a group of jurists, including former Supreme Court justice Laxman Prasad Aryal and former law minister Nilamber Acharya - both of whom were actively involved in drawing up the present constitution - who are in favor of placing the basic law to a referendum.

Although the group led by Dr. Baral, which comprises political scientists Krishna Khanal and Krishna Hathecchu, among others, is said to be close to the Nepali Congress, their opinions, like those of the three jurists, support the main opposition CPN-UML's demand for a referendum.Some intellectuals close to the palace reject the idea of a referendum and see the present crisis as the direct outcome of inadequate powers for the King.

As long as factors and actors responsible for working under the constitution remain the same, every constitution would have to face the fate of its predecessors. "Even if we scrap the present constitution and bring a new one, the political actors will still be Girija Prasad Koirala, Surya Bahadur Thapa, Sher Bahadur Deuba, Madhav Kumar Nepal and K.P. Sharma Oli," says an analyst. "The intellectuals and jurists responsible for revitalizing constitutional practices, too, will be from the present lot."

Although it is a political crisis, political parties blame the constitution for the country's plight. How can one blame the constitution when it is working in the right direction? Some political parties and intellectuals are proposing a referendum to settle the problems. But nobody knows what results that would bring.

Others want an active role for the monarchy. But no one knows how that will solve the country's problems. Nepal held a referendum in 1979 but its legitimacy was challenged a decade later from the street. According to the Constitution of Nepal 2019, all power was bestowed upon the King, but he could not avert the crisis in 1990.

Experience has shown that Nepal's political crises have many internal and external dimensions. "If present political crisis were the result of internal power struggle, it would have been settled a long time ago," says a political analyst. "At a time when external powers are competing to maintain their sphere of influence in the region, it is beyond the capability of internal players to find out the way out. Can a referendum, constituent assembly or any other exercise end the present bloodshed? Absolutely not, since the problem is not solely constitutional," he says.

The conduct of the political parties baffles others. "The funny thing is that our politicians' priority is to share power under the leadership of the same person they maintain is responsible for the national crisis," said eminent constitutional lawyer Kusum Shrestha. "It is mysterious to see all of them harping on the same agenda in the presence of the crisis-maker."

The recent actions of the political leaders and political trends show that the country is heading toward a more fluid situation. Interestingly, those pulling the strings from behind are beyond the comprehension of the common people.

For Nepal's intellectuals and politicians, the constitution remains the prime culprit. Instead of going to the roots of the crisis, politicians and intellectuals are talking about referendum, constitutional amendment and elections for constituent assembly. We discuss so many things about India while framing our political deliberations. Has anyone cared to heed Dr. Ambedkar's words?