tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7432686298063831132024-02-18T22:05:54.169-08:00Commentary on Nepal's Constitution Making ProcessOur goal is to provide designers of the new constitution of Nepal with systematic information on design options and constitutional text, drawing on our own experience on the features of national constitutions since 1950-51 and best international practises.Nepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-47204161855932358402010-08-13T11:09:00.001-07:002010-08-13T11:32:55.602-07:00प्रधानमन्त्री चयनको संवैधानिक अप्ठ्यारो - डा. विपिन अधिकारी<strong><blockquote>त्यसैले अब के उपाय बाँकी छ त ? भन्ने प्रश्न स्वाभाविक रूपमा उपस्थित हुन्छ । प्रस्ट रूपमा भन्दा बारम्बार चुनाव गराएरै किनबेच र भाँडभैलोलगायतको प्रक्रियाबाट बहुमतको सरकार उपस्थित गराउनुको वैधानिक विकल्प यो संविधानमा छैन । यसलाई कि त सन् १७९९ को स्वघोषित दामोदर पाण्डेले झैँ कोही अरूले आफूलाई प्रधानमन्त्रीमा स्थापित गरेर टुंग्याउन सम्भव छ या अब फेरि अर्को सर्वसम्मतिको नाममा कानुनी राजको मर्दन गर्दै तथा आमनिर्वाचनको वैधतालाई चुनौती दिँदै अर्को प्रक्रियाको सिर्जना गरिनेछ । यी तीनै प्रक्रियाहरू अवैधानिक नै हुनेछन् । एउटा दोषपूर्ण संविधान क्रान्ति गरेर आवोस् वा जनआन्दोलनबाट त्यो दोषपूर्ण नै हुन्छ । अहिलेको टड्कारो प्रश्न हो- वर्तमान अवस्थाको जिम्मेवारी कसले लिने ?</blockquote></strong><br /><br />http://www.ekantipur.com/np/2067/4/21/full-news/315776/<br /><br />चिनियाँहरूमाझ एउटा उखान छ, 'अगाडिको बाटो कस्तो छ भनेर जान्न त्यही बाटो फर्किँदै गरेकालाई सोध्नुपर्छ- सहयात्रीलाई होइन ।' यसको आशय के हो भने अनुभवलाई जहिले पनि महत्त्व दिनुपर्छ । <br /><br />व्यवस्थापिका संसद्भित्र प्रधानमन्त्रीको चयनका लागि साउन १७ गतेको तेस्रो प्रयत्न पनि विफल भयो । अब चौथो प्रयत्न आज हुँदै छ । चैत २०६४ मा भएको आमनिर्वाचन तथा त्यसले विभिन्न राजनीतिक दलहरूलाई दिएको जनादेश व्यवस्थापिका संसद्मा ताजै छ । कसको हैसियत कति हो भन्ने कुरामा कुनै विवाद छैन । सरकार बनाउन पहिले कसको हक लाग्छ । अनि त्यसपछि कसको दोस्रो पालो हो, बुझ्न नसकिने स्थिति छैन । तर त्यो हैसियतलाई स्वीकार गर्दै प्रधानमन्त्री नियुक्त गरिदिने जिम्मेवारी अन्तरिम संविधान, २०६३ अन्तर्गत राष्ट्राध्यक्षलाई प्राप्त छैन । वर्तमान समस्याको चुरो यहाँबाट सुरु हुन्छ । <br /><br />नेपालको इतिहासले दामोदर पाण्डेलाई पहिलो प्रधानमन्त्रीको रूपमा देखाउँछ । उनी सन् १७९९ देखि १८०४ सम्म मुलुकका प्रधानमन्त्री भए । त्यो हिसाबले वर्तमान प्रधानमन्त्री माधवकुमार नेपाल यो देशको ५८ औँ प्रधानमन्त्री हुन् । तर दामोदर पाण्डेलाई कसैले नियुक्तिपत्र दिएको थिएन । न त शपथग्रहण नै गराएको थियो । प्रधानमन्त्रीको पद पाण्डे आफैंले आफ्ना लागि छाने । उनलाई लाग्यो- राजा रणबहादुर शाह गद्दी त्याग गरी विदेश गइसकेको तथा उनीसँगै त्यसबेलाका शक्तिशाली व्यक्तिहरू भीमसेन थापा, दलभञ्जन पाण्डे तथा महारानी राजराजेश्वरी पनि उतै लागेकीले देश चलाउने कोही भएन । हुन पनि डेढ वर्षका युवराज गीर्वाणयुद्धले बाबुको बिँडो थाम्न सक्ने कुरै भएन । दामोदर पाण्डे मुठ्ठी कसेर देशको प्रधानमन्त्री भए । <br /><br />समयसँगै प्रधानमन्त्रीको पद मुलुकको कार्यकारिणी संरचनामा एउटा महत्त्वपूर्ण पदका रूपमा स्थापित हुँदै गयो । त्यसबेलादेखि नै प्रधानमन्त्रीको चयन स्वेच्छाले होस् वा दबाबले - राजाबाटै हुँदै आएको हो । सन् १९५९ अर्थात् प्रधानमन्त्री दामोदर पाण्डेको हत्याको १ सय ५५ वर्षपछि वयस्क मताधिकार तथा राष्ट्रव्यापी बहुदलीय आमनिर्वाचनका आधारमा नेपाली कांगे्रसका नेता विश्वेश्वरप्रसाद कोइराला तत्कालीन राजा महेन्द्रबाट प्रधानमन्त्रीमा नियुक्त भएका थिए । दुई तिहाइ बहुमत प्राप्त उनको नेतृत्वको संसदीय दल उनको हैसियतको प्रतीक थियो । त्यो हैसियतलाई राजाले संविधानबमोजिम स्वीकार गरेका थिए । <br /><br />बेलायती नमुनाको संसदीय प्रणालीलाई प्रयोग गर्ने सबै मुलुकमा प्रधानमन्त्रीको नियुक्ति राष्ट्राध्यक्षबाट हुने गर्छ । चुनाव जितेर संसद्मा आइसकेपछि प्रधानमन्त्रीको दाबेदार कुनै पनि सांसदले संसद्भित्र पुनः निर्वाचन खप्नु पर्दैन । प्रधानमन्त्री नियुक्ति हुन उसको नेतृत्वको हैसियत उसलाई संसद्भित्र आफ्नो संसदीय दलको बहुमतले दिएको हुन्छ । त्यस हैसियतको परीक्षण आमनिर्वाचनमा भइसकेको हुन्छ । त्यसको सत्यताका बारेमा राष्ट्राध्यक्षलाई विश्वास दिलाउनु उसका लागि प्रधानमन्त्री बन्न सबैभन्दा ठूलो वैधानिक आधार हो । जसको दलले आमनिर्वाचनमा आफ्नो दलको सबैभन्दा ठूलो हैसियत देखाउन सक्दैन, उसले राष्ट्राध्यक्षलाई म मुलुकको प्रधानमन्त्रीको सही हकदार हुँ भन्ने कुराका बारेमा विश्वास दिलाउन पनि सक्दैन । <br /><br />संसद्का लागि हुने आमनिर्वाचनमा सधैं एउटा दलले बहुमत प्राप्त गर्छ भन्ने छैन । त्यस्तो अवस्थामा राष्ट्राध्यक्षले त्यस्तो व्यक्तिलाई सरकार बनाउन निमन्त्रणा दिन्छन्, जसले दुई वा दुईभन्दा बढी दलहरूको सहयोगमा बहुमतको सरकार दिन सक्छ । यस्तो निर्णय गर्दा राष्ट्राध्यक्षका लागि संसद्भित्र कुन दलको हैसियत कस्तो छ भन्ने प्रश्न सबैभन्दा महत्त्वपूर्ण प्रश्न हो । त्यसरी दुई वा दुईभन्दा बढी दलको सहभागिताबाट सरकार निर्माण हुन नसकेको परिस्थितिमा पनि राष्ट्राध्यक्षले संसद्भित्रका दलहरूमध्ये सबैभन्दा ठूलो दललाई अल्पसंख्यकको सरकार बनाउन आह्वान गर्नसक्छ । यस्तो आह्वान गर्दा राष्ट्राध्यक्षले त्यस्तो सबैभन्दा ठूलो दलले अल्पसंख्यकको सरकार बनाउने मात्र नभई सरकार चलाउन चाहिने कानुन तथा नीति बहुमतबाट पारित गर्नका लागि आवश्यक सामथ्र्य राख्छ भन्ने कुराको आश्वासन <br /><br />खोज्छन् । सहयोगी दलहरू तयार छन् वा छैनन् भन्ने कुरामा राष्ट्राध्यक्षले चाहिएको परामर्श लिने परम्परा हुन्छ । तर जुनसुकै परिस्थितिमा पनि संसद्भित्र बाकस राखेर प्रधानमन्त्रीको निर्वाचन गरिने संसदीय पद्धति भनेको केवल नेपालका नागरिक समाज तथा राजनीतिज्ञहरूले मात्र सोच्न सक्छन् । संसारमा यस्तो प्रचलन छैन । <br /><br />बेलायती नमुनाको प्रजातन्त्रमा जुनसुकै हालतमा पनि प्रधानमन्त्रीको नियुक्ति राष्ट्राध्यक्षबाटै हुन्छ । यदि एउटै दलको बहुमत प्राप्त सरकार छ भने उसले आफ्नो हैसियत पहिलो पटक राष्ट्राध्यक्षले संसद्मा दिएको सम्बोधन वा आफ्नो सरकारको वाषिर्क नीतिलाई पारित गरेर देखाएको हुन्छ । यदि दुई वा दुईभन्दा बढी दलको संयुक्त सरकार गठन भएको छ भने वा त्यो पनि हुन नसकेको परिस्थितिमा माथि उल्लेख भएझैँ अल्पसंख्यकको सरकार बनाइएको रहेछ भने त्यस्तो सरकारका प्रधानमन्त्रीले संविधानले उल्लेख गरेको अवधिमा प्रतिनिधिसभामा बहुसंख्यकको विश्वासको मत लिएर आफ्नो वैधता प्रमाणित गर्छन् । विश्वासको मत पाएको सरकारले आफ्ना नीतिनिर्णयहरू संसद्बाट निकास गराउन सकेन भने राष्ट्राध्यक्षले जनताका हकमा प्रधानमन्त्रीलाई आफूउपर संसद्को विश्वास छ भन्ने कुरा प्रमाणित गर्न अनुरोध गर्न सक्छन् । संसदीय परम्परामा सरकार निर्माण गर्न नसक्ने प्रतिनिधिसभालाई जीवित रहने अधिकार छैन । त्यसलाई भंग गरिन्छ र नयाँ जनादेशका लागि नयाँ आमनिर्वाचन गरिन्छ । यसको निर्णय तत्काल कायम रहेको 'कामचलाउ' सरकारको सिफारिसमा राष्ट्राध्यक्षले गर्ने परम्परा हुन्छ । <br /><br />नेपालको अन्तरिम संविधान बनाउँदा कानुनी राज तथा संविधानवादको सिद्धान्तलाई महत्त्व दिइएन । सयौँ वर्षदेखि प्रचलनमा रहेको सिद्धान्तहरूलाई विस्थापित गर्दा सनकको सहारा लिनु हुँदैन । स्थापित मूल्य र मान्यतासहितको विकल्प रोज्नुपर्छ । त्यसो हुन नसक्दा वर्तमान संविधानको धारा ३८ -१) ले सर्वसम्मतिको सरकारको परिकल्पना गर्यो । यो आफैंमा नराम्रो कुरो त नहोला । तर अधिकांश अवस्थाहरूमा असहज कुराचाहिँ हो । यदि संसार सर्वसम्मतिबाटै चलेर जान सक्ने भएको भए निश्चय पनि बहुमतमा आधारित प्रजातान्त्रिक प्रणालीको सूत्रपात हुने थिएन । <br /><br />त्यस्तै सर्वसम्मतिबाट सम्भव नभएको अवस्थामा बहुमतका आधारमा संसद्बाट प्रधानमन्त्रीको निर्वाचन गरिने भन्ने कुरा पनि स्वाभाविक हुँदैन । यसमा बलजफ्ती नै गरे पनि संविधानमा 'तत्काल कायम रहेको सम्पूर्ण सदस्य संख्याको बहुमत' भन्ने शब्दावलीको साटो 'तत्काल उपस्थित सदस्यहरूको बहुमत' भन्ने मात्र उल्लेख गरिएको भए संसद्ले बहुमतको प्रधानमन्त्रीको चयन गरिसक्थ्यो होला । त्यस्तो प्रधानमन्त्रीले संविधानको धारा ५५ -क) बमोजिम विश्वासको मत लिई आफूसँग पूर्ण बहुमत -एब्सोल्युट मेजोरिटी) भएको प्रमाणित गर्न सक्थ्यो । यसका लागि पनि संविधानले कुनै बाटो राखेन । <br /><br />क्रान्ति वा जनआन्दोलनको नाममा प्रणालीगत आधारमा स्वीकार गर्न नसकिने विभिन्न प्रावधानहरू संविधानमा लेखिदिँदा निर्वाचनले दिएको म्यान्डेट -कार्यादेश) गलत प्रवृत्तिहरूको धरापमा परेको छ । प्रजातन्त्रका लागि योभन्दा ठूलो विडम्बना हुन सक्दैन । सांसदको किनबेचदेखि लिएर गैरराजनीतिक निष्ठाहरूको आधारमा आफ्नो बहुमत जुटाउने प्रवृत्तिको विकास हुनु यो संविधानले उल्लेख गरेबमोजिम नै हो । मुलुकको प्रधानमन्त्रीको चयन यस्तो प्रक्रियाबाट हुनुको परिणाम नेपालीहरूले देख्दै आएका छन् । यो आज संस्थागत भएको छ । यस्तो परिस्थितिमा देशलाई कसरी नयाँ प्रधानमन्त्री प्रदान गर्ने भन्ने समस्याको निराकरण यो संविधानभित्रबाट सम्भव छैन । <br /><br />कतिपयको भनाइ छ, व्यवस्थापिका संसद्को नियमावलीलाई संशोधन गरी यो पटकपटक असफल चुनाव गर्नुपर्ने बाध्यताबाट वर्तमान राजनीतिलाई मुक्त गर्न सकिन्छ । यो भनाइ सही छैन । किनकि संविधानमा जुन कुरा प्रस्टसँग उल्लेख गरिएको छ, त्यसलाई प्रभावित गर्ने गरी वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था गर्न मिल्दैन । हो, संविधानको एघारौँ संशोधन गरी परम्परागत संसदीय नियमलाई पुनर्लेखन गर्न आपत्ति छैन । तर वर्तमान सरकार संविधान संशोधन गर्ने क्षमताको भएको भए संवैधानिक प्रणालीको यस्तो बिजोग हुने थिएन । यसका लागि दुईतिहाइ बहुमत चाहिन्छ । त्यो भएको भए नयाँ सरकारले अहिलेसम्म शपथ लिइसकेको हुन्थ्यो । <br /><br />त्यसैले अब के उपाय बाँकी छ त ? भन्ने प्रश्न स्वाभाविक रूपमा उपस्थित हुन्छ । प्रस्ट रूपमा भन्दा बारम्बार चुनाव गराएरै किनबेच र भाँडभैलोलगायतको प्रक्रियाबाट बहुमतको सरकार उपस्थित गराउनुको वैधानिक विकल्प यो संविधानमा छैन । यसलाई कि त सन् १७९९ को स्वघोषित दामोदर पाण्डेले झैँ कोही अरूले आफूलाई प्रधानमन्त्रीमा स्थापित गरेर टुंग्याउन सम्भव छ या अब फेरि अर्को सर्वसम्मतिको नाममा कानुनी राजको मर्दन गर्दै तथा आमनिर्वाचनको वैधतालाई चुनौती दिँदै अर्को प्रक्रियाको सिर्जना गरिनेछ । यी तीनै प्रक्रियाहरू अवैधानिक नै हुनेछन् । एउटा दोषपूर्ण संविधान क्रान्ति गरेर आवोस् वा जनआन्दोलनबाट त्यो दोषपूर्ण नै हुन्छ । अहिलेको टड्कारो प्रश्न हो- वर्तमान अवस्थाको जिम्मेवारी कसले लिनेNepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-23283433038755225022010-07-29T09:42:00.000-07:002010-07-29T09:45:50.078-07:00A fine kettle of fish<strong>The history of the world shows that a constitution does not become democratic simply because it has been drafted by a popular leadership. One must not be oblivious of the requirements of the law of the constitution in a democratic framework.</strong><br /><br />http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/07/28/oped/a-fine-kettle-of-fish/210961/<br /><br /><strong>BIPIN ADHIKARI </strong><br /><br />JUL 28, 2010 - The weird electoral contest between UCPN (Maoist) chief Prachanda and Nepali Congress leader Ram Chandra Poudel for the post of prime minister scheduled to be held on August 2 is not surprising. This is a product of the defective constitution that Nepal has adopted as an interim arrangement. <br /><br />If Damodar Pande (1799-1804) is taken as the first prime minister of Nepal, Madhav Kumar Nepal (2009 onwards) would be the 58th. As the story given by historians goes, Pande took over the coveted position himself in the best assessment of the situation because King Rana Bahadur Shah had just abdicated, and his son and heir apparent, one-and-a-half-year-old Girvan Yuddha, was too young to replace his father. Pande faced almost no protest against his move. His rivals Bhimsen Thapa, Dalbhanjan Pande and Queen Rajrajeswari—all very powerful at the palace—were already out of the country with the king. <br /><br />From this time onwards, the position of the prime minister became part of the court of the royal palace. Ever since, it was either the free choice of the king (or the queen) to appoint who the prime minister should be, or an induced choice. But it was only in 1959, or 155 years after the assassination of Prime Minister Damodar Pande, that multiparty general elections to parliament were held based on adult franchise; and B.P. Koirala, being the leader of the party commanding a two-thirds majority in the house, was appointed by the reigning king as prime minister. <br /><br />In a Westminster-style parliamentary system, it is the responsibility of the head of state to ask the leader of the party commanding a majority in the House of Representatives to form a government based on his electoral strength. In a post-election scenario when there is a party in the house which is holding a clear majority of seats, there is little controversy about this matter. As such, the leader of the parliamentary party is without doubt asked to form a government in that case. There is no election in the house, whatsoever. <br /><br />In alternative scenarios, or when there is no party with a majority, the head of state has to see whether a leader who can mobilise a coalition of parties to form a majority, or a minority party even if it is still far behind in the required number of votes, can provide the necessary leadership. When the head of state does so, here too, he or she is guided by the strict parliamentary convention to ask the person best placed to secure the confidence of the house (that is, the active or passive support of a plurality of its members). Once the prime minister is appointed, he or she is then asked by the head of state to form the cabinet, bring the house in order and demonstrate its confidence to carry on further.<br /><br />The role of the head of state in this exercise has two immediate effects. First, by appointing the potential prime minister, he or she recognises immediately the competitive electoral strength of the party which has shown its mandate to lead the country (when compared to other competitors). Second, by recognising the leader of the house, he or she gives the opportunity to talk with the colleagues, organise a cabinet, and prepare itself for a vote of confidence. <br /><br />When the prime minister is a coalition leader, or just a minority party leader as noted above, this is also the time for the prime minister to prepare a common front, sort out differences between the parties joining hands, and create grounds for a stable government. This also gives him or her the opportunity to deal with others from positions of power (by virtue of whatever electoral mandate he or she has). In such a situation, a prime minister need not go to every party to “buy” their vote, resort to malpractice and show “numerical” strength over others. <br /><br />More or less, this was how it was in Nepal under the 1990 Constitution. Unfortunately, the Interim Constitution, drafted and frequently amended with the least commitment to democracy, parted with this time tested convention for hidden political reasons. It encouraged constituting a government based on “consensus” in order to facilitate a non-partisan approach in writing the constitution. But it never happened, and there is the least likelihood of it happening this time around too. A person who cannot command a majority cannot lead a consensus government either. When there is no majority party, the role of the head of state is crucial to ensure smooth sailing through the divided house. His wisdom in choosing the most suitable person as prime minister would have saved the continued legitimacy of the April 2008 elections. <br /><br />The resulting malpractices, including the fast degeneration of the electoral mandate, could be easily shingled out. First, a prime minister who was still commanding a clear majority in the house was made to resign. Had the need for a “national” government been the issue, the prime minister should have been given the first opportunity to talk with the parties unrepresented in his council of ministers and expand the cabinet without smashing his team. Second, every party which can help build a new coalition, or a new national government, is now contesting for the post of prime minister, making it impossible for others to form a government (the smaller parties being insignificant in the head count). <br /><br />Third, when it is very clear that the in-house election for the prime minister has failed, the constitution should have allowed the formation of a minority government without a hitch. In fact, the largest party in the house is being victimised because its strength based on the electoral mandate is not being recognised. Whether a national government or a government of a coalition of parties, the largest party should have been given the opportunity to form the government first, and take the necessary confidence initiative later. There is no provision in the constitution which states that even a minority government should be allowed to perform in good faith and that it takes a vote of confidence in due course. <br /><br />Finally, the simple rule that where the house is not able to produce a government at all, it should be dissolved and fresh elections called has also not been stated in the constitution in the spirit of the Westminster tradition. Given the responsibility to adopt a new constitution for the country, the Constituent Assembly, or the country’s parliament, was not provided this option. There is logic in this argument. But the net effect of all these constitutional defects is that this country cannot produce a government on the basis of the constitution.<br /><br />What is there as a direction, then? There are two possible options. The first direction is another lot of compromises on Nepal and its institutions. The Interim Constitution created an elephant without providing a mahout. The mahout is operating from outside the constitutional regime—defeating the purpose of democracy and the rule of law. <br /><br />Or, as stated in the beginning, a new Damodar Pande will have to emerge who will proclaim himself the new protector for the transition. Suffice here to pinpoint what led to the rise of Jung Bahadur. The history of the world shows that a constitution does not become democratic simply because it has been drafted by a popular leadership. One must not be oblivious of the requirements of the law of the constitution in a democratic framework. <br /><br /><br /><br />Bipin Adhikari<br /><br />lawyers_inc_nepal@yahoo.comNepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-74569040928245287472010-07-15T11:04:00.000-07:002010-07-15T11:08:53.399-07:00Things don’t look good<strong>The failure of the leaders to provide the CA a positive work environment is a real letdown.</strong><br /><br />http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/07/14/oped/things-dont-look-good/210467/<br /><br /><strong>BIPIN ADHIKARI</strong><br /><br />JUL 14, 2010 - President Ram Baran Yadav has called upon the political parties to form a majority government after they failed to form a national government within the extended deadline given by him. <br /><br />While his move was unavoidable in the given situation, there is little doubt that the state of affairs will change materially with a change in the present government, if it is not a government with a two-thirds majority in the legislature. The ultimate objective behind instituting a new government is to make it possible for the Constituent Assembly (CA) to finalise the draft constitution and pass it with the required two-thirds majority. Obviously, a simple majority government cannot fulfil that objective. <br /><br />The UCPN (Maoist) has been very vocal about having a national government. But when they talk about a national government, they mean a government led by themselves. A major bottleneck towards this move. Also, contrary to this perception, they could do pretty little over the last two weeks to solicit the necessary support from the others by recommitting themselves to universal democratic standards, which have always been questionable. In fact, it is enough for the Maoists to have either the CPN-UML or the Nepali Congress to form a strong government with the support of other fringe parties and put together a two-thirds strength in the house. But they did not try out this option. They think the UML and the Congress are unnaturally tied to each other “under pressure”, and only a national government can weaken the case against them. <br /><br />Whatever the Maoist weaknesses, many aspects of the ongoing negotiations are still not transparent. It is said that efforts to reach a consensus failed as the three major parties—the UCPN (Maoist), the CPN-UML and the Nepali Congress—refused to give up their respective stances. However, it is not yet adequately clear what were the stances of each of these parties. There were certainly movements of leaders from this corner of the parliamentary premises to that corner, but even knowledgeable people were not clear about who wanted what, and what were the issues that prevented a consensus. To this day, the positions and counter-positions have not been put across plainly. What has been observed is that the tenacious “Tom” is forever on the tail of his elusive nemesis “Jerry”, fully disregarding the mayhem and destruction that has been ensuing. <br /><br />There has been no talk between the major parties, absolutely none in fact, on sorting out the contentious issues before the CA and its Constitutional Committee. Similarly, the parties were not ready to sit down with the Maoists with some homework on their action plan on the integration of the combatants and discuss what further concessions could be necessary. The Maoists kept up their sleeves additional options to address the concerns of the NC and the UML regarding dismantling the Maoist youth wing, the Young Communist League (YCL), and returning properties seized by the party during the insurgency. There was simply no effort to move ahead with a genuine desire to complete the peace process, and it will remain incomplete without Maoist participation.<br /><br />At present, the prime minister is from the CPN-UML and the chairperson of the CA is also from the same party. The major coalition partners, especially the Nepali Congress, have led important ministries. The president also comes from this party, and the chairperson of the CA Constitutional Committee, the principal constitution drafting body in the CA, is also a Nepali Congress nominee. In the perspective of the Maoists, they do not show up anywhere as the largest party in the CA and, therefore, in the scheme of constitution writing. Politically, they think it will be a disaster for them to sign off their power and clout to agree on a constitution finalised by the UML or the Congress. <br /><br />Instead, the Congress and the UML smelt a rat in the 60-week time plan of the UN Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) for the integration and rehabilitation of Maoist combatants. Prime Minister Nepal went so far as to criticise the UN agency in public disregarding diplomatic norms. He also completely ignored the fact that UNMIN’s plan had already been discussed with the relevant authorities of the government and the political parties had already been consulted for their feedback. The UNMIN time plan might have been a little uninformed by the politics after the resignation of the prime minister; it definitely deserved an informed response.<br /><br />The days ahead are not propitious. The situation reminds one of what happened in the Middle East 60 years ago. Elections to the Constituent Assembly were held in newly independent Israel on Jan. 25, 1949 with 85 percent of the people casting their votes. A noble thing had been done. However, the assembly was able to hold only four meetings. The political leadership was faced with the challenge of establishing a democracy within physically vulnerable borders surrounded by active aggressive elements. There were chronic political and ideological differences. There were good leaders as well. But the situation was not so good. They tried, but quickly gave up. <br /><br />On Feb. 16, 1949, the assembly adopted the Transition Law by which it renamed itself the First Knesset (i.e., first assembly). Because the assembly could not prepare a constitution for Israel, the Knesset became the heir to the assembly for the purpose of fulfilling this function. It was intended as a constitutional stopgap for Israel. But once the constitutional development process stalled, the law took on a pseudo-constitutional character. The situation has not changed even after 60 years. There are important constitutional laws in the country. But the country’s lack of a constitution still translates into a paucity of clearly articulated values what the state represents and defends.