NC and UML do not have alternative to working together

JAN 06 -
Chairman Jhala Nath Khanal led the CPN-UML from the third largest party (108 seats) in the last Constituent Assembly (CA) to the second largest party (175 seats) in the new CA. Amid conflicts with the Nepali Congress (NC), the largest party in the new CA, over power-sharing and the current President, Bhadra Sharma and Darshan Karki spoke to Khanal about the UML's position on working with other parties, the constitution-writing process, and the party's upcoming 9th General Convention.

The CPN-UML was very vocal that President Ram Baran Yadav be replaced but now seems to have stopped raising the issue. Has it given up the demand?


This is not an issue to be raised at the children's playground. The UML will raise this issue in the Constituent Assembly. If there is a need to raise that concern elsewhere, it will be amid the major political parties and will be addressed accordingly.

The NC has said that no discussions can be held on the issue. We have been raising issues about other problems in the constitution too. Since we are attempting to write a new constitution for the country, how can one say certain questions will be raised and others won't? Discussions can be held on any issue in order to take the nation ahead.

Is the UML's demand for a new President  aimed at managing its internal power dynamics?

This is total false. The UML is ready to stay in the opposition too. We are ready to become a part of the CA without getting any position in government. But the UML wants to write a new constitution at any cost. A constitution that will aid social and economic transformation, establish peace and stability in the country, accelerate the process of social and economic development and make the country prosperous while also strengthening the sovereignty and democracy in the country.

Has this issue created a rift between the NC and UML?

The media, some journalists and columnists have tried to create a rift between the two parties but they have not been successful. There is a very good relationship between the NC and UML.

Though you blame the media, the relation between the NC and UML seems to have run into trouble from the very beginning. How will you move ahead?

We will sit together and discuss. All issues, including the thorny ones, will be raised and resolved. Neither the NC nor the UML has any alternative to working together. The first priority is unity between the NC and UML. The second is larger unity among all other parties.

How will the discourse on power sharing between the NC and UML move ahead?

The deliberations held between the parties while trying to find a solution are not matters to be discussed in the media. Rather, they are entirely internal matters of the two parties. I do not think it is appropriate to bring out these issues for discussion in the press.

The UML was waiting for a proposal from the NC but they have not come up with any. Any progress on that regard?

I met NC President Sushil Koirala and requested that the party come up with a proposal. We do not know why the Congress is delaying this. There is a limit to waiting for their proposal. Once that limit is crossed, we will take necessary steps to address our concerns.

What kind of proposal are you seeking with regards to power sharing?

We want to reach a consensus that is beneficial for both us and the NC. It should be a win-win situation for both. And we can definitely reach such a consensus as we have plenty of bases. We are for unity, coordination and consensus. People want the NC and UML to sincerely collaborate with each other.

Moving on, why has there been a delay in the formation of the CA?


Post-elections, there was difficulty bringing one party within the CA. In order to make them part of the political process, we had to repeatedly postpone the date for submitting the Proportional Representation (PR) lists.  This delayed the CA formation process. However, all the 30 parties have now submitted their lists to the Election Commission. The CA has taken shape. It is now compulsory to call the first meeting of the CA within the next 21 days.

Parties are now debating who should call the first meeting. In this situation, will the UML's commitment to write a constitution within a year be fulfilled?

The first meeting of the CA must be called within the allocated time. The political parties should have addressed the question of who should call the meeting first. However, the case is now sub judice in the court. So unless the court gives its decision we cannot do anything on this regard.

What kind of constitution will be written?

The new constitution will empower all Nepali people with their rights. Second, it will open the door to eliminate all forms of discrimination in society. Third, it will provide a direction for the social and economic transformation of the nation. Fourth, it will establish a constitutional basis to strengthen Nepal's freedom, sovereignty and unity. It will open doors for an economic revolution in Nepal.

How would you address the worry that the rise of the NC and UML could mean discarding progressive agendas?


There is no basis for this worry. All the issues raised by the 2006 Janaandolan II are our agendas. The agendas were the same in the last CA and they are still the same. We will work to establish those agendas and transform society. Bad agendas like 'One Madhes, one Pradesh' and single-identity based federalism have been rejected by the people. So only good and progressive agendas like federalism based on multiple identities will be established.

The Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal has argued that new CA is a sovereign body and it should start fresh.


The new CA is definitely a sovereign body. Whatever decisions it takes, they will be implemented. If it decides that we should take ownership of the decisions taken in the last CA, that will happen. But if it says that we need to start from scratch, that has to be done too. My belief is that the new CA will take ownership of the decisions made by the last CA and move ahead.

What about the recent agreement to form a new high level political committee? Will it not affect the functioning of the sovereign CA?


This new body will only exist until the new CA holds its first meeting. After that a new chapter will begin. And in the new context, a new political body will be formed according to the need.

On a different note, the 9th General Convention of the party is around the corner and all top leaders within the UML are in a position to lead the party. How will this situation be handled?


In the convention, there will be many party representatives. A person cannot become a leader just by saying 'I want to be a leader'. They must be able to win the trust of party representatives in the Convention and clarify their plans, policies and ideology. Similarly, the person must be able to mobilise the organisation accordingly and win the trust of the party cadres. We want to hold the convention as soon as possible. So we are engaged in sorting out ideological and organisational issues that need to go in tandem with the national level political scenario.

You led the party from a dostamt third largest party in the last CA to a strong second position. Will you fight for the leadership of the party again?

I think it’s is natural for me to do so. I am an important leader in the UML. Our constitution allows for one person to become party president for two terms. So why should I not claim the position?

What about claims that other leaders in the party have emerged as more powerful after the elections?

This is another absurd thing raised by the media. If a person leads a party that secured merely 33 seats in the previous CA under direct elections to 91 seats now, how can that leader be weak and the others strong?

What of the disproportionate number of seats that were allocated to supporters of other leaders within the UML in PR?

This is completely false. All people selected by the UML in the recent CA election belong to the party. They are all cadres of the party. We will move ahead as a party and it is wrong to see them as cadres of one faction or another. 

Labels: Interview