"We the people" must assert our rights now!

Our attention has been drawn towards the present hullabaloo created by the main opposition party, the UML, regarding its one point agenda-demand for effecting certain constitutional reforms in the existing constitution which in effect they themselves drafted some twelve years back. The UML demand for constitutional reforms becomes mysterious simply because the demand has come at a time when the party has recently strengthened its numerical as well as organizational strength by welcoming the ML party into its mainstream. Prior to going into the nitty-gritty's of the present UML demand for a constitutional reform and that too its own way, it would be in the fitness of the things to recall that the UML even today has not wholeheartedly accepted the 1990 constitution now in force albeit its own creation and brain-child. The UML in essence has accepted the constitution "for the time being only" or "critical support" which means that it would first wish to bring about some "suitable reforms" in the constitution as it suited them most and finally push the nation for a total change suiting to its communistic designs. In nutshell, the UML appears to be in a mood to bring about certain changes in the constitution in so that the deaf and the dumb population could yet again be lured to the election-tunes of the party. To put it more bluntly, the UML's present move is aimed at only the next general elections which the party is almost sure to win provided the congress party remains as badly divided as it is today at least at times of the elections.

As a political party the UML has right to initiate actions that go into its pockets politically speaking. However, the UML as a responsible political party, if it were in effect, must talk firstly to the people that is "we the people" for whom the party claims that the changes in the constitution would benefit them immensely. Secondly, the people must be convinced in which ways the people would benefit from such changes. And thirdly, perhaps more importantly, the people must be taken into proper confidence prior to effecting some changes in the constitution. The political parties such as the UML and its cohorts must respect the will of the namesake "'sovereign" people of the nation on whether they wish to go the UML way or possess ideas just the other way round? This means that the national population must be allowed to participate in any debate that has a direct bearing on their lives as honorable citizens of the nation.

We verbatim agree to the remarks of a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, Laxman Aryal, who the other day said that changes in the constitution must not be brought at the whims of the political parties. In saying so the honorable judge has amply hinted that the wishes of the "silent majority" that is "we the people" must be taken into account prior to taking decisions of the Himalayan dimensions. Justice Aryal's blunt comment also implies that in the past, the "sovereign" common men have been totally neglected and the political actors decided on their own in the name of the so-called "sovereign" people.

Perhaps it is time that "we the people" of the nation begin asserting our rights and demand a fresh national level debate over whether or not the nation needed certain reforms in the constitution at this critical juncture.

After all what is the guarantee that the constitution after certain changes will be in favor of the common men? By and large the men handling the system and the government would be the same junk personalities who have contributed immensely in bringing about aberrations in the 1990 constitution. Neither "we the people" had say in the 1990 constitution nor "we the people" will be consulted for a change in the 1990 constitution. The leaders -our representatives- will decide our fate in a manner that will suit them most politically. However, "we the people" must assert our rights and bring the issue in question into debate. After all the initiation of an open debate on a national issue of this sort should be the duty of a "democratic government"'. Let the people feel that the system too has honored their voices in this issue, which will encourage them to effectively participate in the affairs of the nation. So far the people have been denied their rightful participation which means that the past twelve years of Nepal's "nascent democracy"' took little care of the wishes of those who are considered the main pillars of a democratic system. It was a flagrant violation of the famous Latin dictum: "vox populi, vox dei" whose literal meaning is the voice of the people is the voice of God. We must assert our genuine rights now simply because past experience have abundantly shown that if we left every thing onto the whims and to the mercy of the junk and corrupt politicians would mean that we ourselves wish to dig our own graveyards. It is time that we get out of the slumber. However, in asserting our rights we must not cross the limits of the constitution and exhibit our total commitment towards the System now in place. There should be no going back from the System come what may. If the present system has any flaws, let's try to correct it and that too in a most democratic way.

Headline | National | Letter  | 2nd Impression | International | Past