<br /><br />Notwithstanding this fact, Israel is still hoping for the best. Its institutions are still working. Its economy is still prospering. The country is defending itself against all odds. Its people have not lost faith in the political state. Nepal’s scores are generally at an all-time low against its own standards. The failure of the leaders to provide the CA a positive work environment is a real letdown. It must not be minimised.Nepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-30104338385390124732010-07-01T21:41:00.000-07:002010-07-01T21:44:51.229-07:00Knots and bolts<strong>BIPIN ADHIKARI "Political difficulties surrounding the resignation of Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, despite the fact that he still holds a clear majority in the Constituent Assembly (CA), are more than obvious. What is not obvious is what is supposed to come next." </strong><br /><br />http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/07/01/oped/knots-and-bolts/210017/<br /><br />JUL 02, 2010 - Political difficulties surrounding the resignation of Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, despite the fact that he still holds a clear majority in the Constituent Assembly (CA), are more than obvious. What is not obvious is what is supposed to come next. <br /><br />In a way, the prime minister had been under constant pressure from UCPN (Maoist) to resign as a condition for their support to amend the constitution for extension of the deadline to write a new constitution by a year. With his resignation, the prime minister has fulfilled, although belatedly, the understanding to which he was not a negotiating partner. He has become a ‘caretaker’ prime minister, and the Maoists, as a largest party in the parliament, now have the opportunity to tender their claim for the next government. <br /><br />It is now the turn of the Maoist party, which has the crucial votes for passing any constitutional provision by the required two-third majority, to reciprocate the goodwill by starting to implement the remaining two points of the three-point understanding signed between three major parties on the midnight of May 28. The three-point understanding comprised of a provision for extending the term of the Constituent Assembly by a year, implementation of all past agreements (which envisage a democratic constitution for the country) and the resignation of the prime minister within ‘days’ to pave the way for a national government. <br /><br />At the moment, there is very little distance between the Maoists and the vacant post of prime minister, if they are flexible to reach consensus with other parties on the integration/rehabilitation of their combatants, and tone down their aggressive positions on many crucial constitutional issues. It is not that Maoists do not understand the implications of what they have proposed; the problem is they want exactly what are being implied. These positions, if conceded under pressure, can detrimentally affect the quality of democracy under the new constitution due to their authoritarian overtones. <br /><br />CA Chairman Subash Nembang has already compiled 18 contentious constitutional issues, and asked the parties to find compromise solutions on each of them, in order to help the constitution drafting process resume. These issues overlap with, and the real number of contentious issues is no more than 12. Some of these issues are real, but result from a blatant disregard for the basics of constitutionalism. <br /><br />In addition to that, however, the most pressing issue is the lack of agreement on integration/rehabilitation of the combatants—on which Maoist preconditions are not aboveboard. There are multiple options on the table, but the breakthrough will come only after the Maoists give up their desire to retain their combatants until their grip on power is fully achieved. If this is not true, it is probably the time for the Maoists to show where they stand on these issues—and how they plan to go ahead if they are to form the next government. <br /><br />It is probably not out of place here to point out that the initiative of CA chairperson towards formation of the State Restructuring Commission (SRC)—something that surprises many ethnic groups—may not be a good idea. There are issues for sure—on the number, names and boundaries of federal units. But they must be handled within the Constituent Assembly, without discrediting the groundwork done by the Committee on State Restructuring and Division of State Powers and Committee on Natural Resources, Economic Powers and Allocation of Revenues. <br /><br />Even if a SRC is created, it would not have a magic formula. It would be the forum of the same politicians, same experts and probably the same biases or prejudices. But its creation will definitely create an environment of distrust between political parties who have different levels of commitment and enthusiasm about federalisation issues. The best way out in the given situation is to devise a small but politically powerful sub-committee within the CA, which would have access to all experts and resources that a SRC might purportedly enjoy, but also build on what has already been done. <br /><br />Additionally, it is good to revive the high level political mechanism to work within the Assembly. The role of such a mechanism has become all the more important because of lack of towering or statesman-like leaders in the assembly who can get things done. There has not been enough give and take in the matter of principles to create a win-win situation so far. In an environment which lacks coalition culture, such a mechanism, if properly worked out, can help political parties arrive at crucial decisions. <br /><br />The Constitutional Committee in the CA, the final drafting body, must also be able to lay down certain norms on the length of the new constitution. The details that have come through the thematic committees are simply too long. What is to be included and excluded is the most difficult part of the job. A related issue is tension between shortness and detail. A short and simple constitution is much better. But the shorter the document, the greater the scope for interpretation by the courts. There is no agreed boundary of what is constitutional, and what is not. But the issue must be sorted out in order to save the document from unnecessary challenges—especially due to unnecessary details. <br /><br />There is no other way out of working with the Maoist if the ongoing transition is to be completed within the next 11 months. Even with Maoists, it is not going to be smooth. There are contradictions within Maoists as well. The only positive thing is that it is still united, and the present leadership, despite all its shortcomings, is still the best available bet for any meaningful change in the country. <br /><br />Buying time for a favourable balance of power before letting the CA resume its work is dangerous. To put it categorically, as this critic has noted before, any attempt to bring a split in the UCPN (Maoist), supposedly to “rightsise” it in the CA will be the most irresponsible approach to handling the current situation. Its breakup into rival forces is neither in the interest of Nepal, nor its neighbours.<br /><br />lawyers_inc_nepal@yahoo.comNepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-36587329493260444622010-06-18T10:08:00.000-07:002010-06-18T10:11:42.792-07:00"What are they waiting for?" Bipin Adhikari<strong>It is very dangerous to buy time looking for drastic changes in the balance of power in the country before letting the CA resume its work. To put it more categorically, any attempt towards helping a split in the UCPN (Maoist), supposedly to “rightsize” it in the CA, is a most irresponsible approach to handling the situation. Its breakup into rival forces is not in the interest of Nepal.</strong> <br /><br /><strong>BIPIN ADHIKARI</strong><br /><br />http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/06/16/oped/what-are-they-waiting-for/209491/<br /><br />KATHMANDU, JUN 16 - It has already been 20 days since the tenure of the Constituent Assembly (CA) was extended on May 28 for an additional one year. Three days after, on June 1, CA Chairman Subash Nembang, otherwise an unassuming speaker, warned all the political parties represented in the CA that business as usual would not help to write a new constitution. <br /><br />As he pointed out, strong commitment on the part of all and willingness of the three major parties — the UCPN (Maoist), Nepali Congress and UML — to implement the understanding signed with each other on the midnight of May 28 are the preconditions to get the job done. Since then, 17 days have already passed. But there has been no change either in the attitude or in the temperament or the modus operandi of the major contenders for power. Rather, what was written so clearly in the memorandum of understanding signed in the presence of UML leader Khadga Oli has become undecipherable.<br /><br />It is not surprising though. Many agreements and understandings that were negotiated and signed in the past had met a similar fate. Agreements should not be signed if they are not going to be kept. A sort of “elitism” in the best sense of the term is so crucial for the success of any venture as demanding as writing a new constitution through a constituent assembly. None of the constitutional conventions, or a CA like ours, has ever succeeded in its mission unless it had proud “elitist” leaders who were a cut above the masses and who had extraordinary skills, abilities and wisdom, or commitment to the principles of public morality, democracy and the virtues of the rule of law. <br /><br />In many cases, it is the elitist leaders, especially those with charismatic powers, who have helped regain the lost egalitarianism in many societies as the governing principle of the day and not vice versa. This egalitarianism and commitment to the consent of the “governed” provide the moral strength in the process of change. When there are such leaders, vocal and out for these values, they are able to find a democratic exit for the country, whether through the constituent assembly or otherwise. <br /><br />One such “elite” leader in Nepal who could represent the mass with the strength of his personality and character was B.P. Koirala (1914-82) — probably the only politician in the country who could qualify for the term “statesman”. He was far ahead of his time. He practised atheism, defended secularism, advocated emotional (sexual) freedom, opined in favour of euthanasia, pleaded for the right to commit suicide in appropriate cases, and stood for modernity in all aspects of the law and society. <br /><br />These qualities in him ignited most of the leaders of his generation, yet his life and work had a profound influence on the mental make-up of the nation, its social structure and intellectual development. As long as Koirala was alive, the political system had no other option but to maintain a façade of basic democratic values and nationalism, whatever was the political system of the day. He maintained the terms of the political culture and the processes of change, even though the system and its external patrons were always up to his neck. With his demise in 1982, the country lost a moral authority. The situation has not changed much even now.<br /><br />When it comes to India, Jawaharlal Nehru (prime minister 1947-64), a highly educated “elite”, had a similar impact on the psyche of a newly unified India. He was the answer to the enormous challenges that the Constituent Assembly and several years of transitional problems thereafter that India had to face. Without him, not just his associates like Ambedkar but also Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad and Abdul Kalam Azad would not have been able to steer the CA process forward. The presence of Nehru in the Indian Constituent Assembly was a guarantee for the use of talents like B.N. Rau, the constitutional adviser, and S.N. Mukherjee, the chief draftsman of the Indian constitution. Nehru’s enlightened ideas and aspirations remained unchallenged in the assembly, and that provided the guarantee that an aspiring new democracy needed to draft a democratic constitution. <br /><br />This is true about most of the American founding fathers as well. It was a very different generation by modern standards, but most of them who were taking the lead as signers of the declaration of independence or the framers of the new constitution were a highly motivated “elite” of the day. Whether as politicians or jurists or statesmen or soldiers or diplomats or ordinary citizens, their leadership gave not just a moral character to the changes on behalf of the common people, but also a human face to the changes. What is written in the formal document is one thing, but who have written it for posterity and who are implementing it is also no less important. <br /><br />The fact that the CA is in limbo and that it is no one’s priority has become very clear to everybody in Nepal by now. Who wanted it and for what purpose is also becoming clearer to the educated masses of Nepal. There could be many discussions on whether those who steered the process forward had sustainable options available to them. There could be a number of charges against the existing leadership, their professional abilities, and their concept of right and wrong, and also the sense of change. But the most basic thing is that the CA must produce a constitution amid all these challenges and help the country emerge from the existing mess. A change in government, and more clearly, implementation of the three-point understanding of May 28 is crucial for this purpose.<br /><br />It is very dangerous to buy time looking for drastic changes in the balance of power in the country before letting the CA resume its work. To put it more categorically, any attempt towards helping a split in the UCPN (Maoist), supposedly to “rightsize” it in the CA, is a most irresponsible approach to handling the situation. Its breakup into rival forces is not in the interest of Nepal. <br /><br />lawyers_inc_nepal@yahoo.comNepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-79894093078277333352010-06-09T10:27:00.000-07:002010-06-09T10:32:22.066-07:00१४ जेठको सेरोफेरो - डा. विपिन अधिकारी<strong>आवरण : १४ जेठको सेरोफेरो <br />http://himalkhabar.com/news.php?id=3286<br /><br />संविधानको आठौं संशोधनले मुलुकलाई धेरै विषम परिस्थितिहरूबाट जोगाएको छ। तर, संविधानसभा बचाउने नाममा अपनाइएको यो प्रक्रियाबाट संसदीय बहुमत भएको वैधानिक सरकारलाई अवैधानिक तरिकाले विलुप्त हुन पार्ने नजिर पनि कायम भएको छ- प्रजातान्त्रिक नेपालमा । डा. विपिन अधिकारी को विश्लेषण </strong><br /><br />अहिले पनि संसारभर मौलिक अधिकार तथा स्वतन्त्रताप्रति अतिवादी दृष्टिकोण राख्ने अराजकतावादी धार, वर्गसङ्घर्षको पक्षधर मार्क्सवादी चिन्तन, कानूनको शासन, प्रजातन्त्र र संविधानवादलाई आत्मसात् गर्दै अगाडि बढ्ने लोकतान्त्रिक धारर अस्थिरताबाट फाइदा लुट्न पल्केको अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय तत्वबीच टक्कर छ। नेपालमा पनि आज यिनै चतुर्भुज मान्यताबीच द्वन्द्व छ। बृहत् शान्तिप्रक्रिया अशान्त हुँदै जानुको कारण यही हो।<br /><br />नयाँ संविधान जारी हुने दिन अर्थात् १४ जेठ आम नेपालीका लागि एउटा दिवास्वप्न हुँदै इतिहासबाट बिदा भएको छ। त्यो दिन नेपालको सार्वभौम संविधानसभाले न संविधान दिन सक्यो, न त भविष्यमा बन्ने संविधान प्रजातान्त्रिक परम्परामै बन्नेछ भन्ने प्रत्याभूति। अन्तरिम संविधान-२०६३ को आठौँ संशोधन गर्ने कुरामा सरकार र प्रतिपक्षी एनेकपा मावादीबीच मुख मिलेपछि अन्ततः मध्यरातमा संविधानसभाको आयु भने एक वर्षको लागि थपिएको छ। ठूला राजनीतिक दलहरूबीच शक्तिसन्तुलनका कुरामा मोलतोल मिलेपछि म्याद त थपियो, तर यसपटक पनि दुइटा प्रश्न चाहिँ अनुत्तरित नै छन्― के थपिएको अवधिमा अन्तरिम संविधानमा अपेक्षा गरिएबमोजिम नयाँ संविधान बन्छ? बन्यो भने के त्यो प्रजातन्त्र तथा संविधानवादको विश्वव्यापी मर्यादामै आधारित भएर आउँछ? <br /><br />अराजकवादका पिता भनिने फ्रान्सेली राजनीतिज्ञ पियार जोसेप प्रोधोँका मान्यताका पक्षधरहरू नेपालमा पनि छन्। प्रोधोँलाई कानून व्यवस्था वा सरकारमा विश्वास थिएन। उनले एउटा बहुचर्चित किताब पनि लेखेका थिए। त्यसको नाम थियो― द कन्फेसन्स् अफ अ रिभोल्युसनरी अर्थात् एउटा क्रान्तिकारीको साविती बयान। त्यो साविती बयानमा लेखिएको थियो, “क्रान्तिलाई हिंसा, रक्तपात, लुटपाट र मारामारको अर्थमा प्रयोग गर्ने जमातले संसारलाई उँभो लगाउन सक्ने छैन।” आफू अराजकतावादी भए पनि त्यस्तो परिपाटीको उनी भर्त्सना गर्दथे।<br /><br />अठारौँ शताब्दीका यी दार्शनिक र द्वन्द्वात्मक भौतिकवादका व्याख्याता कार्ल मार्क्सबीच भनाभन भई बोलचालै बन्द भयो। मौलिक अधिकार र स्वतन्त्रताप्रति अतिवादी दृष्टिकोण राख्ने प्रोधोँ र यसलाई वर्ग सङ्घर्षको दृष्टिले प्रयोग गर्ने मार्क्सबीच मिलनबिन्दु पाउन गाह्रो थियो। यसलाई दोस्रो धार मान्न सकिन्छ। समसामयिक विश्वमा एउटा तेस्रो धार छ― कानूनको शासन, प्रजातन्त्र र संविधानवादलाई आत्मसात् गर्दै अगाडि बढ्ने लोकतान्त्रिक धार। चौथो धार हो― अस्थिरताबाट फाइदा लुट्न पल्केको अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय तत्व। ऊ सबैका साथमा हुन्छ र अन्तिममा फाइदा पनि उसैले लिन्छ। नेपालमा आज पनि यिनै चतुर्भुज मान्यताहरूबीच द्वन्द्व छ। बृहत् शान्तिप्रक्रिया अशान्त हुँदै जानुको कारण यही हो।<br /><br />अन्तरिम संविधान जारी हुनुअघि र पछिका राजनीतिक घटनाक्रमहरू अब नेपाली मानसपटलबाट क्रमशः हराउँदै छन्। दोस्रो जनआन्दोलनका कर्ता तथा व्याख्याताहरू पनि पन्छिँदै गएका छन्। जनस्तरमा पनि यसको उपलब्धिबारे चर्चा हुन छाडेको छ। यति छोटो अवधिमै गणतन्त्र दिवसबारे कतै उत्साह देखिएन। धेरैलाई परिवर्तनको कार्यसूची र स्थिति कुनै एउटाको नियन्त्रणमा छैनभन्ने लाग्न थालेको छ। समाधान गर्नुपर्ने राजनीतिक समस्या धेरै छन्। धेरै काम भएका पनि छन्, तर तिनलाई टुङ्ग्याउन अझ् मेहनत नगरी हुँदैन। <br /><br />समयाभावलाई दृष्टिगत गरेर अपेक्षा बमोजिम संविधान घोषणा गर्ने एउटा सरल विकल्प थियो। नेताहरूले राजनीतिक रूपमा धान्न सकिने गरी संविधानसभामा उठेका गम्भीर विषयहरू तत्काल छिनोफानो गरेर एउटा भविष्यमुखी सङ्क्षिप्त संरचनाको संविधान (फ्रेमवर्क कन्स्टिट्युसन) जारी गरेर संविधानसभालाई १४ जेठभित्रै सुखान्तमा परिणत गर्न सक्थे। यसलाई मस्यौदा गर्न धेरै समय लाग्ने थिएन। यसबाट मुलुकलाई अगाडि बढ्न गहकिलो राजनीतिक पूँजी प्राप्त हुनेथियो। परिवर्तनका वाहकहरूलाई आफ्नो वर्चस्व कायम राख्न गाह्रो हुने थिएन। तर यसमा पनि माथिकै चारवटा धारबीचको अन्तरविरोध तगारो भयो। शान्तिसम्झ्ौताको मूल उद्देश्य राजतन्त्र हटाएर संविधानसभाको माध्यमबाट सबैलाई मान्य हुने प्रजातान्त्रिक प्रणाली ल्याउनु थियो। तर, यसलाई सबैले आ-आफ्ना उद्देश्यका लागि मात्र प्रयोग गरे।<br /><br />दुई वर्षभित्रै संविधान निर्माण गर्ने कार्यादेश संशोधन गरी संविधानसभाको कार्यावधि बढाउन सकिने स्पष्ट संवैधानिक आधार अन्तरिम संविधानमा थिएन। मुलुकमा धेरै छलफल भइसकेको अन्तरिम संविधानको धारा ६४ मस्यौदा गर्दा सम्बन्धित कसैबाट पनि त्यस्तो उद्देश्य राखिएको कुरा चर्चामा आएको पनि देखिँदैन। रणनीतिक हिसाबले पनि त्यस रूपमा सोचिएको कतैबाट स्पष्ट हुँदैन। तर, राजनीतिक नेतृत्वको अक्षमता र लोकतान्त्रिक प्रक्रियाप्रति मावादीको अस्पष्ट धारणाका कारण मुलुकमा बेथितिहरू बढ्दै जाँदा धान्न सकिने प्रजातान्त्रिक प्रणाली स्थापनातर्फ चाहिए जति मेहनत भएन। तथापि सङ्क्रमणकालको गुम्न सक्ने वैधतालाई स्थायित्व दिन संविधान संशोधन गरी संविधानसभाको कार्यावधि बढाउनुभन्दा सजिलो अर्को उपाय बाँकी रहेको थिएन। यस्तो परिस्थितिमा विवादास्पद रूपमै भए पनि संविधानको आठौँ संशोधनद्वारा संविधानसभाको आयु बढाउने काम भएको छ।<br /><br />सङ्कटकाल घोषणा गरी संविधानको धारा-६४ बमोजिम संविधानसभाको आयु ६ महिनाका लागि थप गर्ने विकल्प नेपालको सार्वभौमसत्ता, अखण्डता वा कुनै भागको सुरक्षामा युद्ध, बाह्य आक्रमण, सशस्त्र विद्रोह वा चरम आर्थिक विशृङ्खलताको कारणले गम्भीर सङ्कट उत्पन्न भएको अवस्थामा मात्र प्रयोग गर्न सकिन्थ्यो। मन्त्रिपरिषद्को सिफारिसमा राष्ट्रपतिले सङ्कटकालीन अवस्था घोषणा गर्न सक्ने भए पनि त्यस्तो घोषणालाई संविधानसभाको दुईतिहाई समर्थन नभए एक महिनापछि स्वतः निष्त्रि्कय हुने व्यवस्था संविधानमै उल्लेख छ। यस्तो अवस्थामा सङ्कटकालको स्थिति नै नभई सङ्कटकाल लगाउने प्रक्रिया संविधानउपरको जालसाजीका रूपमा इतिहासमा दर्ता हुन सक्थ्यो। आठौँ संशोधनका कारण यो अभियोगबाट मुलुक बचेको छ। <br /><br />तर, त्यस्तो जालसाजी नभए तापनि जुन नजिर कायम भएको छ त्यो प्रत्युत्पादक हुने खतरा छ। संविधानको आठौँ संशोधनले एउटा वैधानिक सरकारलाई संविधानसभा बचाउने नाममा अवैधानिक तरिकाले विलुप्त पार्न लागेको छ। राजनीतिक प्रक्रियामा सरकार आउनु-जानु भइरहन्छ। तर, संसदीय बहुमत कायम हुँदाहुँदै सडक आन्दोलन र प्रतिपक्षको गैर-संवैधानिक हठबाट सरकार परिवर्तन गराउन सकिने नजिर कायम हुँदैछ― नयाँ नेपालमा। सरकारबाट बिदा हुने शर्तमा गराइएको यो संसदीय प्रक्रिया सडक राजनीतिको मातहतमा लादिएको छ। समस्या बूढी मरिन् भन्ने होइन, काल पल्केला भन्ने हो। यसर्थ अहिलेको राष्ट्रिय सहमति लाई संवैधानिक र प्रजातान्त्रिक हिसाबले धेरै कमजोर धरातलमा उभिएको मान्नै पर्दछ।<br /><br />अर्कोतर्फ नयाँ संविधान जारी नभएको अवस्थामा संविधान संशोधन पनि नभएको हुँदो हो त पुनर्स्थापित प्रतिनिधिसभाबाट जारी गरिएको नेपालको अन्तरिम संविधान-२०६३ का व्यवस्थाहरूमा संविधानसभा, विषयगत समिति, प्रक्रियागत समितिलगायत सबै संयन्त्रका अस्तित्व समाप्त हुनेथियो। संविधान निर्माण गर्ने सभाको वैधानिक हैसियत जान्थ्यो। यसैगरी, अन्तरिम संविधानमा संविधान घोषणा भएको अवस्थामा मात्र संविधानसभाले व्यवस्थापिका-संसद्को हैसियत पाउने उल्लेख गरिएकाले व्यवस्थापिका-संसद् पनि कायम रहने थिएन। व्यवस्थापिका-संसद्को अस्तित्व समाप्त भए पनि वैधानिक सरकार भने कायम रहने थियोतर, यसको हैसियत कामचलाउ वा केयरटेकर जस्तो हुनेथियो। मह140वपूर्ण निर्णय गर्ने वैधानिक हैसियत हुने थिएन। <br /><br />व्यवस्थापिका-संसद्को अभावमा सबै संवैधानिक प्रक्रियाहरू प्रभावित हुनेथिए। राजस्व र व्ययको अनुमान, बजेट समीक्षा, विनियोजन ऐन पारित गर्नेलगायतका सबै कुरा जाने थिए। वैधानिक प्रतिपक्ष नै नरहेपछि प्रजातन्त्रको गुणस्तरको कुरै हराउँथ्यो। १४ जेठअघि वा पछि सङ्कटकालीन अधिकारको घोषणा वैध रूपमा एक महिनाभन्दा बढी गर्न सकिने थिएन। यो मन्त्रिपरिषद्को सिफारिसमा राष्ट्रपतिले गर्न सक्ने भए पनि संविधानसभा र व्यवस्थापिका-संसद्को अस्तित्व नरहँदा त्यसलाई एक महिनाभित्र व्यवस्थापिका-संसद्को बैठकमा पेश गर्न सम्भव हुने थिएन। त्यस्तो अवस्थामा त्यो घोषणा एक महिनापछि स्वतः रद्द हुनेथियो। संविधानको धारा-३६(ग) बमोजिम राष्ट्रपतिको पदावधि संविधानसभाबाट जारी हुने संविधान प्रारम्भ नभएसम्म लागू हुने भनिएकाले अर्को संविधान नआएसम्म राष्ट्रपति कायम त रहने थिए, तर निजलाई निर्वाचित गर्ने व्यवस्थापिका-संसद् नहुँदाको अवस्थाले पद र हैसियत दुवै प्रभावित हुन्थ्यो। <br /><br />यस्तो संवैधानिक शून्यतामा जनमतसङ्ग्रहबाट निकास खोज्न पनि सम्भव हुने थिएन। किनकि त्यस्तो निर्णय व्यवस्थापिका-संसद्ले नै अनुमोदन गर्नुपर्ने हुन्थ्यो। त्यसैगरी, कामचलाउ सरकारको सिफारिसमा बाधाअड्काउ फुकाउने राष्ट्रपतिको अधिकार प्रयोग हुनसक्ने भए तापनि यसलाई एक महिनाभित्र व्यवस्थापिका-संसद्बाट अनुमोदन गराउनुपर्ने हुँदा यो बाटो पनि बन्द हुनेथियो। यी सबै अप्ठ्याराहरूमाझ् अन्तरिम संविधान कायमै रहेपछि निर्वाचित प्रतिनिधिहरूको अभावमा यसले कानूनको शासन र संविधानवादको प्रत्याभूति दिनसक्ने थिएन। <br /><br />संविधानसभाको कार्यावधि समाप्त हुनासाथ मुलुक दुई वर्षअघिदेखिको यथास्थितिमा नरहनु यस्तो परिस्थितिको एउटै टड्कारो परिणति हुन्थ्यो। संविधान बनाउन २८ चैत २०६४ मा भएको निर्वाचनले अहिलेको संविधानसभालाई दिएको कार्यादेश फिर्ता हुनेथियो। म्यादभित्र नयाँ संविधान नबन्दा र संविधानसभाको कार्यावधि पनि नथप्दा कसरी अगाडि बढ्ने भन्ने सम्बन्धमा संविधान स्पष्ट नभएकाले शासकीय निर्णयहरू राजनीतिक आधारमा हुन जान्थे। वर्तमान संविधानले द्विविधा भएको अवस्थामा सर्वोच्च अदालतबाट राय माग्ने पुरानो संवैधानिक परम्पराको पनि अन्त्य गरिसकेको हुनेथियो। यी सबै यथार्थहरूले संवैधानिक संयन्त्र असफल भएको पुष्टि गर्ने थियो। <br /><br />त्यस्तो परिस्थितिमा शक्तिसन्तुलनका घटकहरूले चाहे पनि नचाहे पनि अवरुद्ध संवैधानिक संयन्त्रलाई सहज बनाउन नयाँ कार्यादेशका लागि अर्को आमचुनाव गराउनुको विकल्प रहने थिएन। तर त्यस्तो चुनाव पनि संविधान संशोधन नगरी वैधानिक तरिकाले सम्भव हुने थिएन। वर्तमान संविधानले दोस्रो पटक आमचुनाव हुनसक्ने प्रावधान उल्लेख नगरेको अवस्थामा कुनै वैध निकास निस्कन नसक्ने यस्तो परिस्थितिबाट स्पष्ट रूपमा मुलुकमा संवैधानिक सङ्कट हुने अवस्थालाई कसैले रोक्न सक्ने थिएन। उपरोक्त संवैधानिक सङ्कटसँगै मुलुकले आन्तरिक सुरक्षा चुनौतीहरू पनि सामना गर्नुपर्ने थियो।<br /><br />कतिपयले संविधान संशोधन नभए १४ जेठपछि संविधानसभा निष्त्रि्कय मात्र हुने र संविधान संशोधन गरिसकेपछि पुनः सक्रिय हुने दृष्टिकोण पनि राखेको पाइयो। यस्तो तर्कको कुनै संवैधानिक आधार भने थिएन। चुनावबाट स्थापित निकायहरू निश्चित अवधिका लागि हुने हुँदा त्यो अवधि समाप्त भएपछि स्वतः समाप्त हुनुको विकल्प रहँदैन। विघटित संसद्लाई सडक आन्दोलनबाट बलमिच्याइँका साथ पुनर्स्थापित गरिएको सन्दर्भमा यस्तो तर्क आउनु अस्वाभाविक भने थिएन। तर यो प्रक्रिया घोर गैरसंवैधानिक हुन्छ। <br /><br />कतिपय आमसञ्चारमाध्यम वा कार्यक्रमहरूमा राजनीतिक रूपमा अतिवादी दृष्टिकोणहरू देखिँदै आएका थिए। अघिल्लो महिना मावादीको हडताल स्थगित नभएको भए त्यसले राजनीतिक धु्रवीकरणको प्रक्रियालाई अझ् बल पुर्याउने थियो। खासगरी सर्वसाधारणलाई अत्याउने खालका गतिविधिबाटै हतियार प्रयोगसम्मको स्थितिको आउने भएकाले १४ जेठपछिको शान्तिसुरक्षासम्बन्धी चुनौतीका लागि सुरक्षा संयन्त्रलाई तयार राख्नुपर्ने हुन्थ्यो। कुरा सुरक्षा निकाय परिचालनको मात्र थिएन। खानेपानी, खाद्यान्न, खतीमूलो, तेल आपूर्ति, सार्वजनिक आवागमनलाई सुचारु राख्नुपर्ने आदि जिम्मेवारीबाट सरकार विमुख हुनसक्ने थिएन। तर, व्यवस्थापिका-संसद् नरहेको स्थितिमा कुनै पनि सरकारले सङ्कटको सामना गर्दा आफूलाई संवैधानिक परिधिभित्र सीमित पार्न गाह्रो हुने कुरा प्रस्टै छ।<br /><br />यस्तो राजनीतिक परिस्थितिले राष्ट्रपतिलाई पनि संवैधानिक भएर बस्ने वातावरण दिने थिएन। संवैधानिक शून्यतामा सहजकर्ताका रूपमा राष्ट्रपतिको भूमिका स्वतः देखापर्ने थियो। संविधान संशोधन गरेर अगाडि नबढ्दाको स्थितिमा राष्ट्रपतिलाई रोक्न गाह्रो हुनेथियो। किनकि, त्यो स्थितिमा राष्ट्रपतिको जिम्मेवारी स्वतः बढ्ने थियो। आफ्नो राजनीतिक हैसियत गुम्दै जाँदा कामचलाउ सरकारले पनि राष्ट्राध्यक्षको सहयोगमा अगाडि बढ्नुको विकल्प हुने थिएन। संवैधानिक शून्यताको स्थितिमा निर्वाचन गराई निर्वाचित सरकारले शपथ ग्रहण नगर्दासम्म र शपथ ग्रहण भइसकेपछि नयाँ व्यवस्थापिका-संसद्बाट संविधान संशोधन नहुन्जेलसम्म संवैधानिक दुष्चक्र (भिसियस सर्कल अफ अनकन्स्टिट्युस्नालिटी) को जोखिम टाउकामाथि घुमिरहने यथार्थ प्रस्टै छ। <br /><br />अत्यधिक अस्थिरता वा प्रजातान्त्रिक प्रक्रियाले निकास दिन नसक्दा गत दुई शताब्दीमा संसारभरि अधिनायकवादी व्यवस्थाहरू च्याउसरी उमि्रए। संसारमा तानाशाहका विभिन्न रुप छन्। हरेक तानाशाह आफ्नो समयको उपज हुन्छ। तानशाह अचानक जन्मदैन बरु वैध शक्तिको कमि-कमजोरीहरूबाट त्यसको आवश्यकता गहिरोसँग सृजना हुँदै गएको हुन्छ। युरोपमा देखापरेको फासीवादी वा साम्यवादी अधिनायकवादबाट मात्र होइन एसिया र ल्याटिन अमेरिकी मुलुकहरूले भोगेको सैनिक वा आदर्शवादी तानाशाही व्यवस्थाबाट पनि बुझ्िने कुरा यही हो। सैद्धान्तिक रूपमा शुरुमा को, कुन कित्तामा उभिएको थियो भन्ने विषय कालान्तरमा गौण हुँदै जान्छ। सबैजसो अधिनायकवाद अस्थिरताको फाइदा उठाउँदै आएको इतिहासले देखाउँछ। बर्मादेखि अफगानिस्तानसम्म, चीनदेखि श्रीलङ्कासम्म अधिनायकवादी शासनको उत्थान र पतन सबैले देखिआएकै हो। नेपाललाई यो सम्भावनाबाट बचाउनु सबै राजनीतिक शक्तिहरूको जिम्मेवारी थियो। <br /><br />मुलुकको सामर्थ्य र योग्यतालाई बुझने प्रयासै नगरी भइरहेको नेपालको परिवर्तन निःसन्देह रूपमा एउटा कठिन मोडमा आएको छ। तर, सम्भावनाको कुरा गर्दा सबैभन्दा सहज र सरल उपाय अहिले पनि राष्ट्रिय सहमति र सहकार्य नै हो। अराजकतावाद सभ्य समाजको आधार हुन सक्दैन। त्यस्तै, वर्ग सङ्घर्षको दृष्टिकोणले मात्र हेरियो भने पनि प्रजातान्त्रिक मूल्यमान्यताहरू स्थापित हुन सक्तैनन्। नेपाली राजनीतिकर्मीहरू देश र जनताप्रति प्रतिबद्ध नभएसम्म यो मुलुकलाई क्रमशः औपनिवेशीकरण गर्दै लैजाने तत्वले आफूलाई कमजोर पाउने छैनन्। <br /><br />संविधानको आठौँ संशोधनले मुलुकमा सृजना हुनसक्ने धेरै विषम परिस्थितिहरू अहिलेलाई टारेको छ। जानेर वा नजानेर भइरहेका परिवर्तनहरूलाई प्रजातन्त्र र राष्ट्रवादतर्फ मोड्न सरकारले मावादीसँग गरेको बृहत् शान्तिसम्झ्ौता र मावादीले संवैधानिक प्रजातन्त्र तथा मानवअधिकारतर्फ आफ्नो प्रतिबद्धतालाई प्रस्ट गर्ने हो भने मुलुकको शासन कसले चलाएको छ भन्ने विषय गौण हो। खासगरी दुई वर्षको अनुभवका आधारमा मावादीबाट पूरा हुन नसकेका प्रतिबद्धताहरूका सम्बन्धमा पुनः सम्झ्ौता गरी सबैभन्दा ठूलो पार्टीका रूपमा उसलाई सरकार चलाउने अवसर र संविधानसभालाई सुखान्तमा परिणत गराउने राजनीतिक जिम्मेवारी दिनु नराम्रो होइन। <br /><br />निश्चित रूपमा प्रजातन्त्रवादीहरू मावादीको प्रतिपक्षविहीन शासकीय स्वरुप, जातीय सङ्घीयता र संसद्मुखी न्यायपालिकाको अवधारणाप्रति सन्देह राख्दछन्। त्यस्तै राष्ट्रिय सहमतिबमोजिम नै लडाकूहरूको व्यवस्थापन हुनुपर्ने विषयमा पनि मावादीहरू संवेदनशील हुनु जरुरी छ। अहिलेको समय भनेको सन्देह र त्यसका आधारहरूको छिनोफानो गर्ने समय हो।<br /><br />सो हुनसके संविधानसभाको बाँकी अवधिका लागि मावादीको नेतृत्वप्रति कसैको गुनासो रहने छैन। उनीहरूको सहभागिताले संविधानसभालाई संवैधानिक निकाससहित वैध रूपमा अगाडि बढ्न बल पुर्याउनेछ। तर दुर्भाग्य के हो भने अहिलेको सहमति पनि शक्ति-सन्तुलनका लागि भएको छ, मुलुकलाई एउटा प्रजातान्त्रिक तथा संवैधानिक मर्यादामा आधारित संविधान दिन होइन। आमजनताले प्रजातन्त्र र संविधानवादको लडाइँ लड्नुपर्ने अहिलेको विवशतालाई संविधानसभाको नयाँ कार्यावधिभित्र निराकरण गर्न सक्नुपर्छ। त्यसो हुन नसके थपिएको समयमा पनि नयाँ संविधान घोषणा हुने छैन। मुलुकको राजनीतिक स्थिरता अझ् क्षीण हुँदै जानेछ।