Constitution through consensus is our main agenda

DEC 16 -
Now that the election results are out, the winning parties—the Nepali Congress (NC) and the CPN-UML—have begun discussions over government formation. The UCPN (Maoist), the third largest party in the Constituent Assembly (CA), continues to claim that it will stay out of the CA and has demanded a probe commission to look into allegations of “poll rigging.” Akhilesh Upadhyay and Kamal Dev Bhattarai spoke to NC General Secretary Krishna Prasad Sitaula about government formation, the UCPN (Maoist)’s claims and the UML’s demands for a new President.

You played a major role in mainstreaming the then underground Maoist party in 2005 and 2006. Now, the UCPN (Maoist) has raised questions over the election, how do you see the political process moving forward?

Compared to previous elections, this CA election was held in a more peaceful and free manner. So I am very surprised that the Maoist leadership expressed such panic even before the vote count was over. I think they reacted in haste. It is disrespectful to the people to not accept their mandate. Perhaps there were a few irregularities, leading the Congress to lose in some places and the UML and Maoists in others. But there is a Constitutional Court in place to hear these issues. To raise questions over the entire election is to question the consensus that led to the election in the first place. After Election Day, Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal himself publicly said that voting had gone well. But as the results started to come in and it looked like the Maoists were losing, they panicked. We have already elected a new CA so it would not be wise to stay outside of the CA and create obstacles. Disagreements can be raised within the CA itself and we can find a solution through consensus.

Wouldn’t it be wiser to engage with the losing parties, which include the Maoists and the Madhesi parties, and find a solution before their positions harden?

That would be best. We must prepare for the first meeting of the CA but we need the Proportional Representation (PR) lists from the parties for this. The Election Commission has set December 18 as the deadline to submit the PR list. This too was an NC demand; not because of any internal issue but because we recognise that a constitution is the main agenda and we needed some time to engage with the dissenting parties. We believe that only a constitution drafted through consensus will give stability to the nation.

The Maoist-Madhesis want to resolve their issues before entering the CA while the Congress wants them to resolve issues within the CA itself. Is there a middle path here?

A commitment needs to be made to write a constitution along the roadmap sketched out by the 12-point agreement, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the consensus between the major political forces that led to the writing of the Interim Constitution. We were committed to this before and will be committed to this in the CA itself. We ask that all parties commit to this and enter the CA.

Moving on, the HLPC seems to have been revived but some argue that it was constituted in different circumstances. Is there a need to continue with the HLPC?

The HLPC as it was before is not required. We need a new kind of political mechanism but it would be wiser to hold discussions for such a mechanism within the CA. The HLPC is working to hold the first CA meeting as soon as possible, not to delay it. Even before the election, the main agenda of the HLPC was to form a new CA. But now, a new kind of HLPC is required. There will be a need for political consensus both inside and outside the CA. There is still the matter of Mohan Baidya’s CPN-Maoist, which is outside the political process. Their participation in the new constitution is just as important. We will need to find a way to engage with them. The new HLPC could be an alternative forum to get their input and involve them in constitution writing without them having to enter the CA itself.

There are fears among the losing parties that the NC-UML, which has a near two-third majority, will draft their own kind of constitution by sidelining the agendas of others. How will you address these concerns?

A number of decisions were made by the old CA on which we cannot go back. For example, it endorsed republicanism. Many issues and agendas were also endorsed by the various constitutional committees, sometimes through consensus and other times, through a majority. Before the election, we made a commitment to take ownership of the work completed by the old CA. After all, the same people and the same parties that were in the old CA are now in the new CA. The Congress does not want to move forward with a two-third majority; we want consensus. After all, we are writing a constitution. All parties and all sections of society need to feel like they have a stake in the constitution. But I am confident that we will be able to adequately address these concerns and produce a constitution through consensus within a year. There are three reasons for this. First, we have the experience of the old CA. Second, we have the work already completed by the old CA and third, the mandate given by the people is clearly for consensus among the parties.

Kamal Thapa’s Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal (RPP-N), the fourth largest party in the CA, has constitutional monarchy and a Hindu nation among its agendas. How will the NC address this?

Everyone knows that the NC is not a conservative party. We are a progressive front that has been at the forefront of all major movements. We make decisions and we are consistent with those decisions. We agreed to a republic and this has been enshrined in the Interim Constitution and endorsed by the CA. To talk about a return to monarchy now is to talk about the ghosts of the past. Concerning secularism, there are fears from outside and even within the party that Nepal’s age-old Hindu customs, traditions and culture are under threat. We can talk about this and find a solution. The NC has always advocated for freedom of religion but we should not allow any culture or religion to come under attack. Kamal Thapa’s party is taking undue political advantage from this issue. This is clear from the large mandate given to them despite only raising regressive issues.

Moving on, when will the government be formed?

The government will not be formed until the first CA meeting. That will be around mid-January. December 18 is the deadline for the PR list but it will take around three more days for the list to be endorsed by the EC. Then, the list will be handed over to the President. Once the final list is announced, the first meeting of the CA will be held within 21 days.

Whose government will this be?

The NC will definitely lead the government. We have yet to discuss on the prime ministerial candidate. Our three prospective candidates are Sushil Koirala, Sher Bahadur Deuba and

Ram Chandra Poudel. We will choose a candidate through consensus but I believe it would be best if party president Koirala led the government. There will certainly be opposition and issues that come up but we will resolve them within the party. The people did not give us a mandate to bicker amongst ourselves.

Will it be a majority or consensus government?

Our aim is a consensus government. If this is not possible, we will form a majority government but we will run it through consensus. The constitution is our main agenda and we will not quit consensus politics until the constitution is written. This is not a normal parliament, it’s primary role is that of a CA. We should form a government with the explicit aim of writing a constitution through consensus within a year. Therefore, our focus is a national consensus government.

Will the RPP-N be a part of that national government?

If Kamal Thapaji accepts the progressive changes made since the 2006 Janaandolan, he can definitely be a part of that government. Surya Bahadur Thapa, Lokendra Bahadur Chand and Pashupati Shamsher have all accepted those changes  and we are working with them. But the RPP-N has not and as long as that is the case, I do not see how we can work with him.

Concerning power sharing, a major issue that the UML has raised is that of replacing the President. How do you respond to this?

There is no constitutional provision to elect another President before the constitution is written. The UCPN (Maoist) had raised this issue in an HLPC meet before the election happened. Then, the UML and NC had both said that it wasn’t necessary. The President should not be made a bargaining tool. Ever since Ram Baran Yadav became President, he ceased to become a party member. The President might be elected through the Parliament but he is above the Parliament. He should not be used to haggle over positions in government. Our position is that we should look for solutions within the law and within the Interim Constitution.

Labels: Interview