| Puru Subedi |
Posted
on 26-Feb-03 09:38 AM
Taken from an editorial published on the Himalaya Times at:
http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullstory.asp?filename=aEUata2zbqzqba0Ra5qa.axamal&folder=aEUaiFaoaraiaaal&Name=Editorial&dtSiteDate=20030226
===
Reformed vs new
To the ongoing public debate, Parashunarayan Chaudhary, the recently appointed chairman of the Raj Parishad Standing Committee, has contributed his opinion in favour of reforming the 1990 constitution extensively to resolve the present crisis. According to him, if all the political parties agreed on fundamental principles, including constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy, there would be little difference between a constituent assembly and a reformed constitution. Chaudhary has half a century of political career. This gives weight to his views. And no less certainly, his present position as the King nominee is likely to lead many people to construe his views, rightly or wrongly, as reflecting the views of the monarch himself. Urging the political parties to rise above their narrow sectarian interests to build a national consensus, Chaudhary says that if the parties can reach an understanding, the roundtable conference may not be required at all.
In the meantime, the day is reported to be drawing near for the peace talks between the government and the Maoists to start. On their part, the Maoists have left no doubt that they have not budged an inch from their three key demands -- roundtable conference, an interim government and constituent assembly elections. It, therefore, appears that permanent peace in the country will not be restored without constituent assembly elections. Like it or not, the rebels control and rule a sizable part of rural Nepal. The willingness of the two sides for talks and concessions reflect this reality. But political parties are talking as if the national political equation today is the same as it was just after the 1990 Jana Andolan. They should realise that in this equation the Maoist factor today weighs heavier than all of them combined.
Chaudhary's view probably also reflects the inner desire of the establishment. That is why his seeing no wrong with the constituent assembly, if need be, carries much significance. The 1990 constitution is largely inoperative. It is a curiosity why the leaders of the major political parties who claim to be truly democratic are shying away from this highest expression of democratic exercise in which people write their own constitution and hence their own destiny. Without a constituent assembly, nobody has the authority to write a new constitution. Even to amend the 1990 Constitution, a new House of Representatives needs to be elected. For this to happen, peace has to be restored, and this calls for the cooperation of the rebels. Under the circumstances, it would be a surprise if the Maoists settled for the idea of constitutional reforms. If they did, they would be destroying the minimum rationale for their seven-year-old insurgency and this would probably mean their political demise.
|