<br /><br /><strong>संविधानसभाबाट नयाँ संविधान आएको हेर्न नेपाली जनताको चाहना केन्याली जनताको जस्तै अपुरो भई सधैँका लागि थन्किने सम्भावना पनि प्रशस्त छ। नयाँ संविधानका लागि सन् २००२ देखि लागेका केन्यालीहरूको प्रयास अन्ततः एउटा संविधानसभा (कन्स्टिट्युस्नल कन्फेरेन्स) बाट बनाइएको संविधानलाई जनमतसङ्ग्रहको साधारण बहुमतले अनुमोदन गर्न नसकेपछि दुखान्तमा परिणत भएको थियो। त्यसपछि केन्याली संविधान बनाउने अभिभारा एउटा विशेषज्ञ समितिले पायो जुन नेपालमा २०४७ को संविधान मस्यौदा गर्ने विश्वनाथ उपाध्याय नेतृत्वको आयोग जस्तै हो। केन्याली विशेषज्ञ समितिले तयार गरेको मस्यौदा जनमतसङ्ग्रहमा पठाउनका लागि संसद्ले अनुमोदन गरिसकेको छ। अहिले जनस्तरमा छलफल गरिँदैछ। त्यसबारे आगामी साउनमा हुने जनमतसङ्ग्रहमा केन्याली जनताले निर्णय गर्नेछन्, मस्यौदा संविधान स्वीकार्य छ कि छैन भनेर। लामो समय विवादमा अल्झ्िएको संविधानसभाले संविधान बनाउने विश्वास केन्याली जनतालाई भएन। <br /><br />नेपालको पनि नियति यही त होइन? होइन भने, राजनीतिक दलहरूसँग आफूलाई प्रजातान्त्रिक र राष्ट्रवादी प्रतिबद्धताहरूमा सच्याउनुको विकल्प छैन। </strong>Nepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-91279839336792202872010-06-09T10:17:00.000-07:002010-06-09T10:22:33.387-07:00Credibility at stake<strong>The position of prime minister in the model of democracy that Nepal is practicing is no longer powerful and exulted. He does have many powers, as far as theory goes, but he can exercise them only upon the aid and advice of others, seen or unseen in the formal structure of the state. In a way, the executive prime minister of Nepal has long become a ceremonial prime minister. The revolutionary change in his status has gone largely unnoticed. <br /><br />BIPIN ADHIKARI</strong><br /><br />http://www.ekantipur.com/2010/06/06/oped/credibility-at-stake/315824/<br /><br />The position of prime minister in the model of democracy that Nepal is practicing is no longer powerful and exulted. He does have many powers, as far as theory goes, but he can exercise them only upon the aid and advice of others, seen or unseen in the formal structure of the state. In a way, the executive prime minister of Nepal has long become a ceremonial prime minister. The revolutionary change in his status has gone largely unnoticed. <br /><br />The recent helplessness of the prime minister is a new case in point. The winter session of the legislature has been put off, while the demand for his resignation is still unsettled. The parties in the House were allowed to discuss his fate, but he was not called to cut short the discussion and register a confidence motion to show whether he deserves continuation or needs to resign as somebody who does not command the confidence of his electors. <br /><br />The question is how could a system of government, where the principal executive of the country has been deliberately kept at such a low ebb in the power structure, guarantee a functioning democracy, not to mention adoption of a new constitution. Unfortunately, the party bosses of the present coalition have underscored how educative the Article 55A process must have been to the people as to the demand for the prime minister’s resignation amid the current political wrangling and its legitimacy. <br /><br />Instead, the prime minister has been put on hold. He is under a bond to resign no sooner than there is a consensus between major parties clearing the way for another national government. The consensus seems to be elusive because all the considerations that are involved in the negotiations are not on the table. For the purpose of the ongoing transition, it hardly matters whether the UCPN (Maoist) runs the government or one of the present coalition partners, or the government of Madhav Kumar Nepal, with or without any reshuffle. <br /><br />The major issue is whether there is a guarantee that that Constituent Assembly is going to produce a “democratic” constitution based on civilised parameters, and whether such a constitution is designed to protect Nepal’s independence and its national interest. This concern must not be evaded in the process. Yet, that is not the concern anymore.<br /><br />The term of the CA has been extended for one additional year without really putting this issue on the table, and making it a significant item on the agenda. There was not even a debate whether it needs a one-year extension, or a three-month or six-month extension. While the Maoists did not have any particular proposal, the Nepali Congress had proposed only a six-month extension. The fact, however, remains that even the government had no position in this matter. When CA Chairperson Subas C. Nembang strongly pressured the prime minister to lodge the constitutional amendment bill by May 16, the government agreed to do it. The move was intended to allow sufficient time for in-house procedures, should there be a decision to extend the life of the CA, based on any forthcoming consensus between the parties. The one-year extension was just the proposition of the legal draftsmen who worked on the draft bill, knowing that there could be pressure to reduce the term. Not even the UML had cleared it as proposed. <br /><br />Be that as it may, there is no controversy that CPN-UML leader K.P. Oli (acting on behalf of the coalition partners) had agreed to the resignation of the prime minister within five days at the time when the three-point understanding was signed between his party, the Maoists and the Nepali Congress at midnight of May 28. Unprincipled though it was to sign such an indenture without sorting out the crucial issues of divergence between the present coalition and the Maoists, it is the truth that the resignation of the prime minister was negotiated in the same spirit in which the Maoist leaders have been claiming it now. There could be questions on whether an understanding on this particular issue should have been sought or not. But the attempt to back out from the understanding, so cleanly worked out, does not help the credibility of the political parties and their ability to bring changes. <br /><br />Quite the contrary, after some initial hesitation, the UML has now concluded that the prime minister does not have to quit unless the parties arrive at a consensus on implementation of past agreements on the peace process and constitution drafting. It was said that the first point of the three-point understanding, which is about implementing past agreements, and the third point on immediate resignation of the prime minister should be implemented simultaneously. Additionally, some UML and Nepali Congress leaders have said that there was no such understanding, and that there should be an agreement on integration of Maoist combatants, return of properties seized during the insurgency and dismantling of the paramilitary structure of the Young Communist League (YCL) before the prime minister resigns. Maybe these arguments have elements of truth, but the understanding signed between the major parties unconditionally states that the prime minister shall resign. No arguments can vitiate what has been written in black and white. <br /><br />It is not clear what loss the present coalition would suffer if the prime minister resigns as agreed. Such a resignation does not mean that the leader of the opposition is going to form a government at once. As long as the coalition is intact, the opposition cannot make any dent in the current balance of power. Rather, such a resignation would fulfill the main Maoist demand at the moment. It would then be their turn to implement what they had agreed on through the three-point understanding. Such an arrangement would allow the government to continue as a “caretaker” and also create the political environment for forward progress. <br /><br />A caretaker government can continue performing the rudimentary duties of the state (including maintaining law and order and ensuring that its machinery continues to function so that the day-to-day task of administration can be carried out). It cannot remain in that capacity for more than a reasonable period. But this environment will help the major parties to work on compromise solutions. If the remaining part of the three-point understanding is not honestly implemented, the government can always activate the constitutional process and reclaim its lost status as a full-fledged government. It is not clear why this straight constitutional way out is being ignored by the government and its coalition partners.Nepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-10780097191116991362010-05-25T10:57:00.000-07:002010-05-25T11:01:51.891-07:00D-Day minus four<strong>Bipin Adhikari</strong><br /><br />http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/05/23/oped/d-day-minus-four/208611/<br /><br /><strong>MAY 23 - May 28 is quite close. The long awaited day when the new constitution of Nepal was expected to be promulgated is about to pass without any constitution being adopted and promulgated. This is not a serious concern at the moment though. The serious concern is that even the Constituent Assembly is going to expire on May 28 — leaving its unfinished business in the sands of history. </strong><br /><br />Lack of consensus between the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and the governing coalition is preventing the CA from even amending the constitution — extending its timeframe for another mutually agreed duration.<br /><br />While negotiations are going on between contending parties, the fear among the people as to the situation that will unfold after May 28 is not baseless. After this day, the CA and all decision making structures within the assembly will cease to exist. The country’s legislature, which has been conceived as the tail, cannot continue to exist in the absence of the head — the CA. A scenario where the legislature has already disappeared will create several constitutional hiccups including in the system of validating the national budget, passing the Appropriation Act and raising taxes and approving expenditures. <br /><br />The constitutional functionaries will gradually become defunct in the absence of appointing and monitoring bodies including the Constitutional Council. The government of the day, in the absence of a functioning legislature, will automatically become a “caretaker’ government”— not supposed to take major decisions affecting public policies. The president, who is supposed to continue till a new constitution is promulgated, will be under pressure of the constitutional vacuum that comes to exist in the country. Although the constitution will continue to operate, its status will change to that of a lame duck.<br /><br />There are some leaders who have spoken of general elections for a new mandate from the people after May 28. Unfortunately, the Interim Constitution does not provide for any such election. It never conceived of the failure of the CA to deliver a new constitution and end the transitional arrangement with a full fledged constitutional system. It simply does not authorize any general elections, even as an exceptional or emergency arrangement. Should it be pursued any further, the Constitution must be amended before May 28 created enabling provisions. This is not going to happen so easily. Had it been easier to strike a compromise between the ruling coalition and the Maoist opposition, thereby creating a two-thirds majority in the house, such a problem would never have come up. Apparently, the transition has come to a dead end.<br /><br />In such a situation, as has happened all through these years ever since 2002, the politicians, either as a consensual force or as a partisan group, will prevail over the fate of the nation and the concept of the rule of law in whatever amount it still survives. Again, Article 158 (the power to remove difficulties) will be invoked. If not, some lawyers will not hesitate to advise the government to declare a state of emergency before the May 28 deadline, and then subsequently extend the tenure of the house for six months by a resolution. The media has already reported a couple of opinions that the “constitutional crisis” itself is enough grounds for imposition of a national emergency. Although this concept will be difficult to sell to a court of law, under Article 143 of the Constitution, there are apparently many politicians around who would be happy with that interpretation. Even if one of these two options is tried, the nerve of the knowledgeable politicians will go down when they find that both these options need the approval of the legislature no sooner than the euphoria it creates dies down. <br /><br />Additionally, there is also loose talk in town that the CA will continue to exist even after May 28; but in that case, it will remain inoperative until a mutually agreed arrangement is in place, and the Interim Constitution is amended to give effect to them. People championing this way out should perhaps think why Article 64 states that the tenure of the CA is two years. This is complete nonsense. <br /><br />What this situation means to the political scenario is then very clear. The logic of rebellion will be invoked once again. Several rounds of decisions will again be made, keeping the people off from the political process. Most of these decisions will affect the quality of governance and the national interest of this poor country. Since it has happened in the past in a way that has surprised most serious people, there is no reason to believe that it will not be repeated. <br /><br />This unfortunate situation must not come. It will not help anybody including the Maoists. In a way, democracy and the rule of law is much more necessary to a rebellious force of the country than others playing safe politics. All civic arrangements are doomed to fail if democracy is not the destiny of political groups. From a human and historical vantage point, Maoist people’s wars have been disasters everywhere. There is no reason why this disaster should continue to haunt the people of Nepal. <br /><br />The ongoing warlike situation is due to the limited ability to fight a war. As far as the issue of integration of the combatants is concerned, this should be the responsibility of the state to be exercised in a way that furthers the prospects of peace and easy democratic landing for the Maoists. Of course, their claim to the leadership of the national government, if that comes through, should be promptly taken positively. There should, however, be a guarantee that democracy (in the civilized Western parameters) should not be tampered with when drafting the new constitution. The fight is over with this.<br /><br />It is said that the Anglo-Zanzibar war of 1896 was fought for only 45 minutes. It holds the record of being the shortest war in the recorded history of the world, yet it achieved its objective. A change of strategy can help the Constitution be amended within the next four days leading to the least dangerous exit point for the remaining constitution writing job. The rest is decided in a democracy by the people, who hardly join the streets.Nepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-73329796557531880832010-05-06T10:02:00.000-07:002010-05-06T10:09:22.261-07:00"Mauled by the mob" -<strong>Building on his theme of clash of civilisations, Huntington wrote that current global politics should be understood as the result of deep-seated conflicts between great cultures and religions of the world. The unifying drive for order that had been at the center of Huntington’s analysis of the cold war now gave way to a dark vision of a world irreconcilably divided along radically different civilisations with fundamentally divergent values — more specifically those of the secular West and the Islamic world. For many, this perspective created a context for that conflict. All other issues fell in the margins. His thesis acquired something like a prophetic authority. Yet, the cold war has not gone even though Huntington is no more to see it through his Eurocentric prism. It is not cultures that are at loggerheads here. It is the determination of the people to practice democracy that is being assailed.</strong><br /><br /><strong>KATHMANDU, MAY 05, 2010 <br />Bipin Adhikari</strong><br /><br />Back to April 24, 2006 — the date has historical importance. If an unruly mass of people, ignoring the rule of law and the constitution, can force the reinstatement of the parliament which had long been dissolved, can’t a similar protest pull the government down when it is not possible to do so from within parliament? After all, if the rule of law, or the constitution for that matter, can be compromised for the Seven-Party Alliance (SPA), why cannot it be compromised for the UCPN (Maoist)? The problem is old although the example is new. <br /><br />When the Maoist demonstrators were passing by Setopul towards Old Baneshwor yesterday, the slogan they were chanting was “Yaspaliko haija Makune lai laija” (may the cholera epidemic this year take away Madhav Kumar Nepal for good (and, consequently, create space for the Maoists). <br /><br />As it happens in this poor country, whenever there is an outbreak of cholera, it does not just claim the life of one such individual; but hundreds. Whether it is cholera or Nepal “closure” — the effect is the same on the common people. Yet, that did not matter to the people in the Maoist march-past. In order to pull down the prime minister, they have almost paralysed the whole country and made the life of the common people miserable. The claim is that no matter what the constitution says, the Maoists must be allowed to form a national government and draft a constitution that promotes their line of thought. The ground for such a claim is that they can garner the support of a few thousand people against the lawful government and demonstrate in the city in frightening ways. <br /><br />Both the claim and the grounds are bizarre in a culture that supports the rule of law and constitutional democracy. Harvard political theorist Samuel Huntington, who passed away in December 2008, was crucial in helping shape modern views on so many important issues of the last five decades or so including civilian-military relations, political development, comparative government and what he described as the global clash of cultures in his famous 1996 book. It is strange that this type of phenomenon did not come to his analysis. <br /><br />Building on his theme of clash of civilisations, Huntington wrote that current global politics should be understood as the result of deep-seated conflicts between great cultures and religions of the world. The unifying drive for order that had been at the center of Huntington’s analysis of the cold war now gave way to a dark vision of a world irreconcilably divided along radically different civilisations with fundamentally divergent values — more specifically those of the secular West and the Islamic world. For many, this perspective created a context for that conflict. All other issues fell in the margins. His thesis acquired something like a prophetic authority.<br /><br />Yet, the cold war has not gone even though Huntington is no more to see it through his Eurocentric prism. It is not cultures that are at loggerheads here. It is the determination of the people to practice democracy that is being assailed. Nepal is still a parliamentary democracy in which the government (the executive) must be supported, or at least tolerated, by parliament, if it is to sustain. By definition, then, a government must remain tolerated by an absolute majority (50 + 1 percent) of the members of parliament. If an absolute majority actively opposes a government (i.e., it is willing to vote to remove it from power), then it will have to resign. The Maoists have not been able to garner an absolute majority in parliament and move a no-confidence motion in order to pull the government down. Yet, they want to do it by methods which are not constitutional. <br /><br />Responding to the situation, a civil society group led by senior journalist Kanak Dixit issued a timely press release yesterday: “This general strike imposed by the UCPN (Maoist) is destroying the national economy even as millions of students are kept from attending school and college. The livelihoods of the peasantry have been affected countrywide. Those relying on daily wage labour to keep the family fed are confronted with a crisis. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of young adults have been trapped in a campaign based on violence and anarchy. We believe this attempt to take a society in transition towards confrontation can only increase the country’s vulnerability to foreign forces.”<br /><br />It categorically highlighted, “The Interim Constitution of Nepal is itself a document representing consensus and cooperation, and the Maoist party must seek response to its demands within the bounds of this document. We, therefore, appeal to the UCPN (Maoist) to end its general strike and return to the Legislative Parliament. As the largest party in the House, we urge the UCPN (Maoist) to re-engage in the task of constitution-writing. We also appeal to the Maoists to abide by the six-point understanding reached at the High Level Political Mechanism of the three largest parties.”<br /><br />There is little more to be said on the ongoing Maoist movement than that. But what is even more important on the part of civil society is the consistent determination to fight out planned lawlessness by forcing compliance with the basics of constitutional culture. The basic values should not be negotiable — no matter how the issues are approached and solutions crafted. Willingness to compromise on the basic values leads to disaster. <br /><br />In the discourse of democracy, whether it is the regime of King Gyanendra, G.P. Koirala or Madhav Kumar Nepal, civil society should remind everybody, thoroughly and consistently, that the country is governed by a written document, one that creates institutions of government and sets limits on what the government may do. The belief that the constitution is created by the citizenry, and that although it is not timeless, the understanding that until it is changed or revised, everybody is bound by it is the basic constitutional culture that has been wrecked in Nepal in recent years. <br /><br />The people must be required to go along with its ultimate results even though they are free to disagree with them. The failure to appreciate the creation of a constitutional culture is a serious oversight. Had it been in order, Nepal would not only have efficiently protected its basic democratic credentials, but also the sovereignty of its people and the political institutions. It would not have been possible for anybody to overrun the dignity of the common people. Instead, what has come to exist is what poet Matthew Arnold has written in his poem “Dover Beach”: <br /><br />“Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain; And we are here as on a darkling plain<br />Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,Where ignorant armies clash by night.”Nepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-62225683171246699352010-05-03T08:55:00.000-07:002010-05-03T09:02:38.053-07:00आगामी जेठ १४ मा संविधान जारी हुन नसके उत्पन्न हुने परिस्थिति र संवैधानिक निकास<strong>डा. विपिन अधिकारी<br /><br />प|mान्सेली राजनीतिज्ञ पियार जोसेफ प्रोधोालाई "अराजकवादका पिता" भनिन्थ्यो । उनलाई कानुन व्यवस्था वा सरकारमा विश्वास थिएन । उनी अतिवादी दृष्टिकोण राख्दथे । उनले एउटा बहुचर्चित किताब पनि लेखेका थिए । यसको नाम थियो 'द कन्फेसन्स् अफ अ रिभोल्युसनरी' - एउटा क्रान्तिकारीको साविति बयान । त्यो साविति बयानमा लेखिएको थियो - क्रान्तिलाई हिंसा, रक्तपात, लुटपिट र मारामारको अर्थमा प्रयोग गर्ने जमातले संसारलाई उाभो लगाउन सक्ने छैन । आफू अराजनकतावादी भए पनि त्यस्तो परिपाटीको उनी भत्र्सना गर्दथे । अठारौा शताब्दिका यी दार्शनिक तथा द्वन्द्वात्मक भौतिकवादका व्याख्याता कार्ल माक्र्स्का बीच पछि भनाभन भई एकअर्कासाग बोलचाल पनि बन्द भयो । मौलिक अधिकार तथा स्वतन्त्रताप्रति अतिवादी दृष्टिकोण राख्ने प्रोधोा तथा यसलाई वर्ग संघर्षको दृष्टिले प्रयोग गर्ने माक्र्स्का बीच मिलन बिन्दु पाउन गाह्रो थियो । समसामयिक विश्वमा एउटा गम्भीर तेस्रो धार पनि छ, त्यो हो - कानुन शासन, प्रजातन्त्र तथा संविधानवादलाई आत्मसात् गर्दै अगाडि बढ्ने धार । नेपालमा आज पनि यिनै मान्यताहरु बीच द्वन्द्व छ । शान्ति प्रक्रिया गाह्रो हुादै गएको कारण पनि यही हो । </strong><br /><br />संविधान जारी गर्न अब केवल २८ दिनमात्र बााकी छ । समाधान गर्नुपर्ने राजनैतिक समस्याहरु धेरै छन् । तर त्यसतर्फ निरन्तर उत्साह देखिादैन । धेरै काम भएका पनि छन् । तर तिनलाई टुंग्याउन केही अझ मेहनत नगरी हुादैन । अहिलेको अवस्थामा समयको अभावलाई दृष्टिगत गर्दा अपेक्षा गरे बमोजिम संविधान जारी गराउने दुइवटा सरल विकल्प थिए । पहिलो, तथा राजनैतिक रुपमा धान्न सकिने विकल्प भनेको राजनीतिज्ञहरुले संविधानसभामा उपस्थित गम्भीर विषयहरु तत्काल छिनोफानो गरिदिएर एउटा भविष्यमुखी संक्षिप्त संरचनाको संविधान -प|mेमवर्क कन्स्िटट्युसन) मार्फत संविधानसभालाई सुखान्तसभामा परिणत गर्न सक्दथे । यसलाई मस्यौदा गर्न धेरै समय लाग्ने थिएन । यसबाट मुलुकलाई अगाडि बढ्न गहकिलो राजनैतिक पुाजी प्राप्त हुने थियो । दास्रो विकल्प -जुन धेरै जनताको नजरमा विवादास्पद छ) संविधानको प्रारम्भिक मस्यौदा छलफल तथा जनसहभागिताका लागि जनतासमक्ष ल्याएर धारा ४८ लाई संशोधन गरी संविधानसभाको कार्यावधि थप गर्दै वर्तमान विवादहरु समाधान गर्नेतर्फ उन्मुख हुने सम्भावना थियो । <br /><br />दुई वर्ष भित्रै संविधान निर्माण गर्ने कार्यादेश संशोधन गरी संविधानसभाको कार्यावधि बढाउने सकिने स्पष्ट संवैधानिक आधार अन्तरिम संविधानमा छैन । तथापि गुम्दै जान सक्ने संक्रमणकालको वैधतालाई स्थायित्व दिनका लागि संविधान संशोधन गरी संविधानसभाको कार्यावधि बढाउनु भन्दा सजिलो अर्को उपाय अब सम्भव नै छैन । पहिलो विकल्प अन्तर्गतको प्रक्रिया केही अगाडि नै सुरु गर्न सकेको भए यसले पूर्णता पाउन सक्थ्यो होला । तर अब त्यस प्रक्रिया अन्तर्गत पनि संविधानको पहिलो मस्यौदा लिई जनतामा जान तथा छलफल गर्न मुनासिब समय उपलब्ध छैन । तर विवादास्पद रुपमै भए पनि दोस्रो विकल्पको सान्दर्भिकता अझै पनि हुनसक्छ । <br /><br />तेस्रो विकल्प भनेको पहिलो तथा दोस्रो विकल्पतर्फ नगइ संकटकालीन स्थितिको घोषणा गरी संविधानको धारा ६४ बमोजिम यसको आयु ६ महिनाका लागि थप गर्ने हो । यो विकल्प नेपालको सार्वभौमसत्ता, अखण्डता वा कुनै भागको सुरक्षामा युद्ध, बाहृय आक्रमण, सशस्त्र विद्रोह वा चरम आर्थिक विश्रृंखलताको कारणले गम्भीर संकट उत्पन्न भएको अवस्थामा मात्र प्रयोग गर्न सकिन्छ । मन्त्रिपरिषद्को सिफारिसमा राष्ट्रपतिले संकटकालीन अवस्थाको घोषणा गर्न सक्ने भए तापनि त्यस्तो घोषणालाई संविधानसभाको दुई तिहाईको स्पष्ट समर्थन नभए एक महिनापछि स्वतः निष्कृय हुन्छ । संकटकालको स्थिति नै नभई संकटकाल लगाउनु संविधान निर्माणका हकमा वैध विकल्प हुन सक्दैन । <br /><br />तर पनि यदि उपरोक्त दोस्रो वा तेस्रो विकल्प अनुसार नै अगाडि बढ्ने राजनैतिक सहमति भए पनि यी दुवै प्रक्रिया सफल बनाउने सााचो संविधानसभाको सबैभन्दा ठुलो, तर हाल प्रतिपक्षको हैसियतमा भएको दल एकीकृत नेकपा माओवादीको हातमा छ । यसका लागि संविधानसभामा चाहिने दुईतिहाइ बहुमत उनीहरुको समर्थन विना पुग्दैन । तर माओवादीले धेरै पटक स्पष्ट गरिसकेको छ - राष्ट्रिय सरकारको संरचना अन्तर्गत आफू वर्तमान संक्रमणकालमा चालकको स्थानमा बस्न नपाउने हो भने निकास खोज्ने कुरामा उसलाई खास अभिरुचि छैन । उता माओवादीलाई यस अनुरुप सत्ता जिम्मा लगाएर भए पनि संविधान बनाउने कुरामा बााकी दलहरु सहमत हुन सकेको देखिादैन । यसै परिस्थितिमा मुलुक विभिन्न राजनैतिक आधारमा धु्रवीकरण हुादैछ । वैशाख १८ बाट सुरु भएको माओवादी आन्दोलन यसै परिप्रेक्ष्यमा आएको छ । <br /><br />नयाा संविधान पनि जारी नहुने वा वर्तमान अन्तरिम संविधान पनि संशोधन नहुने जेठ १४ पछिको अवस्थामा प्रतिनिधिसभाबाट जारी गरिएको नेपालको अन्तरिम संविधान, २०६३ का निम्न संवैधानिक व्यवस्थाहरुले संवैधानिक परिस्थितिलाई स्पष्ट पार्दछन्ः<br /><br />धारा ६४ संविधानसभाको कार्यकालः संविधानसभाले प्रस्ताव गरी अगावै विघटन गरेकोमा बाहेक संविधानसभाको कार्यकाल संविधानसभाको पहिलो बैठक बसेको मितिले दुई वर्षसम्मको हुनेछ । तर मुलुकमा संकटकालीन स्थितिको घोषणा भएको कारणले संविधान निर्माण गर्ने कार्य पुरा हुन नसकेमा संविधानसभाले प्रस्ताव पारित गरी संविधानसभाको कार्यकाल थप छ महिनासम्म बढाउन सक्नेछ । <br /><br />धारा ८२ संविधानसभाको विघटनः संविधानसभाले पारित गरेको संविधान प्रारम्भ भएको दिनदेखि संविधानसभाको काम समाप्त हुनेछ । तर, संविधानसभाले पारित गरेको संविधानबमोजिम व्यवस्थापिका संसद्को निर्वाचन नभएसम्मका लागि व्यवस्थापिका संसद्को काम, कारबाही सो सभाले पारित गरेको संविधानमा उल्लेख भएबमोजिम हुनेछ । <br /><br />धारा ८३ व्यवस्थापिका संसद्को हैसियतमा काम गर्ने ः खण्ड -१) यस भागमा अन्यत्र जुनसुकै कुरा लेखिएको भए तापनि संविधानसभा कायम रहेको अवधिभर सो सभाले व्यवस्थापिका संसद्को काम समेत गर्ने छ र नियमित विधायनसम्बन्धी कार्य सम्पादन गर्न संविधानसभाले छुट्टै समिति गठन गर्न सक्नेछ । <br /><br />धारा १५७ जनमत संग्रहबाट निर्णय गर्न सकिने ः -१) यस संविधानमा अन्यत्र व्यवस्था भएकोमा बाहेक राष्ट्रिय महत्वको कुनै विषयमा जनमत संग्रहबाट निर्णय गर्न आवश्यक छ भनी संविधानसभाले तत्काल कायम रहेका सम्पूर्ण सदस्यहरुको दुई तिहाई सदस्यको बहुमतबाट निर्णय गरेमा त्यस्तो विषयमा जनमत संग्रहबाट निर्णय लिन सकिने छ । -२) उपधारा -१) बमोजिमको प्रक्रियाबाट निर्णय लिइने कार्यविधि कानुनद्वारा निर्धारण भएबमोजिम हुनेछ । <br /><br />धारा १५८ बाधा अड्काउ फुकाउने अधिकारः यो संविधानको कार्यान्वयन गर्न कुनै बाधा अड्काउ परेमा राष्ट्रपतिले मन्त्रिपरिषद्को सिफारिसमा त्यस्तो वाधा अड्काउ फुकाउन आदेश जारी गर्न सक्नेछ र यस्तो आदेश व्यवस्थापिका संसद् ... ... ... ... एक महिनाभित्र अनुमोदन गराउनु पर्नेछ । <br /><br />धारा ३६ -ग) राष्ट्रपतिको पदावधिः राष्ट्रपतिको पदावधि संविधानसभाबाट जारी हुने संविधान प्रारम्भ नभएसम्मका लागि हुनेछ । <br /><br />उपरोक्त प्रावधानहरु समेतले निम्न परिस्थितिहरुको सृजना गर्नेछन्ः<br /><br />O जेठ १४ गते पछि संविधानसभा यसभित्रका विषयगत समिति, प्रक्रियागत समितिहरु लगायत सबै संयन्त्रहरु निष्कृय हुनेछन् । संविधान निर्माण गर्ने यसको वैधानिक हैसियत समाप्त हुने छ । <br /><br />O संविधान बनेका अवस्थामा मात्र संविधानसभाको व्यवस्थापिका संसद्को हैसियतले निरन्तरता पाउने अन्तरिम संविधानमा उल्लेख गरिएकाले व्यवस्थापिका संसद् पनि कायम रहने छैन । <br /><br />O मुलुकको व्यवस्थापिका संसद् निष्कृय भए पनि वैधानिक सरकार कायम रहने छ । तर यसको हैसियत संसद् विघटन भइसकेको अवस्थामा रहेको संसदीय सरकारको जस्तो कामचलाउ वा केयरटेकरको जस्तो हुनेछ । यसको मुलुकका बारेमा महत्वपूर्ण निर्णयहरु गर्न सक्ने एकल वैधानिक हैसियत कायम रहने छैन । <br /><br />O संविधानको धारा ३६ -ग) बमोजिम राष्ट्रपतिको पदावधि संविधानसभाबाट जारी हुने संविधान प्रारम्भ नभएसम्म लागु हुने भनिएकाले अर्को संविधान नआएसम्म राष्ट्रपति कायम रहने छन् । तर निजलाई निर्वाचित गर्ने व्यवस्थापिका संसद् नहुादाको अवस्थाले राष्ट्रपतिलाई समेत प्रभावित गर्नेछ । <br /><br />O उपरोक्त संवैधानिक शुन्यताको परिस्थितिमा जनमत संग्रहबाट निकास खोज्न पनि सम्भव हुने छैन । किनकी त्यस्तो निर्णय व्यवस्थापिका संसद्ले नै अनुमोदन गर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ । <br /><br />O त्यसैगरी बाधा अड्काउ फुकाउने राष्ट्रपतिको अधिकार काम चलाउ सरकारको सिफारिसमा प्रयोग हुन सक्ने भए तापनि यसलाई एक महिनाभित्र व्यवस्थापिका संसद्बाट अनुमोदन गराउनु पर्ने भएको हुादा यो बाटोको पनि वैध संवैधानिक प्रयोग सम्भव हुने छैन । <br /><br />O यी सबै अप्ठ्याराहरु माझ अन्तरिम संविधान कायमै रहनेछ । तर जेठ १४ पछि संकटकालीन अधिकारको घोषणा वैध रुपमा १ महिनाभन्दा बढी गर्न सकिने छैन । किनकी यो मन्त्रिपरिषद्को सिफारिसमा राष्ट्रपतिले गर्न सक्ने भए पनि संविधानसभा अस्तित्वमा नरहने भएको हुादा १ महिनाभित्र व्यवस्थ्ापिका संसद्को बैठकमा पेस गर्न यहाा पनि सम्भव हुने छैन । यसको अभावमा त्यस्तो घोषणा १ महिना पछि स्वतः रद्द हुने छ । <br /><br />O यस्तो परिस्थितिको एउटै टड्कारो निष्कर्ष छ । संविधानसभाको कार्यावधि समाप्त हुनासाथ मुलुक अब दुई वर्ष अघिदेखिको यथास्थितिमा रहने छैन । संविधान बनाउनका लागि चैत्र २०६४ को निर्वाचनले अहिलेका संविधानसभालाई दिएको कार्यादेश फिर्ता हुनेछ । नयाा संविधान पनि जारी भएन तथा संविधानसभाको कार्यावधि पनि संशोधन भएन भने अगाडि कसरी बढ्ने भन्ने सम्बन्धमा संविधान स्पष्ट छैन । दुविधा भएको अवस्थामा सर्वोच्च अदालतबाट राय माग्ने संवैधानिक परम्पराको वर्तमान संविधानले अन्त्य गरिसकेको छ । अर्को शब्दमा यी सबै यथार्थहरुले संवैधानिक संयन्त्र असफल भएको पुष्टि हुनेछ । त्यस्तो परिस्थितिमा अहिलेको शक्ति सन्तुलनका घटकहरुले चाहे पनि नचाहे पनि अवरुद्ध भएको संवैधानिक संयन्त्रलाई सहज बनाउन नयाा कार्यादेशका लागि अर्को आमचुनाव गराउनुको विकल्प छैन । यो बाटोका राजनैतिक जोखिमहरु प्रशस्त छन् । तर त्यस्तो चुनाव पनि संविधान संशोधन नगरी सम्भव हुने छैन । वैध रुपमा कुनै निकास निस्कन नसक्ने यो परिस्थितिले स्पष्ट रुपमा मुलुकमा संवैधानिक संकटको पुनः सुरुवात हुने देखिन्छ । <br /><br />उपरोक्त संवैधानिक संकट -कन्स्िटट्युसनल क्राइसिस) सागै मुलुकले आन्तरिक सुरक्षा चुनौतीहरुको पनि सामना गर्नुपर्ने अवस्था कसैबाट लुकेको छैन । राजनैतिक स्तरमा कतिपय आम सञ्चार माध्यम वा जनसहभागिताका लागि आयोजित कार्यक्रमहरुमा अतिवादी दृष्टिकोणहरु देखिादै आएका छन् । हाल सुरु हुन गइरहेको एनेकपा माओवादीको आन्दोलन स्थगित भएन भने यसले राजनैतिक धु्रवीकरणको प्रक्रियालाई अझ बल पुर्याउने छ । खासगरी सर्वसाधारणलाई अत्याउने खालका गतिविधिबाटै अन्ततः हतियारको प्रयोगसम्मको स्थितिको सुत्रपात हुने हुन्छ । त्यसैले जेठ १४ पछिको परिस्थितिमा आउन सक्ने शान्तिसुरक्षा सम्बन्धी चुनौतीका लागि सुरक्षा संयन्त्रलाई तयार राख्नुपर्ने हुन्छ । कुरा केवल सुरक्षा स्रोतहरुको परिचालनको मात्र होइन । खानेपानी, खाद्यान्न, ओखतीमुलो, तेलआपूर्ति तथा सार्वजनिक आवागमनलाई सुचारु राख्नु सरकारको ठुलो जिम्मेवारी हुनेछ । व्यवस्थापिका संसद् नरहेको स्थितिमा कुनै पनि सरकारले संकटको सामना गर्दा आफूलाई संवैधानिक परिधिभित्र सीमित हुन गाह्रो हुने यथार्थ यसै पनि प्रष्ट नै छ । <br /><br />सरकार परिवर्तनका लागि यहाा सुरु हुादै गएको एनेकपा माओवादीकको आन्दोलनको वैधानिक आधार संविधानसभा अन्तर्गत रहेर 'कोअलिसन' बनाउने तथा अविश्वासको प्रस्ताव ल्याएर सरकार परिवर्तन गर्ने रहेको छैन । स्पष्ट रुपमा आन्दोलनका आधारमा खासगरी सुरक्षा चुनौतीका माध्यमबाट सरकारलाई घुाडा टेकाउने उद्देश्य आयोजकले नै स्पष्ट गरिसकेकाले यसमा थप आलोचना गर्नुपर्ने आवश्यकता छैन । उता वर्तमान सरकार तथा यसका घटकहरु यस पृष्ठभूमिमा सरकार बनाउन एनेकपा माओवादीलाई ठाउा छोड्न अनिच्छुक देखिन्छन् । यसका विभिन्न कारणहरु छन् । निस्सन्देह सबैभन्दा मुख्य कारण भनेको संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघीय मिसन -अनमिन) को सुपरीवेक्षणमा रहेका माओवादी लडाकुहरुको समायोजन तथा व्यवस्थापन अझ सम्म हुन नसक्नु तथा माओवादीको बहुमतमा आएका संविधानसभाका विषयगत समितिहरुको प्रतिवेदनमा निहित विभिन्न संवैधानिक विषयहरु हुन् । ती विषयहरुले माओवादी पार्टी मुलुकको प्रजातान्त्रिक भविष्य प्रति निष्ठावान् छैन कि भन्ने सोचाइ पनि देखा परेको छ । खासगरी सडकमा बल प्रदर्शन गरेरै भए पनि सरकार अपदस्थ गर्न सकिन्छ भन्ने मान्यताबाट नयाा संविधान आम सहमतिबाटै आए पनि यसले स्थापित गर्ने 'रुल्स अफ द गेम' बल प्रयोगको आधारमा मात्र हुने खतरा धेरैले स्पष्ट रुपमा देखेका छन् । <br /><br />यस्तो राजनैतिक परिस्थितिले राष्ट्रपतिलाई 'संवैधानिक' भएर बस्ने वातावरण दिने छैन । सहजकर्तामा राष्ट्रपतिको भूमिका स्वतः देखा पर्ने छ । संविधान संशोधन गरेर अगाडि बढ्दासम्म संवैधानिक राष्ट्रपति राजनीतिको दायरामा आउनु जरुरी हुन्थेन । तर परिस्थिति अब त्यति सहज हुने छैन । निश्चित रुपमा परिवर्तित सन्दर्भमा राष्ट्रपतिको जिम्मेवारी स्वतः बढ्ने छन् । त्यस्तै न काम चलाउ सरकार 'केयरटेकर' को रुपमा संवैधानिक प्रक्रियाबाट समस्याको समाधानतर्फ अघि बढ्न सक्नेछ न चुप लागेर बस्न नै यसलाई सम्भव हुनेछ । आफ्नो राजनैतिक हैसियत गुम्दै जाादा कामचलाउ सरकारले राष्ट्राध्यक्ष समेतको सहयोगमा अगाडि बढ्नुको विकल्प हुने छैन । निकास खोज्ने प्रक्रियामा सबै राजनैतिक दलहरुको सहभागिता पुनः आवश्यक हुनेछ । तर संवैधानिक शुन्यताको स्थितिमा निर्वाचन गराइ निर्वाचित सरकारको शपथ ग्रहण नगर्दासम्म तथा शपथ ग्रहण भइसकेपछि नयाा व्यवस्थापिका संसद्बाट संविधान संशोधन नहुन्जेलसम्म संवैधानिक दुष्चक्र आफ्नो जोखिम टाउकामा राखी घुमिरहने यथार्थ प्रष्ट देखिन्छ । राजनैतिक अकर्मण्यता तथा शक्ति सञ्चालनमा भएको अस्पष्टतालाई उपरोक्त व्यवस्थाले निकास दिन नसके समयको प्रवाहले राष्ट्रपति तथा मुलुकको कामचलाउ सरकारलाई पनि पछाडि घचेडिदिन सक्नेछ । <br /><br />जेठ १४ पछिको सन्दर्भमा मुलुकको आवश्यकता के हो तथा त्यस्तो आवश्यकता कसरी पूर्ति गर्ने भन्ने सम्बन्धमासबै राजनैतिक समुह बीच मतैक्यता गर्न ढिलाइ गर्नु अब प्रत्युत्पादक हुन्छ । अत्याधिक अस्थिरताका कारण वा प्रजातान्त्रिक प्रक्रियाले निकास दिन नसक्दा गत दुई शताब्दिमा संसारभरि अधिनायकवादी व्यवस्थाहरु जसरी च्याउ उमे्रजस्तो उमि्रन पुगे । त्यो बुझिआएकै कुरा हो । संसारमा तानाशाहहरुको विभिन्न रुपहरु छन् । हरेक तानाशाह आˆनो समयको उपज हुन्छ । अचानक तानाशाहको जन्म हुादैन । त्यसको आवश्यकता गहिरोसाग सृजना हुादै गएको हुन्छ तथा वैध शक्तिको कमीकमजोरीहरुबाट सृजित भएको हुन सक्छ । यो कथा केवल युरोपमा देखा परेको फाासीवादी वा साम्यवादी अधिनायकवादको मात्र होइन । एसिया तथा ल्याटिन अमेरिकी मुलुकहरुले भोगेको सैनिक तथा आदर्शवादी तानाशाही व्यवस्थाबाट पनि बुझ्न सकिन्छ ।सुरुमा सैद्धान्तिक रुपमा को कुन कित्तामा उभिएको थिए भन्ने विषय कालान्तरमा गौण भएकै हो । सबैजसो अधिनायकवाद अस्थिरताको फाइदा उठाउादै आएका व्यक्तिहरुबाट लादिएको इतिहासले देखाउाछ । बर्मादेखि अफगानिस्तानसम्म तथा चीनदेखि श्रीलंकासम्म अधिनायकवादी शासनको उत्थान र पतन देखिआएकै कुरा हो । मुलुकलाई यो सम्भावनाबाट बचाउनु आजका सबै राजनैतिक शक्तिहरुको जिम्मेवारी हो । <br /><br />यो मुलुकको क्षमता र सामथ्र्य तथा आˆनो योग्यतालाई बुझ्ने प्रयास नै नगरी भइरहेको नेपालको परिवर्तन निस्सन्देह एउटा कठिन मोडमा आएको छ । तर सम्भावनाको कुरा गर्दा सबैभन्दा सहज तथा सरल उपाय भनेको अहिले पनि राष्ट्रिय सहमति तथा सहकार्य नै हो । अराजकतावाद सभ्य समाजको आधार हुन सक्दैन । त्यस्तै केवल वर्ग संघर्षको दृष्टिकोणले मात्र हेरियो भने प्रजातान्त्रिक मूल्य मान्यताहरु कहिल्यै पनि स्थापित हुन सक्ने छैनन् । <br /><br />मुलकमा जानेर वा नजानेर भइरहेका परिवर्तनहरुलाई प्रजातन्त्र तथा राष्ट्रवादतर्फ मोड्नका लागि वर्तमान सरकारले एनेकपा माओवादीसाग भएको बृहत शान्ति सम्झौता तथा अन्तरिम संविधान तथा एनेकपा माओवादीले संवैधानिक प्रजातन्त्र तथा मानव अधिकारतर्फ आफ्नो प्रतिबद्धतालाई प्रष्ट गर्ने हो भने नेतृत्व हस्तान्तरणको कुरा समस्याका रुपमा हेरिनु हुादैन । खासगरी विगत दुई वर्षको अनुभवका आधारमा माओवादीबाट पुरा हुन नसकेका प्रतिबद्धताहरुका सम्बन्धमा पुनः सम्झौता गरी सबैभन्दा ठुलो पार्टीका रुपमा माओवादीलाई सरकार चलाउने अवसर तथा संविधानसभालाई सुखान्तमा परिणत गराउने राजनैतिक जिम्मेवारी दिन सकिन्छ । निश्चित रुपमा प्रजातन्त्रवादीहरु माओवादीको प्रतिपक्षविहीन शासकीय स्वरुप, जातीय संघीयता तथा संसद्मुखी न्यायपालिकाको अवधारणा प्रति सन्देह राख्दछन् । त्यस्तै राष्ट्रिय सहमति बमोजिम नै लडाकुहरुको व्यवस्थापन हुनुपर्ने विषयमा पनि माओवादीहरु संवेदनशील हुनु जरुरी छ । अहिलेको समय भनेको त्यस्ता सन्देह तथा त्यसका आधारहरुको छिनोफानो गर्ने समय हो । त्यो हुन सकेमा संविधानसभाको बााकी अवधिका लागि माओवादीको नेतृत्व प्रति कसैको गुनासो रहने छैन । माओवादीहरुको सहभागिताले संविधानसभालाई संवैधानिक निकास सहित वैध रुपमा अगाडि बढ्न बल पुग्ने छ । वर्तमान संक्रमणकालको अन्त्य सकारात्मक रुपमा गर्नका लागि यस विकल्पको चुनौतीहरु पनि छन् । त्यसलाई अहिले नै बुझी टुंगो लगाउनु पर्ने हुन्छ । <br /><br />डा. अधिकारी संविधानविद् हुन् । यो कार्यपत्र नेपाल कन्स्िटट्युसन फण्डेसनद्वारा २०६७ वैशाख १७ गते आयोजित कार्यक्रममा प्रस्तुत गरिएको थियो ।)Nepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-8839259311418414412010-04-09T08:18:00.000-07:002010-04-09T08:23:40.839-07:00Cards up his sleeve<strong>There must be an exit point for every political crisis if the country is to move ahead. The president, even though he was elected to be a constitutional president, cannot keep watching from the sidelines while the country is close to disaster.</strong><br /><br /><strong>BIPIN ADHIKARI</strong>http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/04/08/Oped/Cards-up-his-sleeve/207019/<br /><br />APR 08 - Recently, references in the media as to what the president needs to do if the Constituent Assembly (CA) is not able to deliver a new constitution by Friday, May 28, have become quite frequent. <br /><br />There is clear indication that a new democratic constitution by May 28 is unlikely. There are many issues which are yet to be resolved, but too little efforts to materialise them. Even the possibility of the Constituent Assembly coming up with a framework constitution, based on crucial compromises on important political and constitutional issues, leaving the details for the future, looks slim. <br /><br />The rest, including the (controversial) amendment of Article 64 of the Interim Constitution, to extend the tenure of the CA, and a new deadline, is at the mercy of UCPN (Maoist). Without its backing, the house cannot garner a two-third majority to pass any amendment bill. The Maoist party is aware of this, and as long as it is not in the driving seat, it thinks there is simply not enough incentive for it to gratify anybody. The road map, however, does not seem to have a signpost for the changeover. The limits of negotiation are no more secret.<br /><br />This status quo cannot continue after May 28. On May 29, the Constituent Assembly will cease to exist. All existing institutions based on the CA will also lose their constitutional status. The principles of revolutionary legality, pursued by the leaders of the Jana Andolan II, cannot possibly be resurrected as the revolutionary fervour has died down. Girija Prasad Koirala, who gave democratic face to the recent restructuring of Nepal, is also no more. It is natural for people, therefore, to look at the president and try to fathom what he will do as the last authority in the state hierarchy. <br /><br />Nobody wants the president to usurp the space for democratic politics. But any delay in properly assessing the situation might not help the democratic and nationalist aspirations of the common people. After all, those who know how dictators proliferated during the last two centuries in Europe, which witnessed the rise and fall of fascism and communism, but also in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where military as well as ideological dictators have emerged, understand that time and tide will not wait even for the president.<br /><br />Assumption of power by potential dictators in a volatile situation as now persists in the country is nothing new. Every dictator is a product of his time. It hardly comes on all of a sudden and out of the blue. The need is felt acutely, and somebody takes the lead and fills up the power vacuum. In fact, if one goes by history, words like ‘dictator’ and ‘tyrant’ hardly bore any negative connotations in the beginning. One can find many references, when the term ‘dictator’ was used to indicate a person taking over power for a limited time to deal with an emergency. Similarly, the word ‘tyrant’, which has no positive overtone anymore, was also a respectable Greek title for most of history. But the story does not stop there.<br /><br />The rise of all dictators including Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Ferdinand Marcos, Napoleon Bonaparte, Slobodan Milosevich, Muammar al Quaddafi, Josef Stalin, Leonid Brezhnev, Juan Perón, Manuel Noriega, Fulgencio Battista, Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, and many more epitomise the phenomena. There are dozens of examples to be found in Nepal’s neighbourhood of how dictatorships develop and are sustained — from Burma to Afghanistan, China to Sri Lanka. <br /><br />So long as the constitution is not amended, and the future direction is charted out through this process, the president of Nepal as a constitutional head of the state has little responsibility. However, the demise of the Constituent Assembly, by all means, leads to a constitutional crisis, which must be tackled in order to set the future course. The failure of the constitutional machinery, and the inability of the government to give a legitimate outlet to the nation, does not mean that the president should not come up with a contingency plan to minimise the risks to the country in this unfortunate situation. <br /><br />A strong component of such a contingency plan, no doubt, involves massive security arrangements to keep the situation under control, and ad hoc arrangements to allow further opportunities for the political forces to design a democratic exit strategy. This also involves a series of decisions about the peace process, and management of combatants in different cantonments under the supervision of the United Nations Mission in Nepal. There is no reason why the president should not take an initiative to start the consultation process. If it is too much for the president, then the political machinery must be able to convince the nation that it has both the capacity and willingness to deliver according to the letter and spirit of the constitution. <br /><br />There must be an exit point for every political crisis if the country is to move ahead. The president, even though he was elected to be a constitutional president, cannot keep watching from the sidelines while the country is close to disaster. <br /><br />In Nepal itself, the Licchavi King Amshuvarma (605-629 AD) is a great example. He took the throne when his father-in-law died, there was no heir apparent, and the situation was shaky. He married his daughter to Tibetan king Srong Chong Gampo and sister to king Samudragupta of Maurya dynasty of India, thus keeping Nepal safe from neighbourhood challenges. If the account of the famous Chinese traveller Huen Tsang is true, Amshuvarma was greatly helpful in maintaining the glory of his country. In the age of feudal relationships, there would not have been any better alternative to the situation.<br /><br />Similarly, Giuseppe Garibaldi, the Italian revolutionary of the 19th century, also proclaimed himself as an interlocutor during his famous Expedition of the Thousand. Garibaldi was not a popular choice. But this did not prevent him from being awfully popular in Italy and in the estimates of international public. <br /><br />The position of the president of Nepal is that of a constitutional president. (It is not a ceremonial position.) He is not supposed to have any independent power, but there is nothing in the constitution that bars him from facilitating the constitutional process as the head of the nation to find a democratic exit for the country.Nepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-54831106152355612262010-03-25T09:47:00.000-07:002010-03-25T09:54:45.697-07:00Unfinished business<strong>Koirala was crucial to taking away so many things from the people of Nepal; he was able to return none before his demise. One such debt that Koirala incurred but left without paying it off was a democratic constitution. The other was the pride of the Nepali people — their precious independence as a sovereign nation. </strong><br /><br /><strong>Bipin Adhikari<br />The Kathmandu Post<br />March 25, 2010<br /><br />http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/03/24/Oped/Unfinished-business/6523/</strong><br /><br />G. P. Koirala became history on March 20. A four-time prime minister, giving leadership to the country for almost eight years in that capacity, Koirala had been active in politics for the last six decades. From January 2007 to July 2008, he also had the honour of symbolising the nation as the acting head of the state. <br /><br />During the last 20 years, he had a pervasive presence in the politics of Nepal; and his role, whether he was leading the government or the opposition, had a decisive impact on the situation that Nepal was in all through these years. He was crucial to resolving the Maoist insurgency, affecting the quality of the liberal democratic movement in the country, bringing them into mainstream politics, abrogating the constitution of 1990, taking several strategic decisions affecting the country, establishing a new constitutent assembly and abolishing the monarchy. Koirala also gave leadership to the seven party alliance in signing the 12-point understanding with the Maoists in November 2005 (according to a peace plan facilitated by India).<br /><br />It is difficult for anybody to face the reality that Koirala is no more. He was the state at least in the perception of the Maoists. The (most visible) guardian of the peace process and the one who gave a democratic facade to the recent reshuffles in Nepal is out of the scene. There is no heir apparent, and no roadmap for the future. He was crucial to taking away so many things from the people of Nepal; he was able to return none before his demise. One such debt that Koirala incurred but left without paying it off was a democratic constitution. The other was the pride of the Nepali people — their precious independence as a sovereign nation. <br /><br />Nepal’s constitution of 1990 and the German constitution of the Weimar Republic of 1919 suffered a similar fate. They became the victim of insincere leaders and international forces playing foul on different pretexts. The constitution of the Weimar Republic also intended to institutionalise the parliamentary form of government, and establish the image of Germany as a democratic country leaving the imperial regime behind. It also emerged from the German revolution of November 1918, which expressed faith in liberal institutions. Unfortunately, the liberal democracy that it established eventually lapsed in the early 1930s, leading to the ascent of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and Adolf Hitler. <br /><br />The Weimar constitution (adopted in the city of Weimar) was also (when promulgated) described as the best constitution in the world. It provided, like the constitution of 1990, the required space for all the political forces of the day. Both had a very decent beginning and promises for the future. Both were accepted by the common people. Unfortunately, the Weimar constitution was thrown out because it could not give enough leverage to the aspirations of Adolf Hitler, and the 1990 constitution was thrown out because it allowed little foreign hand in Nepal’s politics. <br /><br />Moreover, it must be noted that the Weimar constitution was never officially repealed. The people were not prepared for this. It was attacked bit by bit, through a planned conspiracy. The legal measures taken by the Nazi government in early 1933, commonly known as “coordination” (gleichschaltung)meant that the government could legislate contrary to the constitution. Like the 1990 constitution of Nepal, it became irrelevant as time passed. The only major difference is that the next constitution was brought faster in Nepal than in Germany — but in both cases bringing major changes in the country in which the ordinary people had no say. The contexts of both the countries are different, and so the motivating factors and the tensions of cold war. But in Germany, Adolf Hitler was the main architect of this transition, and in Nepal, it was G.P. Koirala. <br /><br />Koirala had a long and cherished democratic history. He was a seasoned politician. He also had an important role in all the past mass movements in Nepal. His contribution to political and economic reform in Nepal in the 1990s is also laudable. His tall, soaring personality always appealed to the people. In daura suruwal and black cap, he had a very firm and noble look. Wearing spotless clothes and shining shoes, he was a clean person, up and moving all the time. He never allowed his personality to be soiled. Full of energy, nothing was impossible for Koirala. He was a man of action — and a man of the masses. His confidence always demonstrated how smart he was in his mental make-up. He did his work himself. The personal discipline that he maintained in his day-to-day life was remarkably outstanding. <br /><br />Koirala never spoke more than what would be necessary in a particular situation. He never promised anything that was not within his capacity to fulfil. He was gifted with unlimited patience to listen to others. He had an unusually high respect for women and children. He did not talk about money ever. He never kept a wallet either. He ate little, and lived with only what could be considered the bare necessities of life. He hated speculation. He was straight in his approach to politics. Above all, he endeavoured hard to implement what he had decided. These simple yet incredible aspects of his character and personality made him a tall human being. <br /><br />Yet, as a politician, Koirala had a problem in the basics. A political Koirala was a problematic Koirala. He talked of democracy only in relation to the king and himself — and not in relation to his cadres and himself. It had no meaning in his political life. His party the Nepali Congress always suffered his apathy to party conventions, free competition, internal elections and popular decision making. He believed in his coterie more than his cadres. The party was without intellectual leadership during these difficult years. He had neither a big head as a planner and campaigner, nor a big heart as a politician. Yet he prevailed everywhere.<br /><br />The peace process is faltering. The legacy that Koirala has left has no content of inspiration for anybody. The mood of the Constituent Assembly, and the political parties on the front line, hardly show that a new democratic constitution is about to be promulgated within the next two months. There are flaws in many documents that the assembly has produced. Koirala had no inputs for the constitution making, nor comments on the output of the house. He had little design options even as a party leader. <br /><br />Extremist forces are coming up. This country is being divided on regional, ethnic and communal lines. The capacity of the democratic forces to deal with these issues remains shattered. The most terrible part of the scenario, however, is that there is no direction for a change. <br /><br />The country is without leadership. Its nationalist ego is also being shattered. There are attempts to destabilise the national army as well. Had Koirala understood his own capacity and the capacity of this nation to go for revolutionary changes without hurting the values of the rule of law and the dictates of constitutionalism, this country would not have suffered this much. His poor leadership, personal ambitions and taking decisions upon the advice of foreign patrons are largely responsible for the poor state of democratic politics in this country. Koirala should have lived to face the mess that he created himself, and sort it out in a dignified way. Unfortunately, that option has also been taken away by God.Nepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-26512046583092904032010-03-12T07:36:00.000-08:002010-03-12T07:45:21.880-08:00Lessons from history<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVWQu7BLCpvSi55twNiEkMhPhfrPETxTTs-8wh4-93YWxBCUn8teudGZbBgVqhF2GauRiKDa5IC6XFRMWKE2PwAyKSjsm8KZmIg_hq5TMPaLEqYDE43PVoeHhzlkYmCWuAKx92OavYulw/s1600-h/12-March-2010_sworup_20100312083752.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVWQu7BLCpvSi55twNiEkMhPhfrPETxTTs-8wh4-93YWxBCUn8teudGZbBgVqhF2GauRiKDa5IC6XFRMWKE2PwAyKSjsm8KZmIg_hq5TMPaLEqYDE43PVoeHhzlkYmCWuAKx92OavYulw/s320/12-March-2010_sworup_20100312083752.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5447772806541236530" /></a> <strong>The Bolsheviks had only won a quarter of the seats in the elections to the Constituent Assembly (CA) in November 1917. They were shocked to see that the October Revolution they had forced on Russia one month before by overthrowing the provisional government had not been legitimised by the voters. So they proclaimed the newly elected assembly to be a “bourgeoisie” assembly – an assembly that had no regard for the Soviet government instituted by Lenin & Company.</strong> <br /><br />BIPIN ADHIKARI<br />The Kathmandu Post<br />March 12, 2010<br />http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/03/11/Oped/Lessons-from-history/6054/<br /><br />The Bolsheviks had only won a quarter of the seats in the elections to the Constituent Assembly (CA) in November 1917. They were shocked to see that the October Revolution they had forced on Russia one month before by overthrowing the provisional government had not been legitimised by the voters. So they proclaimed the newly elected assembly to be a “bourgeoisie” assembly – an assembly that had no regard for the Soviet government instituted by Lenin & Company. <br /><br />When the newly elected assembly refused to support the programme of the new Soviet government, the Bolsheviks walked out in protest, and later dissolved the house. For Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the revolution and the Soviet government, the elected house was an obstacle to the Soviet government. His ambitions were further unfolding. Many years after Lenin’s death, British statesman Winston Churchill had a comment on the fate of Russia, “The Russian people were left floundering in the bog. Their worst misfortune was his birth… their next worst his death.”<br /><br />This is not a story of the Bolsheviks only. The history of constitution making is replete with revolutions misled and new constitutions backfiring upon the people. A few successful examples like the United States (1787), India (1950), South Africa (1996) and others are the best part of the discourse. However, many revolutions produced very good literature for posterity, but either very bad constitutions or the worst governments for the suffering people. <br /><br />The French Assemblée nationale constituante of 1789 is a case in point. It produced a constitution in 1791 after surviving the vicissitudes of a revolutionary two years, but led the country to prolonged instability. That came to an end only after adopting the constitution of the Fifth Republic in 1958. It was drafted by Gaullist politician Michael Debré, and not by any Constituent Assembly. It was indeed the 17th constitution of France. <br /><br />General Charles de Gaulle, World War II fighter and founder of the Fifth Republic, commented very frankly that a country which had 246 varieties of cheese cannot just be governed by uniform standards. He said, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.” As president, Charles de Gaulle ended the political chaos that preceded his return to power. But France is still struggling to eliminate the imprints of authoritarianism in the system of government that has a strong historical legacy. <br /><br />Nepal remains misled while the Constituent Assembly is faltering. It should have been seen working with nervous energy, and fixing the first comprehensive draft of the constitution to bring it to the public any time now. This is not the case. The assembly has not even been able to match the pull and efficiency of Prime Minister Jung Bahadur Rana’s Kaushal Adda that codified the first national code of Nepal back in 1854. It was a representative body by the standards of his time, powerful and filled with experts which had the mandate for codifying any type of law or constitutional arrangement that they found Nepal had been observing as the rule of law. Above all, it was able to deliver what it was appointed for. The heartiness of the house and the euphoria that it created must be something the sovereign representatives of the present day Nepal find enlightening.<br /><br />The idea of a Constituent Assembly does not hold water where there is no faith in certain immutable principles that establish the basic human rights of the people and check democracy. The process loses sanctity in the absence of this basic commitment. One must be reminded of how the Constitutional Court of South Africa back in 1996 had turned down the draft constitution that the Constituent Assembly had proposed. There is little doubt that they followed a remarkable and exemplary process of constitution-making, signalling not only a formal transition from apartheid to constitutional democracy, but also a peaceful end to what had been a very violent struggle for a new form of governance. <br /><br />South Africans started drafting the constitution by first setting out 34 constitutional principles in the Interim Constitution. The Constitutional Court was given the responsibility to certify that the draft constitution was in conformity with these principles. This certification process ensured that the draft constitution met with the original basic principles that the opposing sides had agreed to before beginning constitutional negotiations. After the Constitutional Court identified the draft’s deficiencies, based on certain immutable principles of the rule of law and constitutionalism, the constitutional assembly reconvened and amended their original draft. This amended version was later certified by the court, and came into force in 1997.<br /><br />It is not just South Africa, but all civilised societies believe in what the South African CA re-established through its remarkable procedures. <strong>If Constitutional Committee (CC) Chairman Nilambar Acharya, going by the same principles, calls for clarity on 16 issues, it should not be politicised. The CC, which is entrusted with working out an integrated draft report that incorporates all the 11 preliminary drafts, has every right to bring these issues to the table because the committee can’t take its work ahead without resolving these contentious issues immediately. Many of the questions that Acharya has raised bring back the same issues whether the substantive limit on a political process related to the formulation of a constitution should be observed or not. </strong><br /><br />The Constituent Assembly has no right to fail. Its failure will not only raise a serious question on the ability and integrity of the present generation of leaders, but also on the faith that democracy delivers after all. The luxury has become an essence now. Whether by way of a framework constitution, as this critique proposed on the eve of the New Year in this column, or a comprehensive constitution, whatever that might mean, it must produce a document that ends the transition process, at least for now. The initiation of CA Chairman Subas Nembang and the Constitutional Committee chairman must continue (despite the Maoist concerns on the move).<br /><br />A Constituent Assembly that establishes representative democracy, but not the substantial aspects of constitutionalism, amounts to a total failure. This is the reason that people these days talk about “constitutional democracy” more than representative democracy. Certain basic principles of the rule of law and constitutionalism must be in place to establish “constitutional democracy”. It provides assurances that the end of politics – while unknown – can still be guided in a particular direction. This, of course, requires an effective enforcement mechanism.Nepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-7202148541027929552010-03-02T07:19:00.000-08:002010-03-02T07:23:34.620-08:00ँछिटो सक्न छोटो’ - दुर्गा खनालhttp://www.ekantipur.com/kantipur/news/news-detail.php?news_id=11973<br /><br />The Kantipur Daily, March 2, 2010<br /><br /><strong>काठमाडौ, फाल्गुन १७ - तोकिएकै समयमा संविधान जारी गर्न संविधानसभाका अध्यक्ष सुवास नेम्बाङले मुख्य मुद्दासहितको छोटो संविधान वा 'प्रक्रिया छोटयाउने' विकल्प अघि सारेका छन् । </strong>संविधान जारी गर्न तीन महिना मात्र बाँकी रहँदा विवाद नमिलेपछि दुईमध्ये एकमा राजनीतिक समझदारी नहुने हो भने जेठ १४ मा संविधान जारी हुन नसक्ने संकेत उनले गरेका हुन् ।<br /><br />छोटो संविधान 'बेल्जियम मोडेल' हो । बेल्जियममा प्रमुख विषयलाई उल्लेख गर्ने र लामो प्रक्रिया लाग्ने तथा प्राविधिक विषयलाई पछि मिलाउने गरी संविधान जारी भएको थियो । 'बेल्जियमको उदाहरण हामीले अपनाउन सक्छौं,' उनले सोमबार भने, 'मोटो कुरा राख्ने र मसिनो गृहकार्य गर्नुपर्ने विषय पछि मिलाउन सकिन्छ ।' बेल्जियमले संघात्मकतासम्बन्धी प्रावधान उल्लेख गरी त्यसका अन्य प्रक्रियाहरू पछि मिलाउने गरी संविधान जारी गरेको थियो । 'जेठ १४ भन्दा उपयुक्त समय अर्को छैन,' उनले भने, 'एउटा बाटो निकाल्नुपर्यो, यसका लागि पनि राजनीतिक दलको समझदारी आवश्यक छ ।' नेम्बाङले प्रमुख दलका बैठकमा पनि यी विकल्प प्रस्ताव गरेका छन् । तर दलहरूले यी प्रस्तावमा आफ्नो दृष्टिकोण दिएका छैनन् । 'यो विषयले दलका बैठकमा प्रवेश पाएको छ तर छलफल सुरु भएको छैन,' संविधानका विवाद मिलाउने अनौपचारिक संयन्त्रमा रहेका कांग्रेसका सभासद रमेश लेखकले भने, 'राजनीतिक सहमतिबेगर त्यो विकल्पमा जान सकिँदैन ।' <br /><br />एमालेका प्रमुख सचेतक भीम आचार्यले विकल्पबारे कुरा उठे पनि दलहरूले कुनै दृष्टिकोण तयार नगरेको जानकारी दिए । जटिल विषय भएकाले त्यसलाई छाडेर अघि जान नसकिने अवस्था रहेको उनले बताए ।<br /><br /><strong>उता संवैधानिक कानुनका जानकारहरूले बृहत् संविधान जारी गर्न असम्भव रहेको बताएका छन् । उनीहरूका अनुसार अध्यक्षले भनेजस्तै छोटो संविधान जारी गर्न सकिन्छ । 'तत्कालका लागि प|mेमवर्क संविधान जारी गर्न सकिन्छ, यसको अर्थ त्यो संविधान अपूरो हुन्छ भन्ने होइन,' संवैधानिक कानुनका जानकार अधिवक्ता डा. विपिन अधिकारीले भने, 'जसका निम्ति लामो बहस चाहिन्छ त्यसलाई पछि मिलाउने व्यवस्था गर्न सकिन्छ ।' उनका अनुसार अमेरिका, इन्डोनेसिया, ट्युनिसिया, कोसोभो, रुमानियालगायत मुलुकले यस्तो अभ्यास गरेका छन् । </strong><br />संवैधानिक कानुनका अर्का जानकार डा. भीमार्जुन आचार्य पनि समयमा संविधान जारी गर्नका लागि यस्तो विकल्प अपनाउन सकिने बताए । 'छोटो संविधान जारी गरेर कतिपय विषयलाई पछि मिलाउन सकिन्छ,' उनले भने 'तर यसका लागि राजनीतिक दलले जनतालाई पनि कन्भिन्स गर्न सक्नुपर्छ ।'<br /><br />यसरी जारी हुने संविधानमा शासकीय प्रणाली, शक्ति पृथकीकरण, मौलिक हक लगायत आधारभूत कुराहरूचाहिँ उल्लेख भएकै हुनुपर्ने अधिकारीले बताए । 'राज्य पुनःसंरचनाको सवालमा कतिवटा प्रदेश रहने भन्ने उल्लेख गरेर त्यसको अन्य प्राविधिक कुरा पछि गर्न सकिन्छ,' उनले भने, 'अन्य मुलुकमा यस्ता विषयमा धेरै समय लागेको उदाहरण छ ।'<br /><br />जेठ १४ मा संविधान जारी गर्नका लागि सबैभन्दा जटिल विषय पनि राज्य पुनःसंरचना हो । संविधानसभाको समितिले प्रस्ताव गरेको १४ प्रदेशको ढाँचामा अधिकांश दलको विमति <br /><br />छ । यसलाई राज्य पुनःसंरचना आयोगबाट टुंगो लगाउनुपर्ने माग उठिरहेको छ । यस्तो अवस्थामा राजनीतिक दलले चाहेर पनि यो प्राविधिक विषय तीन महिनाभित्र टुंग्याउने समय छैन । अध्यक्ष नेम्बाङको अर्को विकल्प 'प्रक्रिया छोटयाउने' हो । संविधान निर्माणको कार्यतालिकाअनुसार अघि बढ्ने हो भने अब जेठ १४ को समयसीमा ती प्रक्रिया पूरा गर्न नसकिने अवस्था छ । अझै धेरै प्रक्रिया बाँकी छन् । कार्यतालिकाअनुसार आगामी शुक्रबारसम्म संवैधानिक समितिले पहिलो एकीकृत मस्यौदा तयार गरिसक्नुपर्ने थियो ।<br /><br />तर पहिलो मस्यौदा त्यो समयमा तयार नहुने निश्चित छ । अघिल्लो पटक फेरि संशोधन गर्न नमिल्ने गरी कार्यतालिका परिमार्जन गरिएको थियो । त्यसैले अब प्रक्रिया छोटयाउनेबाहेकको विकल्प छैन । <br /><br />'प्रक्रिया छोटयाउने हो भने संविधानसभाभित्र विज्ञहरूको प्राविधिक समूह तत्काल बनाइहाल्नुपर्छ,' अधिवक्ता अधिकारी भन्छन्, 'त्यस्तो समूहले विषयगत समितिका प्रतिवेदनभित्र रहेर संविधानको खाका बनाउँछ र अहिले जारी गर्नुपर्ने र पछि मिलाउने विषय छुटयाइदिन सक्छ ।' प्रमुख राजनीतिक दलहरू संविधानका अन्तरवस्तुमा सहमत नहुँदा यस्ता विकल्प आएका हुन् । संविधान निर्माणका लागि १० वटा समितिमा रहेका विवादहरू अहिलेसम्म दलले मिलाउन सकेका छैनन् । गत मंसिरदेखि नै प्रमुख दलका नेताहरू छलफलमा बसिरहेका छन् । नियमित छलफलमा सहभागी एक नेताका अनुसार उनीहरूले आफ्ना पार्टीका अडान छोडेका छैनन् । 'सरकार बनाउने र सेना समायोजनलगायत विषयहरूलाई संविधान निर्माणसँग जोडदा विवाद जहाँको त्यहीं छन्,' ती नेता भन्छन् । संविधान जारी गर्ने अन्तिम समयमा हुने राजनीतिक लेनदेनलाई मध्यनजर गर्दै नेताहरू दलीय अडान छोड्दैनन् ।Nepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-10389443643722330372010-03-02T06:53:00.000-08:002010-03-02T07:03:40.127-08:00Writer's block March 2010<strong>By: Bipin Adhikari<br /><br />The hundred-day deadline has just passed for the promulgation of Nepal’s long-awaited new constitution. But there is little optimism that this date will be met.</strong><br /><br />[Source: http://www.himalmag.com/Writer-s-block_nw4320.html]<br /><br />Shortly after Madhav Kumar Nepal was elected chairman of the Constitutional Committee of the Constituent Assembly, in January 2009, he brought together some 25 Nepali lawyers for a meeting. As a consensus candidate agreed by the major political parties, he had been brought into the House as a nominated member to lead this committee, even though he had lost the election of April 2008 – and, therefore, access to the Assembly. After accepting the responsibility of leading the principal drafting body at the Constituent Assembly, the senior Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) leader – and current prime minister – wanted to meet with the constitutional lawyers to discuss how to move ahead with the technical aspects of the constitution-drafting work, the primary purpose of the Constituent Assembly. <br /><br />During the course of the meeting, he took the opportunity to discuss the process that had been followed thus far by the Constituent Assembly since it came into existence on 28 May 2008, as well as the process of drafting the statute and easing ongoing irritations. <strong>Some of the lawyers assembled were quick to explain how, in the history of constitution-making, some able individuals (such as James Madison or Alexander Hamilton in the US, or B N Rau or Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar in India) had been crucial to drafting the document, while involving others in the process. The immediate question from Chairperson Nepal, who is known for his simplicity, was “Tell me, jurists, from among all of you, or those in the Constituent Assembly, who could qualify to be James Madison or B N Rau for us?” Everybody smiled and looked at each other, but there was no answer. </strong><br /><br /><strong>Four months later, Madhav Nepal went on to become prime minister, and a jurist from the House, Nilambar Acharya, took over his position as chairperson. But the question remains unanswered. Indeed, the problem with Nepal’s Constituent Assembly is not just that it has neither a technical team of experts nor elected legal or constitutional talents working with the drafting body inside the House; rather, the issue goes far deeper. </strong><br /><br />At the outset, it must be stated that the Constituent Assembly, tasked with writing a new constitution and fundamentally reshaping the government as part of the peace process, has already completed 21 out of the 24 months mandated for it to do its job. A body of 601 members – of which 240 were elected in a direct vote, another 335 came to join on the basis of proportional representation, and the remaining 26 were nominated by the government leading the transition – is no doubt a particularly inclusive, heterogeneous group, and one that is, the most representative assembly that Nepal has ever seen. It represents most of the country’s political forces, from the revolutionary Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to the regionalist Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, as well as a variety of fringe parties. As the first inclusive body to represent Nepal’s multi-religious, -lingual and -ethnic communities, it is a mosaic of Nepali diversity and pluralism. “It is the House of peasants, the House of industrialists and the House of the marginalised people,” The chairman of the Constituent Assembly, Subhas Nemwang, said to an international audience on 15 January. “It is set to work on the new constitution for Nepal as part of the comprehensive peace process that the country is passing through.” <br /><br />This House is to restructure the state, establish the identity of indigenous communities and minority groups; end all discrimination based on ethnicity, language, culture and religion, and regional diversity; end all forms of feudalism; and establish a new Nepal. As a prelude, the 1990 Constitution was withdrawn, an interim constitution was enacted declaring Nepal to be secular. (This had little check and balance as when compared with the constitution that it replaced), citizenship certificates were issued to millions, the electoral system was modified, and a proportional system of representation was introduced, all before holding the elections to the Constituent Assembly on 10 April 2008. The Fourth Amendment to the Interim Constitution even declared the country to be a federal set-up, before any discussion on the issue took place in the House. No sooner had the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly taken place than it abolished the monarchy, and gave 15 days to the king and his family to leave the Narayanhiti Palace. Things were getting done, it appeared, at breakneck speed.<br /><br /><strong>Vague committees</strong><br /><br />The Assembly has 11 thematic committees, tasked with producing a concept paper and preliminary draft in the constitutional area that each had been allocated. All committees are of equal strength and capacity, and are empowered to make proposals to the full House. By now, all of these committees have done their work. But as expected, their reports are not unanimous – sometimes mere majority formulations, or not even that, and most include dissenting opinions. After arguing for the past year, for example, the Committee on the Determination of the Form of Government submitted its report to the full House with almost four options as to what form of government Nepal should adopt in the changed context. Their task, of course, had been to decide on one. In the absence of clear direction as to the form of government (parliamentary, presidential, or mixed?), the rest of the work that the Constituent Assembly has so far accomplished looks something like a Statue of Liberty without a head. <br /><br />It is the Constitutional Committee that has the responsibility for formulating the final draft, for which it is to build on both the thematic reports and the recommendations and directions of the full House, following debate on each committee report. From the beginning the idea has been to draft the constitution according to a bottom-up approach – even the committees did not rely on any draft prepared by experts in finalising the preliminary draft proposals, instead starting from scratch. By 5 March, the Constitutional Committee is expected to bring out the first draft of the constitution, in accordance with a schedule that has now been revised seven times. Yet the job seems ominously difficult, given that the committees have resolved little on matters where there are major differences, particularly between the Maoists and the rest. Indeed, only one report seems to be relatively finalised, that of the Committee on the Allocation of Natural Resources, Financial Powers and Revenues. Instead, the committees have helped to further polarise the political parties.<br /><br />According to the Interim Constitution, the final draft of the constitution, following public consultation and debate, must be taken to the plenary meeting of the Constituent Assembly, which is then to undertake a clause-wise discussion and vote. Once there is agreement on each provision, the entire draft is to be taken for adoption by the House before its promulgation. According to the present interim arrangement, the new constitution must be adopted and promulgated by the end of two years – ie, by 28 May 2010. But very few are optimistic that the Assembly would be able to do following this schedule.<br /><br />Dealing with undoubtedly one of the most controversial issues, the Committee on State Restructuring and Allocation of State Powers only recently published its report, reaffirming its contentious commitment to re-design Nepal on the basis of federalisation along ethnic lines. Many have long warned that a 14-province Nepal, out of which seven have been given ethnicity-based names (such as Newa, Tamuwan and Limbuwan) would come with in-built discriminatory arrangements – in a country that is said to have 103 ethnic categories, this proposal is sure to arouse ethnic sensitivities of the neglected lot more than ever. Further, there are very few who believe that such a set-up would be economically workable; the federal arrangement is not asymmetrical, all provincial units are treated by the same standards as far as centre-state relations are concerned, and little attention has been given to reasonable farmland claims, capacity and potentials of each province. Provinces such as Jadan and Sherpa will not be able to feed their people for even a month with their existing farmland capacity. There is cynicism regarding the demarcation of the provinces, and also the basis on which their size is determined, while the report contains nothing about how an ethnic division is going to secure a competitive advantage for the inhabitants in each province or for the country as a whole. Critics suggest that these provinces will barely be able to survive for a half-year.<br /><br />There are also problems with the exhaustive list of fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy released by the Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. While it is very liberal, as much as it identifies the basic rights of the Nepali people, the list is without judicial sanction in most of the cases involving the economic, social and cultural rights. The responsibility is placed in the government to pass the necessary laws and implement them within two years. Yet one can easily see that such a demand placed on the shoulders of the state is too heavy, particularly without considering how a non-performing economy can help the state to fulfil such requirements. The report of the Committee on the Rights of Minority and Marginalised Communities has also created controversies by putting forth ambiguous provisions as to the compensation to be paid by the state to certain communities for past abuses against them. In the same vein, the Committee on Determination of Structure of Constitutional Bodies has proposed 11 independent commissions to deal with issues specific to Madhesis, Dalits, indigenous peoples and others, substantially limiting the role of the elected government in the affairs of the state.<br /><br />The report of the Committee on Judicial System recommends many questionable provisions in the new constitution, which belittle the parameters of the Supreme Court as the guardian of the constitution. It robs the power of judicial review from the Supreme Court, which can neither interpret the constitution in any significant sense, nor can it judge upon the constitutionality of any law where it matters most. The report also makes sure that the Supreme Court and its judges are under parliamentary control in all matters relating to their appointment, dismissal and the job of judicial decision-making. A Special Judicial Committee is provided for in both the central and provincial legislature to take care of these issues. Yet a federal system cannot work in a society where the federal Supreme Court does not have the power to interpret what the constitution says, and decide on the controversies regarding the division of powers between the federal and constituent units. Without the power of judicial review, and the ability to strike down a legislation that contradicts the constitution, a Supreme Court cannot maintain the supremacy of the constitution. <br /><br />Similarly, the report of the Committee on Determination of the Form of Legislative Organ is insufficiently conceived. It is not clear whether the legislature is supposed to be a presidential set-up, or parliamentary or ‘mixed’. Further, the report of the Committee on the Preservation of National Interest has not been able to provide for a credible arrangement for the country’s defence forces. Admittedly, the issue must be kept outside day-to-day politics, and attempts to bring abrupt change in the institution must be resisted. However, the committee’s suggestion to establish a national defence council, where there is no representation of the chief of army staff, cannot be considered anything but a wild arrangement, serving neither democracy nor any national interest. The provision of compulsory military training to youths without the leadership and support of a disciplined army is also not a viable concept. While many successful small states do practice this to some extent, the provision serves only when there is explicit determination to keep the army out of any military alliance, soft or hard, and its politicisation can be thoroughly prevented. <br /><br />Finally, the work so far done includes no economic vision for the state. For instance, the current recommendations do not even consider, much less take a position on, how to preserve access to a secure and reasonably priced supply of oil in place of the current India guarded supply system. There is also no direction about the national food-security strategy, a constant and crucial issue. Further, it is questionable how a country can preserve its national interest without a clear concept on how to deal with internal security challenges such as climate change, floods and natural disasters affecting a large segment of the people.<br /><br /><strong>Miracles?</strong><br /><br />As referred to by Madhav Kumar Nepal’s question at the beginning of this article, all these drafts have suffered in the absence of outside technical support. Most of the important modern examples of success in getting a new democratic constitution through an elected constituent assembly have something in common: the presence of a charismatic leader who commands the confidence of the House and the people at large, and is able to give necessary patronage to the process. There are a few other factors in common, too: for instance, the presence of a party in the assembly that not only speaks to the conscience of the people, but also keeps necessary political clout to push the document through. Also important is negating ideological gaps between the dominant party and the others, in terms of commitment to liberal democracy, the basic values of limited government and the rule of law. Also, that all involved look forward to building a nation with positive energy and forward-looking strategies, rather than looking back and scolding the past in order to build the future.<br /><br />For example, the Indian Constituent Assembly certainly satisfied these requirements. Few can miss, for instance, the critical patronage of Mohandas K Gandhi, and the overriding presence and clout of the Indian National Congress. Also, very few points of divergence emerged between the Congress and other smaller groups, while general commitment on the part of the political actors to build the nation on the strength of liberal values was extremely helpful. Indians were determined to throw off the yoke of Great Britain, but were not ready to dispense with the virtues of Westminster-inspired institutions, which they believed provided a model for Indian democracy. This is true of South Africa as well.<br /><br />Worryingly, these common attributes are hardly to be seen in the Constituent Assembly of Nepal. While this body is very promising in terms of its composition, for better or worse the Constituent Assembly is today a divided House – politically, as well as in its long-term determination. There is no choice but to move on, but to enact a new constitution within the next three months is very difficult. Importantly, the Interim Constitution, which defines the role of the Assembly, does include a chapter on constitutional amendment, but it does not suggest anywhere that this chapter could be used to prolong the constitution drafting time frame. It is also true that there are no express limitations on the power of the Parliament to amend the constitution. But exercising the power of the Parliament to prolong the tenure of the House could be counterproductive, as by now the people of Nepal know that things are not merely black and white. At the moment, the only sustainable way forward seems be to go for a framework constitution that represents the existing consensus in Nepal’s political society, leaving the rest of the issues for the future. The parties could thus go ahead with the existing institutions where there is no consensus. <br /><br />Many Nepalis believe in last-minute ‘miracles’. In this context, such a miracle would include a framework constitution (as this writer and other lawyers have suggested), or by extending the tenure of the House for another six months, as many of the Assembly members are urging. <strong>More broadly, however, the problem of Nepal’s constitutional development lies not merely with the House. Even if the new constitution is finalised and promulgated, after all, it might still collapse the way the last five constitutions collapsed – without even knowing the factors that caused their demise. No matter how good the constitution or how democratic the people, Nepal’s geophysical situation makes peace and stability difficult – though both can be helped by the stable underpinnings of a solid constitution. </strong><br /><br />Bipin Adhikari is a constitutional expert based in Kathmandu.Nepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-1564759317422745962010-02-26T07:25:00.000-08:002010-02-26T07:33:30.826-08:00Identity politicshttp://www.kantipuronline.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/02/24/most-popular/Identity-politics/5512/<br /><br /><strong>Bipin Adhikari<br /><br />FEB 24, 2010 - Identities may be defined in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, language, culture, gender, sexual orientation and similar other variables. Politics aimed at establishing these identities, among other things, involves empowering the oppressed segments among them to articulate their oppression in terms of their experience, and establishing their claims for equality, nondiscrimination and for real opportunities to end marginalisation. <br /><br />Whether the institution of ethnicity-based federalism per se or some identical discriminatory arrangement under its broad set-up is the answer to achieve this objective is still a very controversial issue.</strong><br /><br />It has become a fashion in Nepal to refer to Ethiopia as a successful model of ethnic federalism. Indeed Nepali experts got the same impression from Ethiopian expert Dr. Hashim Mohamed Tewfik, who is also Minister of Law in his country at present. He visited Nepal last month as a guest of the Nepal Constitution Foundation. It is said that ethnic federalism enabled Ethiopia to avoid falling back into violent internal conflict during the transition to a federal state.<br /><br />Ethiopia is the oldest independent country in Africa, and one of the oldest in the world — at least 2,000 years. Its 1994 Constitution created an ethnically based federal republic in response to the ideological orientation of the major political forces at that time and as a way of resolving conflict between ethno-nationalism and the state. The government has created nine ethnic-based regional states and two federally administered city-states. This ethnic federalism intends to significantly protect and promote the interests and concern of the ethnic groups by creating nine states on the basis of settlement patterns, language, identity and the consent of the people living within them. <br /><br />The system tries to marry political pluralism with the right of secession in the federal parliamentary framework. The constitution empowers each state the power to draft, adopt and amend the state constitution, so long as its provisions are consistent with the federal constitution. A federal judiciary, which is independent of the executive and the legislature, is expected to safeguard the constitution by maintaining its supremacy. Ethnicity and federalism are so intertwined that they have become the major factors in organising the political and territorial space in the country. <br /><br /><strong>Yet, Ethiopia has neither scored high on ethnic empowerment nor on democracy. It has certainly given a guaranteed space for ethno-politics, democratic elections and self-determination; but the forces working for communalisation have not disappeared. </strong>A majority of the people hardly feel that their “ethnic self” has been protected. There is widespread ethnic discontent in the country even after 15 years of identity politics and democratic exercise. The system is still described as a “hybrid regime” falling somewhere between a “flawed democracy” and an “authoritarian regime”. <br /><br />Ethiopia ranks 105 out of 167 countries with the larger number being less democratic in the report of The Economist. (It is amazing to note that Nepal’s position is 115, only 10 points less, even though it has not gone beyond the transitional arrangement, and current uncertainties must have affected Nepal’s ranking.) The threat of instability is still looming large in Ethiopia. There is no improvement in mass poverty, stagnant agriculture, slow rate of investment and the general economic crisis. The only apparent achievement is the gradual decline in the pan-nationalist sentiment of a proud country, which nobody wants to see declining. What then is the value addition for Ethiopia as an ethnic federalism? This is an important issue. <br /><br />At the time of promulgation, the constitution was applauded for its commitment to liberal democracy and respect for political freedoms and human rights. By now, many analysts think there is a mismatch in Ethiopia between the liberal-democratic political-pluralist elements of the constitution and ethnic politics. Ethnic considerations have impacted the quality of the constitutional system, norms and procedures.<br /><br />The 2009 report of the International Crisis Group (ICG) states, “Authoritarianism and reluctance to accept genuine multi-party competition, political positions and parties have proliferated in recent years. This process, however, is not driven by democratisation or the inclusion of opposition parties in representative institutions. Rather it is the result of a continuous polarisation of national politics that has sharpened tensions between and within parties and ethnic groups since the mid-1990s.” According to the report, the ethnic federalism employed in Ethiopia “has not dampened conflict, but rather increased competition among groups that vie over land and natural resources, as well as administrative boundaries and government budgets”. Furthermore, the report also points out that ethnic federalism has failed to resolve the “national question”.<br /><br />Contrary to what had been expected, the liberal values of state organisations and the multiparty system have suffered in Ethiopia in recent years. They have resulted in insurmountable governance problems. Although the constitution vests all powers not attributed to the federal government in the states, the regional states are in fact weak. The ICG report as quoted above frankly admits against this background that the next federal and regional elections, scheduled for June 2010, most probably will be much more contentious as numerous opposition parties are preparing to challenge the ruling party, which is likely to continue to use its political machine to retain its position.<br /><br />It is imperative for multi-ethnic states to engineer an accommodative structure ensuring participation of all in the political system of the country in order to achieve peaceful coexistence. This does not require politicisation of ethnicity and excessive leverage to blood relationships and ascriptive loyalties in place of rights and duties. Such an arrangement is bound to promote the rule of kin, instead of the rule of law, and minimise value-based politics. This space is bound to be used by ethnic leaders to gather justification or legitimisation for autocratic rule in the name of their ethnic state. Such kinship ties within societies when they go beyond a certain limit pose formidable barriers to building tolerant multiethnic societies.Nepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-20917261879009085932010-02-11T10:36:00.000-08:002010-02-11T10:54:24.139-08:00"Divide and Rule"<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7toTexRw4dSFtA3TJKqp1YisALP5V3aGo6l377llnsvb4CH9jN8Dp9HEHQYTPryh0g0fuALqE8sA5AI1HVUikqOeTek4Jmb01CF1S0w2KgSzwd8rM9SpYpZ1bMpEk_bU76D2HVGY6pxw/s1600-h/Bipin_Adhikari_7.JPG"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 236px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7toTexRw4dSFtA3TJKqp1YisALP5V3aGo6l377llnsvb4CH9jN8Dp9HEHQYTPryh0g0fuALqE8sA5AI1HVUikqOeTek4Jmb01CF1S0w2KgSzwd8rM9SpYpZ1bMpEk_bU76D2HVGY6pxw/s320/Bipin_Adhikari_7.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5437060983116258210" /></a><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0YKQG2wNRMesL7A5VNwCnh-xQVBkBF8-gcBQkxlPvgCFn6Q0NZnq6kHML4DmCrloS9ypyYD1XmFto1nqwZ3tGWZVW8Ja5aPRtmM7ZVAZ6tewIVoop9bp-DXNdy9UkLUsbKU66uahZA-0/s1600-h/nepal-map_20100211083140.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0YKQG2wNRMesL7A5VNwCnh-xQVBkBF8-gcBQkxlPvgCFn6Q0NZnq6kHML4DmCrloS9ypyYD1XmFto1nqwZ3tGWZVW8Ja5aPRtmM7ZVAZ6tewIVoop9bp-DXNdy9UkLUsbKU66uahZA-0/s320/nepal-map_20100211083140.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5437058294104190306" /></a><br /><strong>A country can certainly go for federalism if this is the decision of its Constituent Assembly. But, as a visiting British scholar pointed out recently, federalism is not inherently a superior form of democracy. It cannot guarantee democracy or good governance any more than a unitary government can. Its success depends on so many important political and other variables. If these variables contribute, even unitary states can have high performance. The house was deprived of the opportunity to debate it. </strong><br /><br /><strong>Bipin Adhikari<br />The Kathmandu Post</strong><br />10 February 2010<br />http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/02/10/Oped/Divide-and-rule/5029/ <br /><br /><br />FEB 10, 2010 - The Constituent Assembly Committee on State Restructuring and Allocation of State Powers (CSRASP) has finally published its report reaffirming its controversial commitment to re-design Nepal on the basis of federalisation along ethnic lines. <br /><br />As a principle, it is not uncommon to see various in-built constitutional mechanisms around the world for addressing the priorities and desires of minority or ethnic groups on a state or sub-state level. A number of institutions and procedures have been internalised by new democracies to ensure that the human rights of all communities and cultures are protected, and justice is proactively done to all those who have been exploited in the past in different ways, deprived for generations and marginalised. There have been many success stories which could serve as the point of departure for learning how to do what is best for this country along the most democratic traditions.<br /><br />That was not the temperament of the CSRASP. It would indeed be very naive for anybody to expect any committee to show this temperament when one realises how fraudulently the stage was organised to set the scene for the Fourth Amendment to the Interim Constitution. The country was declared a federal state outright in December 2007 while a jumbo Constituent Assembly was being convened — precluding discussion in the house over this important issue for ever. There was no more any choice as to whether this country should “go” federal or not; the choice was only what type of federal arrangement it should seek. The house was accorded only a limited right to self-determination in this matter. <br /><br />A country can certainly go for federalism if this is the decision of its Constituent Assembly. But, as a visiting British scholar pointed out recently, federalism is not inherently a superior form of democracy. It cannot guarantee democracy or good governance any more than a unitary government can. Its success depends on so many important political and other variables. If these variables contribute, even unitary states can have high performance. The house was deprived of the opportunity to debate it. <br /><br />This critique always recommended asymmetrical devolution arrangements in Nepal, based on reasonable claims, capacity and potentials of each province in the country. This arrangement could provide a means for accomplishing the goal of addressing ethnic, regional, lingual and cultural discontent by granting different powers to different provinces, with an emphasis on local demand and their regional ability to control their own affairs. The constitution could have provided the necessary framework for a negotiated settlement of all issues based on given models. Such measures could have addressed or prevented disputes that otherwise would have the potential to destabilise the country’s democratic process. But it is important that these mechanisms are not based on discriminatory arrangements.<br /><br />A 14-province Nepal is a big joke. It is not economically workable. It is a recipe for disaster in terms of organisation and management. It is not, as claimed, based on “identity” and “ability to stand”. There is cynicism in the demarcation of the provinces, and also the basis on which their size is determined. Most of these provinces will not be able to survive with the blueprint of autonomy that the draft intends to demonstrate for even six months. <br /><br />Again, the proposal that seven of these provinces be given identity based on ethnicity and the others should go ahead on non-ethnic categorisation is going to be the bête noire of this arrangement. It links Rai-Limbus, Sherpas, Newars, Gurungs, Magars and Tamangs with their so-called lands, leaving the other 96 ethnic groups in the country to manifest themselves or their language, culture, religion and ethnicity through the remaining seven provinces. <br /><br />The report does not explain anywhere why the identity of a few ethnic groups is more sacred than the identity of others. It does not explain why Khasas or Tharus should not have exclusive “Khasan” or “Tharuhat” the way “Kirantis” have an exclusive Kirant. If there could be a “Jadan” out of the blue, why cannot there be a “Yadavdesh” in the Tarai? If the history of relationship with the land is the factor, which has been accepted as the criteria for naming and shaming communities this way, then the committee report should be able to demonstrate some rigorous research on what is the communal history of Nepal. <br /><br />There are many potential pitfalls to this approach. If a certain region can have an ethnic name even though 60 percent of the people in that province are people outside this group, why should not this same categorisation work in the case of Tharus. After all, there is little controversy that Tharus along with some other identical smaller communities are the original inhabitants of that territory. Why should the so-called “Tharuhat” share its name with non-Tharuhat people simply because the demography has changed over the last few decades? There is no reply to this question as well. The charge of in-built constitutional discrimination, and potential fault lines in this framework, cannot be avoided with such an arrangement.<br /><br />It is quite one thing to create a formal political space for ethnic identities and harness the country’s available political strength in support of this, but it is quite another to beef up discriminatory ethnic arrangements. These political variables apart, the symmetrical approach that the committee has applied in the matter of centre-state relations may not make this federalisation a workable model. The way the province of Jadan has been created and the Sherpa province has been established, nobody needs to doubt that developing a viable economy and an effective financial resources management will not be easy. The committee has not even tried to ensure administrative viability for most of the provinces, nor has it been able to see the farmland capacity of the demarcated territories. This is another funny part of the report.<br /><br />Finally, the committee seems to have taken the challenges of globalisation as a non-issue. In the 21st century, globalisation has placed new demands on organisational systems of all types, including the restructuring of states. Whether a state is federal or unitary, its interests in relation to the rest of the nations have to be protected creating a competitive economic advantage for it. The report contains nothing about how a tribal state is going to secure a competitive advantage for Nepal. What it has done instead is create space for those who want to divide and rule this country based on ethnic strife.Nepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-18151742015991701122010-01-28T09:10:00.000-08:002010-01-28T09:21:15.958-08:00Forms of government<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiD3Vp7kGsu2L1YDVMI0wAtGx3pVZyNuGU2rwzvLuX_Zap5JQGhyphenhyphennKeipG23gNnkPGMNzURMYnd3wNjf3zVouRvCiVhjthRbnyZLrS5VwzyFLOHIMMaIBUwQKqbqL48RfX4xuUU85BFPmY/s1600-h/dr_bipin_adhikari.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 183px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiD3Vp7kGsu2L1YDVMI0wAtGx3pVZyNuGU2rwzvLuX_Zap5JQGhyphenhyphennKeipG23gNnkPGMNzURMYnd3wNjf3zVouRvCiVhjthRbnyZLrS5VwzyFLOHIMMaIBUwQKqbqL48RfX4xuUU85BFPmY/s320/dr_bipin_adhikari.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5431841895932107394" /></a><br /><strong>Many opinions of Benjamin Franklin (1706-90), one of the enlightened American constitution builders, are credited as being foundational to the roots of American values and character. At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Franklin was asked by a lady as he was leaving Independence Hall on the final day of constitutional deliberation, “Well, doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” His answer was brief, but full of meaning for all generations to come, “A republic, if you can keep it.”<br /><br />Bipin Adhikari<br />The Kathmandu Post<br />January 28, 2010</strong><br />http://www.kantipuronline.com/2010/01/28/Oped/Forms-of-government/307208/<br /><br />Many opinions of Benjamin Franklin (1706-90), one of the enlightened American constitution builders, are credited as being foundational to the roots of American values and character. At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Franklin was asked by a lady as he was leaving Independence Hall on the final day of constitutional deliberation, “Well, doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” His answer was brief, but full of meaning for all generations to come, “A republic, if you can keep it.”<br /><br /><br />There are very few educated people in Nepal who are not aware by now of how and why the institution of the monarchy was terminated last year. But the right question for the Nepali partners of the change introducing process is whether they can keep Nepal a republic, or whether there is something different being planned following the abolition of the monarchy.<br /><br />The Constituent Assembly (CA) Committee on Determination of the Form of Government has surprised everybody. Its report comes as a compilation of the official positions of the major parties rather than as a concurrence of all of them. The stand of the UCPN (Maoist) in favour of a “consensual presidential system and multi-member direct proportional election system” comes as the first among them. The Nepali Congress has voted for continuity to the parliamentary system with constitutional presidency and executive prime minister, and mixed-member proportional electoral system. Similarly, the CPN (UML) has opted for a presidential form of government elected by the legislature and mixed electoral system. <br /><br />In the background of the Maoist position is an ardent desire to maintain the party politburo culture, and ventilate the power of the party through the executive president, keeping the legislature on the sidelines. The position of the Congress is aimed at making sure that the multiparty democratic system and pluralist polity remains operative even if it is not in power, or the communist forces continue to prevail in the state apparatus. The UML thinks it can solve the problems of instability by choosing a system which it has advocated. Except for the position taken by the Congress, the rest of the approaches have not been properly studied, and far or less look utopian. <br /><br />There is a fourth opinion (counter-position) from CA member Pradeep Giri (Nepali Congress) who has ventilated the proposal of 25 NC legislators last year pleading for a directly elected prime minister and ceremonial president elected by provincial and federal legislatures. This proposal more or less is along the Israeli experiment in the 1990s, which they have already moved away from because of systemic contradictions that emerged in the implementation process. <br /><br />The only good thing (good in the sense that it has been settled) about the committee report is the unanimity among all the committee members on the constitution and operation system of government services, grounds of good governance, constitution of provincial and local governments, and local electoral system. This unanimity in the approach also needs to be studied on the basis of whether these provisions accurately reflect the requirements of Nepal’s grassroots people, who remain more or less confused about the changes being introduced. <br /><br />Three important guests of the Nepal Constitution Foundation — former premier of Ontario Bob Rae, Australian professor Cheryl Saunders and Sri Lankan academic Dr. Rohan Edrisinha — who presented papers in Kathmandu recently on the ongoing controversies regarding the forms of government in Nepal, however, had very strong messages for the Nepali political elite who remains divided on the form of government. <br /><br />Prof. Cheryl Saunders of Australia, for example, had the following comments on the ongoing controversies in Nepal in her own words: <br /><br />“There is no perfect form of government; to a degree, each system relies for its effectiveness on the quality and integrity of those entrusted with public power and on the vigilance of civil society.<br /><br />“Each of the three principal options has its strengths but also potential weaknesses from the standpoint of Nepal.<br /><br />“The parliamentary system has the advantages of familiarity and the consequential disadvantages of having been proved by experience to be unsatisfactory in some respects in the circumstances of Nepal.<br /><br />“One question for the CA is whether these flaws could be overcome, in the light of that experience, in the design of a new parliamentary system. In considering this question, it is necessary to take account of the very significant change effected in Nepal through abolition of the monarchy, enabling the CA to rethink the structure of the office of head of state and the powers vested in it in a republican Nepal.<br /><br />“Both the presidential and semi-presidential systems have the attraction of offering a new start. On the other hand, their unfamiliarity in the distinctive circumstances of Nepal makes their operation less predictable in practice. A key question for the CA, drawing on its understanding of the political culture of Nepal, is the extent to which their potential disadvantages can be sufficiently neutralised through institutional design.”<br /><br />Similarly, Bob Rae pointed out, “Successful constitutional politics transcends partisanship, and looks ahead instead of attempting to redress old grievances. It is not afraid to draw on international experience, but refuses to follow slavishly any foreign model. My principal advice would be that of warning. Don’t govern in the name of a theory. Make the changes that are ‘sufficient unto the day’ — it is a framework you are seeking, not a detailed blueprint for every detail of decision making. Constitutional politics is about making the foundation and the framework, setting out basic principles, the underlying values as well as the essential institutions. By contrast, real politics and events are about building the walls and ceilings, the furniture and, above all, the spirit that makes a home.” <br /><br />The comments of the Sri Lankan expert were also very straightforward. He did not hesitate to explain the vagaries of the presidential system in terms of his own country’s real life experience over many decades. <br /><br /><strong>On top of this, the report of the Committee on Determination of the Form of Government has come with little debate on executive authority, the position of the prime minister and his/her cabinet, their relationship with the legislature, and potential dismissal procedures. </strong> <br /><br />As of now, the conclusion that could be made is only that the committee has cracked the nut, but only to find a worm in it. They have not grasped the significance of the huge task to which they should devote themselves. <br /><br />Secretary of the committee Mukunda Sharma, however, has proved his smartness finally. He has thrown his problem — both the ball and the players — to the full house liberating himself from the never-ending game of the foul players. This is a republic with no clear idea about how to govern oneself.<br /><br />lawyers_inc_nepal@yahoo.comNepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-47949241989563690152010-01-14T08:47:00.000-08:002010-01-14T09:06:49.702-08:00Picking their brains<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaVMFQA_-XiAozJVZTdw8ERM3Vn6L-uEdbOoCrlmerXQyeogStYSO9eXccq2a01q1M4t6w0v5haJZbiaTCeUBW6Si50Oma_FVypSix-qFVfw7NYyitFbO4CwPnhmp76Ia03xR69Sw_orw/s1600-h/dr_bipin_adhikari.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 183px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaVMFQA_-XiAozJVZTdw8ERM3Vn6L-uEdbOoCrlmerXQyeogStYSO9eXccq2a01q1M4t6w0v5haJZbiaTCeUBW6Si50Oma_FVypSix-qFVfw7NYyitFbO4CwPnhmp76Ia03xR69Sw_orw/s320/dr_bipin_adhikari.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5426643034985566818" /></a><br /><strong>We could learn much from the international constitutional experts meeting this week.<br /><br />Bipin Adhikari</strong><br /><br />http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/01/13/Oped/Picking-their-brains/4041/ The Kathmandu Post, January 13, 2010<br /><br />Nepal is on the last leg of the timeframe of writing a new constitution. The unfinished work of the Constituent Assembly needs to be completed very soon. It is also a time for self-analysis and national introspection of what has been achieved to this day. This helps to strengthen the prospects of devising a constitution that Nepal deserves. Simple facts are often in danger of being overlooked in all the angst and analysis of our partisan politics. One cryptic example of this situation is the debate on whether the judiciary should remain independent or be brought under legislative oversight. A quick but impartial process of looking into what has been done so far is certainly a welcome step for this country.<br /><br />To a realist, the constitution building process is not just about sorting out universal values and principles and expressing commitment to them through a carefully designed framework. It is also about the narrow material concerns of the people who are bringing changes. There are such material interests when they vote on specific mechanisms for implementing various aspects of the constitutional design. Participants in this process refer to distinctly different sources of knowledge and information to reach a judgement. There are more frequent movements back and forth from philosophical principles to narrow material interests. Even the mass communication media who report on these patterns of relationship are not immune to these shifting positions. There is no secret about this aspect of making the constitution.<br /><br />A vigilant process is without doubt a major concern. It needs not be overemphasised that every democratic constitution is the result of compromises and adjustment and accommodation. It cannot represent the complete supremacy of the views of any particular group, or of any community or region. Everybody is obliged to yield. But in the final analysis, it must be able to establish the lasting principles that give meaning to human society.<br /><br />It is essential to review the constitution making process being implemented through a little different way. It is in this direction that the Nepal Constitution Foundation in cooperation with other partner organisations including the Tribhuvan University Faculty of Law and the Supreme Court Bar Association is organising a three-day <em>International Conference on Dynamics of Constitution Making in Nepal in Post-Conflict Scenario</em> in Kathmandu this weekend.<br /><br />Taken as a very high-profile conference, its main objective is to get international inputs from mature constitution builders from around the world on what has so far been achieved by Nepal in its bid to draft a post-modern constitution for itself. This input in the form of comments, suggestions and ideas will follow the keynote speech to be delivered by the chairman of the Constituent Assembly who is giving leadership to the nation in its constitution making business. <br /><br />This conference is unique in several senses. In fact, many experts have come to Nepal from abroad, talked with a limited range of local stakeholders, given their advice on important constitutional issues, some times in a very diplomatic language, and have left the scene. Many sincere donors have assisted this process. But this has happened without the necessary backup and further engagement plan. This conference is probably the first organised effort to get established international constitution builders together for their input in the constitution making process based on certain tangible materials.<br /><br />In other words, these experts are not commenting on abstract issues anymore. By now, the Constituent Assembly has produced many thematic reports on the draft constitution. Not only are the issues confronting Nepal clear, the organised response of the Constituent Assembly is also more than straightforward. Even issues in which the assembly has been far behind its schedule are as clear as the cleavages behind them. This is the moment that the process of constitution making needs international expertise. This will help the stakeholders to know where they stand — and how the people who have little political interest in Nepal evaluate the norms and procedures, and systems and institutions — solely on the strength of this expertise.<br /><br />The conference also gives international experts coming from diverse regions including India and China an opportunity to give their opinions on several issues that are considered contentious in this country. Again, the discussions that are to be organised are not among “internationals” only, it will be an interaction with leading Nepali constitutional experts and many important members of the Constituent Assembly, lawyers, civil society members and so on. Whatever inputs are received will be taken to the Constituent Assembly, especially its Constitutional Committee, after they have been processed. <br /><br />Some of the expert participants are people who have worked with the Nepali people in the past. Others have strong academic or professional interests in emerging constitutional systems. The organisers of the conference plan to remain in touch with all these experts, engage them in the area they have so kindly agreed to contribute, and work with the Constituent Assembly until the draft Nepal constitution is adopted and promulgated.<br /><br />This conference is a national initiative in every sense. It is demand driven. They have decided on not just the experts who have been invited to take part in the conference but the papers that they have contributed were sought from them in view of their special expertise. This is also a form of public participation (in fact, “international public participation”) in the constitution drafting process. Such an exercise will definitely make the people look back, review their achievements and help enhance the perceived legitimacy and acceptance of the resulting document based on the shared knowledge of humanity.<br /><br />lawyers_inc_nepal@yahoo.comNepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-67149543419527843182010-01-02T08:46:00.000-08:002010-01-02T08:56:12.261-08:00More later<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgog6HsJajOk21-E_fUxxE2O-czENWU91z4YdNg1Vya9zzsxbdtyeVjtNovKJNYXgvBsAMBCjGTqdFqIXqBvqTUa_uZls8FJ6zuucDIFegviB69KWjaAq2scvLJY4t7zHSvOH8iHROVTiU/s1600-h/Bipin_Adhikari.JPG"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 220px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgog6HsJajOk21-E_fUxxE2O-czENWU91z4YdNg1Vya9zzsxbdtyeVjtNovKJNYXgvBsAMBCjGTqdFqIXqBvqTUa_uZls8FJ6zuucDIFegviB69KWjaAq2scvLJY4t7zHSvOH8iHROVTiU/s320/Bipin_Adhikari.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5422185341865037842" /></a> <strong>These are the times, as Thomas Paine once said about the American crisis in the 1770s, that try men’s souls. Nepal is also in that trying phase. The idea of a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution was a luxury for this country, and remains so even today. But with all these vicissitudes that this country has passed through, there is no escape from it. This country cannot walk away from this experiment anymore. There is no choice but to adopt a constitution that reflects the current balance of power, leaving the rest to the processes to be followed later according to the new constitution.</strong><br /><br /><strong>Bipin Adhikari</strong><br />[Source: http://uspolitics.einnews.com/?promo=601&gclid=CJ_fquSUhp8CFcovpAodvWosUQ]<br /><br />JAN 01 - Nepal’s Constituent Assembly (CA) is in the 20th month of its existence. It has less than five months now to complete its task of writing a new constitution for the country. If the calendar of its operation, revised for the seventh time, is vigorously pursued in the next few weeks, it would be possible to adopt a new constitution, as expected, by May 28, 2010. <br /><br />These are the times, as Thomas Paine once said about the American crisis in the 1770s, that try men’s souls. Nepal is also in that trying phase. The idea of a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution was a luxury for this country, and remains so even today. But with all these vicissitudes that this country has passed through, there is no escape from it. This country cannot walk away from this experiment anymore. There is no choice but to adopt a constitution that reflects the current balance of power, leaving the rest to the processes to be followed later according to the new constitution.<br /><br />The ongoing debate about how to go ahead if the CA is not able to produce a constitution by the appointed timeframe is really unfortunate. Rather, based on an assessment of the CA’s performance so far, this debate should have been geared towards how to create a viable constitution within the limits of what is possible. The debate should not just have been on the right process but also, as is equally important, on the right content of the final document. <br /><br /><strong>Nepal’s civil society is full of “summer soldiers” and “sunshine patriots”. It has already started looking beyond what is on their plates. Quite the contrary, when the Interim Constitution (that sets out the rules of transition) was drafted, it was not just intended that the new constitution would be promulgated on time, but also that it would be a democratic constitution. Again, the written provisions of the constitution devised no contingency plan for an alternative situation. It is sad that efforts are being made to find an outlet that was not conceived in explicit language well in advance. This is shocking. </strong><br /><br />Except for two thematic committees, all the committees in the CA have already produced their preliminary drafts. True, there are dissenting opinions -- here and there. They are there at the heart of every democracy. What is lacking in Nepal’s context is the role of some political stalwarts who can forge unanimity and give an exit to the larger issues of the number of provinces, the nature of devolution of power and the form of government. The rest of the issues have been mostly settled. There is no reason why Nepal cannot forge a written constitution based on the issues that have been settled, or might be settled amicably in the next couple of months. <br /><br />There are several countries in the world which were able to draft their constitution in just five months. However, they were wise to craft a framework constitution, quickly and efficiently, instead of lengthy ones. A Constituent National Assembly, for example, was elected only five days after the conclusion of the independence agreements of March 20, 1956 between France and Tunisia to draft a new constitution. <br /><br />This Assembly is known for its slow progress. The hopes of party leaders who fought during the independence movement that the Assembly would quickly draft a constitution and give way to a freshly elected parliament were submerged in interminable constitutional deliberations, interrupted by a national crisis whenever they seemed on the verge of success. When they found that they could not really produce a constitution that settles everything, they produced a framework constitution, ending the long transition of almost three years.<br /><br />It must be noted that a long transition is not in the interest of democratic forces of the country. The salient characteristic of the transition period in Tunisia as well was the concentration of power in the hands of the president and his cabinet. In June 1959, Tunisia adopted a constitution modelled on the French system, which established the basic outline of the highly centralised presidential system that continues today. The delay was definitely costly, especially in a country where mediocrity prevails in decision making everywhere. <br /><br />A framework constitution is not necessarily bad. The U.S. constitution is the briefest constitution which any modern state has today. This is due to the fact that the framers of the U.S. constitution merely laid down the fundamentals and did not enter into details. It consists of just seven articles to which have been added, to this day, only 27 amendments, made in more than 200 years of its life. Even with all the amendments, the total number of words is just around 6,000. There are countries like Iceland, Romania, Indonesia and Kosovo, which relied on framework constitutions to go ahead and end the transition. <br /><br />The inability of Nepal’s Constituent Assembly to produce a new constitution will affect the democratic faith of the people. It will also put a severe question on the ability of the present generation of Nepal’s leaders to sustain democracy. It does not help Nepal as a nation. A constitution, even though it is skeleton, will help people to be futuristic in their orientation. Issues settled will take a back seat. There will be a new environment for discussion on the remaining issues. It will allow the emergence of a new batch of leaders after a fresh election under the new constitution. These leaders will again have the opportunity to build consensus on issues that remain unsettled, and give an outlet to the nation; that is the most crucial issue for modern Nepal. <br /><br /><strong>The only thorny issue that remains on the way to a new constitution is the subject of integration of Maoist combatants. It has not been given the emphasis it deserves in the transition process. This subject has been pushed to the corner in the vicissitudes of power politics. The combatants are definitely a Maoist creation, but the problem of the combatants must not be reduced to a Maoist problem alone. The government must deal with this issue with some sense of urgency. </strong><br /><br />Even if the Constituent Assembly tries to hurry things that are still lagging behind, it is so important to settle this issue amicably so that when the new constitution is promulgated, there are no combatants speculating on the new situation. This must be done within the next five months, and on a priority basis. It requires remarkable seriousness and intelligence to bring the Maoists on board on this matter.<br /><br />If the Maoists are sharp, they will definitely not agree to any constitutional draft, leaving their crusaders in limbo. Even to go for a framework constitution, as stated above, the government should not just consider this issue in terms of its survival arguments alone. <br /><br />Bipin Adhikari<br />lawyers_inc_nepal@yahoo.comNepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-24884947868880911912010-01-02T08:35:00.000-08:002010-01-02T08:44:29.665-08:00Towards the New Constitution<strong>Bipin Adhikari</strong><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB2_vzhIfB6czDWzoQUlL2fBvGPyKodv_DQHzvgojD3bUqFjk7MkRCjNAfGBpv29C3f2BJRHRPePsTyq1FHfFamEwyMHNQ0DqPgRpgrdyouuiHRn0OAJ-_dQN27C5_PsSXfpTWgGq7jXU/s1600-h/3074.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 213px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB2_vzhIfB6czDWzoQUlL2fBvGPyKodv_DQHzvgojD3bUqFjk7MkRCjNAfGBpv29C3f2BJRHRPePsTyq1FHfFamEwyMHNQ0DqPgRpgrdyouuiHRn0OAJ-_dQN27C5_PsSXfpTWgGq7jXU/s320/3074.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5422182904319549442" /></a> <strong>The year 2010 is going to be a crucial one for Nepal. This is the year Nepal is expected to have its sixth constitution, a new constitution. There is a point. </strong><br /><br />Source: http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=13570<br />January 1, 2010<br /><br />The year 2010 is going to be a crucial one for Nepal. This is the year Nepal is expected to have its sixth constitution, a new constitution. There is a point. <br /><br />What is remarkable about the new constitution is not actually that it is the sixth one. It is the first constitution being written by the sovereign people themselves through their elected representatives assembled at the Constituent Assembly. This is all happening for the first time in Nepal´s history. It is also the first constitution that Nepal is venturing into in the twenty-first century - wherein virtues of democracy, rule of law and limited government are no longer contested as a weapon of cold war. <br /><br />As this constitution, being drafted and finalised by the Constituent Assembly is to be adopted and promulgated by May 29, many assume that it will end all the political problems and the transition that we are in. The constitutional democracy in Nepal started to derail after the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), conceived as a terrorist outfit at one point, threatened the then prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba in 2002 not to hold parliamentary elections, which was already due, or face physical action against the electoral candidates. <br /><br />Many things have changed ever since. The rift between the monarch and the mainstream political parties has led to the closer alliance between the parties and the Maoists. The traditional state was dismantled. It was an accepted fact that the democracy Nepal was ushering in, was no longer a credible one. <br /><br />The new constitution is being drafted to solve so many issues apart from further democratizing the constitutional polity. The details are not very clear. What is clear is that these issues are coming up directly or from the sidelines since 2002. <br /><br />The apparent goal, as the interim constitution has proclaimed is to achieve progressive restructuring of the state in order to resolve the existing problems of the country relating to class, caste, region and gender. The country is also to be federalized although without any white paper in the hand. New institutions are to be created to make Nepal an inclusive state, although here are so much of differences in the basic understanding about what inclusion really is. This is being done after the change in the balance of power in the country, and in the environment of a fragile state. Anything seems to be possible. The institution of monarchy that formed this country and gave it an identity in the historical process is no longer on the scene. It is up to the people to decide what they want. This is true at least in principle.<br /><br />The days ahead, however, are not that rosy. The Constituent Assembly is still without any compromise scheme about the form of government that will suit this country. It is still without a workable scheme on how the concept of devolution of power has to be implemented in a society which has already been torn apart by internal challenges of extra-constitutional strengths. <br /><br />The recently released exhaustive list of fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy by the CA Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is not going to impress the country’s lawyers and many other critical thinkers here. The list is not without its built-in problems, but even assuming that the problems will be sorted out at a later stage, there are other crucial issues still unattended to. One such problem is that the list is without judicial sanction.<br /><br />The report of the Committee on Judicial System is one of the issues here. It recommends many infamous provisions in the new constitution which belittles the parameters of the Supreme Court as the guardian of the constitution. It robs the power of judicial review from the Supreme Court in significant sense. It can neither interpret the constitution in important sense, nor can it judge upon the constitutionality of any law where it matters the most. The report also makes sure that the Supreme Court and its judges are under parliamentary control in all matters relating to their appointment, dismissal and the job of judicial decision making. A Supreme Court which lacks independence, which has to be accountable to a legislative committee, and which is always under the threat and duress of a legislative majority cannot protect any fundamental rights whatsoever. <br /><br />Again, the CA Committee on the Determination of Legislative Organ has produced its report based on the parameters of the parliamentary system because the committee leadership belongs to the Nepali Congress. In the same vein, the Committee on the Judicial System produced its report proposing a judiciary almost committed to the government because its chairperson belongs to the UCPN (Maoist), which does not believe in the independence of the judiciary and its power of judicial review of issues of unconstitutionality. The values that both these parties have built are almost irreconcilable on fundamental grounds.<br /><br />Some outfits are strongly advocating the right to self-determination of the indigenous people. Some others fear about its extra-constitutional proportions. Although a sub-committee constituted to advise the Constituent Assembly Committee on Restructuring of State and Distribution of State Powers on the very issue has already submitted its report, it does not in any significant sense address the magnitude of the issue, and its complexity and implication in a constitutional framework which is to be based on democracy and constitutionalism. It offers little in the way of concrete suggestions or strategies for realising the claim for indigenous self-determination in Nepal. The issues like federalisation of the country based on ethnicity and grounding of rights jurisprudence on the concept of "agradhikar" put additional dimensions of the unresolved controversies. The road ahead is not clear. <br /><br />A credible defence force remains one of the best means by which to guarantee security to the nation in a variety of ways. It must be kept outside the day-to-day politics, and attempts to bring abrupt change in the institution must also be resisted. However, the attempt to establish a national defence council where there is no representation of the chief of army staff is a very wild arrangement. It neither serves democracy nor any national interest. The provision of compulsory military training to youths without the leadership and support of a disciplined army is not a viable concept. All of the successful small states practice this to some extent. The provision serves well only when there is explicit determination to keep the army out of any military alliance, soft or hard, and its politicization thoroughly prevented. The interests of each regional power can also be preserved only by preventing the domination of the country´s force by one of them, or any other outside the region.<br /><br />It is in Nepal´s enlightened national interest to make herself a neutral centre of trade, commerce, communications and finance, useful to all powers, and capable of absorbing and integrating their presence and influence. Unfortunately, the committee report is without any direction in this area. It does not even consider and take a position on how to preserve access to reasonably priced and secure supply of oil in place of the current India guarded supply system. There is no direction about the national food security strategy, an all time crucial issue. It is surprising how a country can preserve its national interest without a clear concept of internal security challenges like climate change and floods and natural disasters affecting a large segment of the people, like earthquakes.<br /><br />The world has never been a safe place for small states. And Nepal is no exception. It has become even less so with the advent of regional rivalry, economic conflict, scramble for energy and mineral wealth and terrorism. One does not have to be Sam Huntington or Donald Nuechterlein or Alexander George or Robert Keohane to understand these basic survival issues. The point is why are these issues being ignored?<br /><br /><strong>All this shows that Nepal is still in a very difficult phase. It must go ahead, keeping these issues in mind. At the moment, the only sustainable way for Nepal is to go for a framework constitution that represents the existing consensus in our political society, leaving the rest of the issues for the future. It is possible to solve all these issues over time. It is, however, not a viable option for us to solve everything now. Nepal´s geopolitical situation is not in its favour. But, we can certainly wait and see for a favourable environment as we go along. </strong><br /><br />Bipin Adhikari is a constitutional expert and writes for different vernaculars on constituent assembly.)<br /> <br />Published on 2010-01-02 00:57:32Nepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-30432861560764087972009-12-30T06:49:00.000-08:002009-12-30T07:00:23.305-08:00नयाँ संविधान र ब्रुटस प्रवृत्ति - डा. विपिन अधिकारी<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUOHVLn80XpCI0lcHGeavKCvGOS1C9vWurqn1vbrv9euJHtqz8vbmWzARp5n7kJIvb1ZGAg2nj_0pBo0XJ8-6rWWffOVh9mMOJTV6ZxNv8TCH8_U89N4cS6KRa-W6MSox8DHCqftEQRL8/s1600-h/Bipin_Adhikari.JPG"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 220px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUOHVLn80XpCI0lcHGeavKCvGOS1C9vWurqn1vbrv9euJHtqz8vbmWzARp5n7kJIvb1ZGAg2nj_0pBo0XJ8-6rWWffOVh9mMOJTV6ZxNv8TCH8_U89N4cS6KRa-W6MSox8DHCqftEQRL8/s320/Bipin_Adhikari.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5421044121086902962" /></a><br />http://www.ekantipur.com/np/news/news-detail.php?news_id=304246<br /><br /><strong>काठमाडौ, २०६६ पुस १३ - संविधानसभाको समयसीमा साँघुरिदै जाँदा तोकिएको अवधिमा मुलुकले प्रजातान्त्रिक संविधानप्राप्त गर्न सक्नेछ या छैन भन्ने विषयलाई लिएर यतिबेला विभिन्न शंका/उपशंका गरिँदैछ । संविधानसभाको कार्यप्रगति, यसको स्तर, त्यहाँ भएको राजनीतिक मूल्य र मान्यताका बहसहरू तथा विभिन्न दलहरूको संविधान निर्माणप्रतिको निष्ठा हेर्दा धेरैलाई विरक्ति लाग्न थालेको छ । एउटा प्रश्न बारम्बार उपस्थित हुन्छ - 'किन संविधान नबन्नेतर्फ सबैको ध्यान मोडिदैछ ?' </strong><br /><br />यो एउटा यक्ष प्रश्न हो । पश्चिमी संस्कृतिमा अंग्रेजी साहित्यकार सेक्सपियरको प्रसिद्ध नाटक जुलियस सिजरमा एउटा हृदयविदारक प्रसंग बारम्बार कोट्याइने गरिन्छ । सम्राट सिजरका भरपर्दा मित्र मार्कस जुनियस बु्रटस् उनको साम्राज्य तथा समृद्धिमा जहिले पनि गहिरो अर्थ राख्दथे । सिजरको जीवनकालभरि बु्रटस्को क्षमता, निष्ठा तथा उत्साहप्रति सिजरलाई कहिल्यै शंका भएन । एकरात सिजरलाई केही व्यक्तिहरूले षड्यन्त्रपर्ण तरिकाले भालाले घोचीघोची मार्न खोज्छन् । एउटा योद्धाका रूपमा सिजरले हत्याराहरूको उक्त झुन्डलाई एक्लैले प्रतिरोध गरिरहेका हुन्छन् । त्यस्तो प्रकारको आक्रमणको कुनै सम्भावना कहिल्यै नसोचेका सिजरलाई हत्याराहरूको अनुहार निहाल्ने रहर जाग्दछ । जब प्रतिरोधको क्रममा ती अनुहारहरू उनी हेर्न लाग्दछन् । सिजरको मुटु उनको मुखसम्म आइपुग्छ र उनी फत्रक्क गल्दछन् । आफ्नो प्रतिरक्षा गर्ने उनको चाहना समाप्त भएर जान्छ ।<br /><br />पत्यार गर्न गाह्रो थियो- त्यस हत्याराहरूको समूहमा उनका सबैभन्दा विश्वासिला साथी बु्रटस्लाई देख्दा संसारप्रति सम्राट सिजरमा कुनै आशक्ति बाँकी रहँदैन । उनको मुखबाट केवल तीनटुक्रा शब्दमात्र निस्कन्छः 'इभेन यु, ब्रुटस ?' जब ब्रुटसस्जस्ता साम्राज्य निर्माण गर्न सहयोग गर्ने सहयात्री नै सिजरको हत्या गर्न तयार भई आउँछन् र सिजरको विशाल साम्राज्यको धोकापूर्ण पतनका लागि उभिन्छन् भने त्यो लडाइँ लडेर कुन मूल्य र मान्यतालाई बचाउने भन्ने दर्दनाक आशय हुन्छ, ती तीन टुक्रा शब्दको । सेक्स्ापियरद्वारा रचित उक्त नाटक क्राइस्ट जन्मनुभन्दा ४४ वर्षअघिको सम्राट जुलियस सिजरको हत्याको कथा हो । तर यसको नैतिक पाठ आज पनि उत्तिकै महत्त्व राख्दछ ।<br /><br />अहिले संविधान बनाउनका लागि पाँच महिना बाँकी छ । धेरै ब्रुटसस्हरू लागि परेका छन् संविधान नबनोस् भनेर । प्रजातन्त्रप्रतिको आस्था समाप्त हुन लाग्यो भन्ने पिर कसैलाई छैन । पाँच महिनाको अवधिमा यो विश्वमा कतिपय संविधानहरू बनेर जारी भइसकेको इतिहासले देखाउँछ । नेपालमा किन सम्भव छैन ? यदि साँच्चिकै संविधान बनाउन सकिने स्थिति छैन भने किन छैन ? त्यसको जिम्मेवारी लिन अगाडि बढ्नुपर्यो । भइरहेको एउटा प्रजातान्त्रिक तथा भविष्यमुखी संविधानलाई फालेर मुलुकमा यति भद्दा मजाक गर्ने छुट कसैलाई प्राप्त हुनुहुँदैन । साँच्चिकै यो देशको स्थिति नयाँ संविधान बनाउन सकिने खालको छैन भने जिम्मेवार पक्षले अगाडि आएर भन्नुपर्यो- संविधानसभाको आयोजना कसका लागि गरिएको थियोे भनेर ? यसको चुनाव गराउनु र यति ठूलो आकारको संविधानसभालाई आजसम्म सकिनसकि थेग्नुको अर्थ के थियो ? त्यो स्पष्ट गर्न सक्नुपर्दछ । यदि प्रजातन्त्रप्रतिको अटुट आस्था तथा विश्वासका कारण संविधानसभाको रचना गरिएको थिएन भने यसको प्रष्ट जवाफ जनतासमक्ष आउनुपर्छ । किन यति भ्रामक आशयहरू राजनीतिज्ञ, सभासदहरू तथा नागरिक समाजको मुखबाट निस्किरहेका छन् । आज यस्ता प्रश्नहरू ती व्यक्ति तथा क्षेत्रहरूबाट उठाइनु के एउटा विडम्बना मात्र मानेर बिर्सिदिने ? <br /><br />वास्तवमा मुलुकभरि मूलप्रवाहका पत्रपत्रिकादेखि रेडियो, टेलिभिजनलगायत सबै क्षेत्रबाट संविधान बन्न नसकेमा यो राजनीतिक संक्रमणकाललाई कसरी अगाडि बढाउने भन्ने चिन्ता व्यक्त गर्न थालिएको छ । कतिपय राजनीतिज्ञ तथा कानुनविद्हरू अन्तरिम संविधानको छिद्रान्वेषण गर्दै यसबाट राष्ट्रपति शासन हुन सक्ने तथा यसको आधारमा अगाडि बढ्न सकिने विश्लेषण अगाडि सार्न पछाडि परेका छैनन् भने कतिपय व्यक्तिहरू वर्तमान संविधानको संशोधन गर्दै संविधान बनाउनका लागि थप समयावधिको व्यवस्था गर्नुपर्ने कुरालाई अगाडि राख्दै हिँडेका छन् । यी दुवै कुतर्क हुन् । <br /><br />प्रथमतः अहिले पनि नेपालले आम नेपालीलाई स्वीकार्य संविधान बनाउन सक्ने समय टरेको छैन । मुलुकमा आज पनि भविष्यका लागि कुनै ऊर्जा बाँकी छ भने त्यो ऊर्जा यो पाँच महिनाको अवधिमा बाँकी रहेको संविधान निर्माणसम्बन्धी कार्यलाई सम्पन्न गर्न प्रयोग गर्नुपर्दछ । संविधान निर्माणका लागि व्यवस्था गरिएको दुई वर्षको अवधि स्थिर अवधि हो । यसलाई बढाउने वा घटाउनेतर्फ संविधानले स्पष्ट दृष्टिकोण नदिएको सम्बन्धमा कसैको दुईमत हुनसक्दैन । त्यस्तै दुई वर्षभित्र संविधान बनेन भने त्यस्तो दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण स्थितिका लागि के गर्ने भन्ने सम्बन्धमा वर्तमान संविधानले कुनै पनि प्रकारको वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था -कन्टिन्जेन्सी प्लान) को प्रावधान उल्लेख गरेको छैन । त्यसैगरी संकटकाल जाल बुनेर थप्ने विषय होइन । यसको अर्थ प्रष्ट छ- संविधानको भावनाअनुसार संविधान बन्नुपर्दछ । <br /><br />नेपालको प्रजातान्त्रिक विकासका लागि संविधानसभा जरुरी थिएन । कानुनको शासन तथा समन्यायलाई प्राणवायु बनाउन सक्ने जुनसुकै संवैधानिक पद्धतिले पनि अन्ततः प्रजातान्त्रिक अवधारणा तथा संस्थाहरूलाई आफ्नो जीवनपद्धति बनाउन सक्छ । प्रजातन्त्रको इतिहास यही हो । संविधानसभाको प्रक्रिया खतरामुक्त छैन तथा यसको प्रयोगका धेरै भूराजनीतिक सीमाहरू छन् भन्ने नेपालीहरूको आज पनि कमी छैन । यही विश्वासकै कारण विश्वेश्वरप्रसाद कोइरालाजस्ता शीर्षस्थ राजनेताले न्यूनतम प्रजातान्त्रिक मान्यता छ भने राजाले नै जारी गरेको संविधान पनि स्वीकार गर्दै त्यसको निष्ठापूर्वक पालनाको पक्षलाई जोड दिँदै निर्वाचनमा भाग लिएको आजको नेपालको राजनीतिको शीर्षस्थ नेताहरूलाई थाहा भएकै कुरा हो । तर आफ्नो राजनीतिक औकात तथा यो मुलुकको क्षमता तथा सामथ्र्य दुवै प्रति असंवेदनशील हुँदै जुन प्रयोगमा यो मुलुकलाई धकेलिएको छ । अब त्यसबाट देशलाई कसैगरी पनि उकासेर प्रजातान्त्रिक प्रक्रियालाई अगाडि बढाउनुको अर्को विकल्प छैन । एउटा गल्तीको आधारमा अर्को गल्ती गर्ने छुट कसैलाई पनि प्राप्त हुनुहुँदैन । <br /><br />संविधान निर्माण सम्बन्धमा एउटा भरपर्दो बाटो देशका लागि आज पनि उपलब्ध छ । त्यो बाटो भनेको अहिलेकै संविधानसभा तथा यसले सुरु गरेको प्रक्रियाबमोजिम आगामी पाँच महिनामा एउटा संक्षिप्त संरचना भएको छोटो तथा छरितो संविधान बनाउन सकिन्छ । संविधान निर्माणसम्बन्धी विभिन्न प्रयोगमा एउटा प्रयोग यस किसिमको संविधान बनाउने प्रयोग पनि हो । जब कुनै मुलुकमा वर्तमान राजनीतिक नेतृत्व वर्गले समाधान गर्न नसक्ने गरी नीतिगत प्रश्नहरू उपस्थित हुन जान्छन् तथा विभिन्न दलहरूबीच आम सहमति हरेक विषयमा देखा पर्दैन, त्यस अवस्थामा सहमतिका बुँदाहरूका आधारमा संक्षिप्त संरचना भएको सबैलाई स्वीकार्य संविधान निर्माण गरी अगाडि बढ्न सकिन्छ । जब मुलुकमा पुनः निर्वाचन हुन्छ तथा नयाँ संविधानका आधारमा नयाँ नेतृत्व वर्ग व्यवस्थापिकामा देखा पर्दछ । बाँकी रहेका नीतिगत प्रश्नहरूलाई पुनः छलफल गरी दुई तिहाई बहुमतले पारित गरी समाधान दिँदै जान सकिन्छ । संविधान बन्दै नबन्नुभन्दा एउटा भविष्यमुखी संविधान बनाएर मात्र विश्राम लिनु रणनीतिक हिसाबले व्यावहारिक देखिन्छ । प्रजातान्त्रिक संस्थाहरूप्रतिको आस्था जोगाइ राख्न भए पनि यो प्रक्रियामा जानै पर्दछ । <br /><br />यो नयाँ कुराचाहिँ होइन । उदाहरणका रूपमा डेनमार्कबाट स्वतन्त्रता दाबी गर्दै संविधान बनाउने राजनीति थेग्न नसकेपछि आइसल्यान्डले सन् १९४४ मा संक्षिप्त संरचना भएको संविधान निर्माण गरी संक्रमणकाललाई अन्त्य गरेको थियो । त्यसैगरी ७५ वर्षसम्म प|mान्सको संरक्षणमा रहेको ट्युनिसियाले सन् १९५६ मा स्वतन्त्रता प्राप्त गर्दा आइसल्यान्डकै जस्तो परिस्थिति खप्नुपर्यो । यसबाट पार पाउन उनीहरूले तीन वर्षसम्म संविधानसभामा छलफल गरे । टुंगोमा पुग्न नसकेपछि संक्षिप्त संरचना भएको संविधानमा सहमति गरेर राजनीतिक प्रक्रियालाई अगाडि बढाए । इन्डोनेसियामा पनि सन् १९४५ ताका त्यही नै भयो । आमसहमति बन्न नसक्दा एउटा अस्थायी संविधान निर्माण गरेर सभासदहरू बिदा भए । आजसम्म त्यही अस्थायी संविधान नै स्थायी सरह लागू भई बसेको छ । रोमानियाको कथा पनि त्यस्तै छ । सन् १९८९ मा तानाशाही व्यवस्थाबाट मुक्ति पाएको रोमानियाले सन् १९९१ मै एउटा संक्षिप्त संविधान बनाइ राजनीतिक अस्थिरतालाई अन्त्य गर्न सक्यो । पोहोर कोसोभोमा पनि त्यसै गरियो । आन्तरिक जातीय द्वन्द्वलाई व्यवस्थापन गर्ने क्रममा यसले पनि मुख मिलेका कुराहरूलाई आधार बनाई एउटा संक्षिप्त संविधान जारी गरी मुलुकलाई अगाडि बढाउन मदत गर्यो । <br /><br />यी सबै उदाहरणहरूले नेपालले चाह्यो भने एउटा संक्षिप्त संरचना भएको संविधान निर्माण गरी यो संविधानसभाको प्रक्रियालाई सार्थक निष्कर्षमा पुर्याउन सक्छ । मूल कुरा के हो भने प्रजातान्त्रिक निष्ठा र विश्वास कमजोर धरातलमा उभ्याउनु हुँदैन । यसले आफूलाई पनि र सम्पूर्ण मुलुकलाई डुबाउने छ ।Nepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-87750323237122606262009-12-17T09:00:00.000-08:002009-12-17T09:16:48.080-08:00Right to self-determination <strong>Discussion on this topic has suffered due to extremism among proponents and opponents.<br /><br />Diverse jurisdictions can be looked into for additional models, for example, from the Saami Parliaments of Scandinavia to the Maori seats in the New Zealand Parliament to the Canadian experience in territorial governance for further discussion. Models help, but only when the ground situations are not overlooked. But issues like federalisation of the country based on ethnicity and grounding of rights jurisprudence on the concept of “premium rights” (agradhikar) going beyond the claims of affirmative action or reverse discrimination defy any such move.</strong><br /><br /><strong>BIPIN ADHIKARI</strong><br /><br />http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2009/12/16/Oped/Right-to-self-determination/3119/<br /><br />THE KATHMANDU POST, DECEMBER 17, 2009 - The quality of discussion as to the right to self-determination has always suffered in Nepal because of the awfully motivated efforts by activists either to contain it, or to misinterpret it in a way that no country can ever afford to apply it. <br /><br />Although a sub-committee constituted to advise the Constituent Assembly Committee on Restructuring of State and Distribution of State Powers on this issue has already submitted its report, it does not in any significant sense address the magnitude of the issue, and its complexity and implication in a constitutional framework which is to be based on democracy and constitutionalism. It offers little in the way of concrete suggestions or strategies for realising the claim for indigenous self-determination in Nepal.<br /><br />In international law, the application of the right to self-determination in the context of decolonisation or associated independence movements is much clear. The United Nations itself was created “to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace. In this context, both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) hold on their right “to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. <br /><br />This right has been applied in the context of people under colonial domination and foreign occupation. But even international law, the UN Charter or other covenants do not explain what independence means, or provide any enforcement mechanism to implement this right when violated.<br /><br />Since the early 1990s, however, the right to self-determination has gone beyond that. It is everywhere, and with different undercurrents. It is no longer an issue of colonial domination or foreign occupation only. It is being applied also in the context of subgroups within the people of a country. These sub-groups may or may not include indigenous groups depending on the situation of a particular country. But where there are indigenous groups, the right to indigenous self-determination is being recognised to freely determine their political status, and pursue their economic, social and cultural development. <br /><br />In many countries, increasing political overtones of this right has also helped undermine the valid claims in it. It has thus led to an increase in the number of conflicts within states, where subgroups seek greater self-determination and even full secession. This is precisely the reason many constitutions forbid the right to self-determination through secession, and many others do not recognise this right in express words, although it does significantly contribute to the jurisprudence of fundamental rights in any country.<br /><br />In order to avoid this trend, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the General Assembly in 2007, the latest document on the theme, holds two principles together: That indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognised in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and international human rights law; and that “nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, people, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations or construed as authorising or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States”.<br /><br />In addition, the 2007 Declaration responds to all misconceptions by stating thereon that “in the exercise of the rights enunciated in the present Declaration, human rights and fundamental freedoms of all shall be respected”. They could be subjected only to such limitations “as are determined by law and in accordance with international human rights obligations”. “Any such limitations shall be non-discriminatory and strictly necessary solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for meeting the just and most compelling requirements of a democratic society.”<br /><br />The 2007 Declaration makes it very explicit that the provisions set forth there should be interpreted in accordance with “the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith”. <br /><br />These fundamental principles leave little confusion to those who want to “operationalise” this principle in Nepal. In several countries, one can see patterns which are emerging pointing out to effective strategies that will allow communities to realise their goals in the framework of democracy, human rights and territorial integrity. It has been evidenced in both common law and civil law systems. <br /><br />Many of the finished work of the CA thematic committees have already logically approached the issue of the right to self-determination through several specific content areas including provisions on basic collective and inclusionary rights, political representation, and recognition of identity variables in the letter and spirit of their preliminary drafts. So far, notwithstanding several drawbacks of the Constituent Assembly, it is difficult to find any report that betrays the cause of the indigenous people of the country. <br /><br />Diverse jurisdictions can be looked into for additional models, for example, from the Saami Parliaments of Scandinavia to the Maori seats in the New Zealand Parliament to the Canadian experience in territorial governance for further discussion. Models help, but only when the ground situations are not overlooked. But issues like federalisation of the country based on ethnicity and grounding of rights jurisprudence on the concept of “premium rights” (agradhikar) going beyond the claims of affirmative action or reverse discrimination defy any such move.Nepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-37498518002969146822009-11-19T07:57:00.000-08:002009-11-19T08:05:56.627-08:00Something’s not right: A list of rights without inbuilt judicial sanctions is not worth its name<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCPvaWSu7y2-MICzBaAqCNnQdL8Bc_f5JQBqH8kkEdyDOdtVK2_gXYANOJGFmThTFNyli3pi8ba31uDpmShOtpEnU9vJXBi2gvn3aU3bqVGrbS497H-jLh-a0yVt0O6U_Laee8oj2w7go/s1600/bipin_adhikari_4.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 70px; height: 92px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCPvaWSu7y2-MICzBaAqCNnQdL8Bc_f5JQBqH8kkEdyDOdtVK2_gXYANOJGFmThTFNyli3pi8ba31uDpmShOtpEnU9vJXBi2gvn3aU3bqVGrbS497H-jLh-a0yVt0O6U_Laee8oj2w7go/s320/bipin_adhikari_4.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5405845925436442690" /></a><br /><strong>A Supreme Court which lacks independence, which has to be accountable to a legislative committee, and which is always under the threat and duress of a legislative majority cannot protect any fundamental rights whatsoever.<br /><br />http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2009/11/18/Oped/Somethings-not-right/2158/<br /><br />BIPIN ADHIKARI<br />lawyers_inc_nepal@yahoo.com</strong><br /><br />The recently released exhaustive list of fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy proposed under the new constitution of Nepal is not going to impress the country’s lawyers and many other critical thinkers here. The list is not without its built-in problems, but even assuming that the problems will be sorted out at a later stage, there are other crucial issues still unattended to. One such problem is that the list is without judicial sanction.<br /><br />The issue of sanction is so important. A right without remedy is no right at all. In a way, even the Panchayat constitution, criticised on so many grounds, guaranteed a list of basic fundamental rights. Some rights were guaranteed only to Nepali citizens, and some were guaranteed to both citizens and non-citizens. The right to proceed for the enforcement of these rights was guaranteed by Article 16, and the Supreme Court was empowered with extra-ordinary jurisdiction to deal with any eventuality of their violation subject to the provisions of the constitution.<br /><br />Like the constitution of 1959, the Panchayat constitution also provided for a Supreme Court, a court of record with the power to impose punishment for contempt of court. The king was to appoint its chief justice after consulting, if he so desired, the members of the state council and other judges after consultation with the chief justice. Apart from ordinary jurisdiction, it also had extraordinary jurisdiction to issue directives, orders or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights, or in cases where no other remedy is provided, for the enforcement of rights conferred by any other law for the time being in force. <br /><br />The decision of the Supreme Court was to be final. The Judicial Committee which could ask the king to order a revision of a case was basically the king’s committee. In any case, the principle of law declared by the Supreme Court in cases within its jurisdiction was binding on all courts. A Judicial Service Commission was also created to organise judicial service. But the functional aspect of the Supreme Court was not promising.<br /><br />The constraints on the Supreme Court which according to the constitution exercised judicial powers of an absolute monarch were many. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court had performed its due role in cases of sensitive and serious political nature involving the monarchy, foreign relations and politics. It had also in many instances exercised its extraordinary power of judicial review assertively and effectively on the grounds of violation of natural justice and refusal of right to legal representation, non-conformity with the procedure prescribed by law, dismissal under a wrong way, non-disclosure of grounds and so forth.<br /><br />There were some decisions which equally put questions on the status of the Supreme Court. It was not able to maintain consistency in its decisions in several cases, notwithstanding publicly expressed commitments and emphasis of justices in favour of judicial control for preserving the rule of law. The area of dissatisfaction for many against the passive stand taken by the Supreme Court is related to restrictions on fundamental rights imposed by Article 17 (2) and 11 (2A). <br /><br />The court had, no doubt, failed in some instances to support the cause of the constitution by withdrawing itself from going into the property of the Act simply because the preamble of the enactment had shielded it with the “firewall” of “public good”, hence the judicial activism.<br /><br />When the constitution of 1990 was promulgated 28 years later, all these problematic issues were reconsidered, and some outstanding arrangements were made to make sure that the Supreme Court, which got continuity in its form, changed significantly in terms of its substance. Not only was its power as the guardian of the constitution acknowledged, but efforts were also made to make sure that it was independent and able to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens.<br /><br />In fact, as a Duke Professor Donald L. Horowitz has emphasised in a 2006 article, as of 2005 more than three quarters of the world’s states had some form of judicial review for constitutionality enshrined in their constitutions. It is a very popular constitutional institution. Even some undemocratic countries take it as a feature that constitutions should inculcate (even if in substance they imply quite a different angle). Although constitutional experts may be divided on whether the power of judicial review shall lie in the Supreme Court or a constitutional court separate from this conventional institution, it has become more and more difficult for constitution makers to avoid judicial review. <br /><br />The introduction of a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom provides greater clarity in our constitutional arrangements by further separating the judiciary from the legislature.<br /><br />The concept paper and preliminary draft submitted by the Constituent Assembly (CA) Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, no matter how good they are, cannot be properly studied without referring to the reports of the Committee on Judicial System. <br /><br />The later report recommends infamous provisions in the new constitution which belittles the parameters of the Supreme Court as the guardian of the Constitution, and robs the power of judicial review from the Supreme Court in significant sense. It can neither interpret the constitution in important sense, nor it can judge upon the constitutionality of any law where it matters most. The report also makes sure that the Supreme Court and its judges are under parliamentary control in all matters relating to their appointment, dismissal and the job of judicial decision making. <br /><br />A Supreme Court which lacks independence, which has to be accountable to a legislative committee, and which is always under the threat and duress of a legislative majority cannot protect any fundamental rights whatsoever. If this is so, the question is how the concept paper and preliminary draft submitted by the CA Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles can safeguard the fundamental rights of the Nepali people. A list of rights without inbuilt judicial sanctions is not worth its name.Nepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-743268629806383113.post-16579001772597091112009-11-08T08:01:00.000-08:002009-11-27T10:40:53.136-08:00My law, your law<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbbjaHg18xi_T_SlI2Cau5qJwpmk0oXYLikvx0PyqFJPpSgzlmwA-xkJTR9lXCwyTGM1ASgYuv1PUBir77J8gzfCFroxl5ApMb5JbeUP8GqUwqMe6l08mpe5sYBUkQf0Ob-Q7ooCStKvw/s1600/Bipin_Adhikari.JPG"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 197px; height: 286px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbbjaHg18xi_T_SlI2Cau5qJwpmk0oXYLikvx0PyqFJPpSgzlmwA-xkJTR9lXCwyTGM1ASgYuv1PUBir77J8gzfCFroxl5ApMb5JbeUP8GqUwqMe6l08mpe5sYBUkQf0Ob-Q7ooCStKvw/s320/Bipin_Adhikari.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5408855213700190770" /></a><br /><strong><blockquote>Nepal could study the Turkish model amind demands to communalise personal laws</blockquote></strong><br /><strong>The importance of secular laws and institutions cannot be over-emphasized in a progressive society. They are important because they are essential for the protection and promotion of human rights of all the people. But many democratic countries have conceded to the pressure and created exceptions in their legal systems to remain politically correct. The most recent example is Britain, which has officially adopted Islamic law, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases. <br /><br />Bipin Adhikari<br />lawyers_inc_nepal@yahoo.com</strong><br /><br />A Muslim social activist in Lahan was asking this critique why the Muslims in the Constituent Assembly had not been able to garner enough support to make sure that the Muslims of Nepal, as many other Muslims of the world, were guaranteed the right to be governed by their own personal laws as far as their communities were concerned.<br /><br />The forum that this author was participating in was on the theme of local self-government in the scheme of state restructuring, which was not something that attracted his attention at that moment. The question was very simple, but the answer remains difficult for many reasons.<br /><br />Nepal has been practicing a uniform civil code from the very beginning. The National Civil Code (known to Nepalis as the New Muluki Ain) prescribes uniform rules for all Nepali communities and cultures. The code covers most of the laws governing rights relating to property and personal matters like marriage, divorce, maintenance, adoption and inheritance. The code allows communities and cultures to act according to their traditions in these matters, but the standard rules apply to everybody in the country, and the law courts in Nepal administer them uniformly except when exceptions are permitted by the code itself. As such, the code has been applied to Muslims as well since a very long time.<br /><br />It was early this year when the Nepal Muslim Sangh, a federation of Nepali Muslim communities, made a request to the government to accept its six-point demand. These demands were intended to protect the interest of Muslims as a minority community in the country. The federation wanted the country’s Maoist government at that time to acknowledge that Nepali Muslims had a separate identity, and that this warranted the creation of a separate Islamic Affairs Commission, an Islamic School (Madrassah) Board, a Hajj Committee (for annual pilgrimages to Mecca) and the introduction of Islamic personal law based on the sharia for Muslim communities. <br /><br />The Muslims, who number just over 800,000 or about 3.5 percent out of a population of 26 million, constitute Nepal’s second largest religious minority after Buddhists. On March 15, the government even signed an agreement with their representatives which, however, declined to accept their demand for recognition of sharia-based personal law in the new constitution. <br /><br />Many Nepali Muslims in recent years are in touch with Muslims in other countries through their civil society organizations. A significant portion of Indian Muslims were able to receive citizenship certificates before the Constituent Assembly elections in 2007. Those who are familiar with the legal arrangements in India question why Nepal’s legal system cannot afford the same treatment to Nepali Muslims what the Indian legal system has afforded to Indian Muslims. They are aware that in India, family law is still determined by the religion of the parties concerned, despite many advances made by the legal system in other sectors. <br /><br />While Muslims and Christians in India have their own personal laws, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists come under the Hindu law enacted by parliament. India accepted communalizing family law as an extraordinary measure of protection to minorities for healing the wounds of the partition caused by communal polarization. The question is whether India should be followed as the best example in this case.<br /><br />One must also not forget that the constitution of India directs the state to work towards a uniform civil code for the country (assuming that these arrangements are temporary interventions). This demand essentially means unifying all these personal laws to have one set of secular code that will apply to all citizens of India irrespective of the community they belong to. Though the exact contours of such a uniform code have not been spelt out, it should presumably incorporate the most modern and progressive aspects of all existing personal laws while discarding those which are discriminatory and violative of the basic rights of Indian citizens. <br /><br />The Indian Supreme Court, which has established a very sublime image for itself as the guardian of fundamental rights of Indian citizens, has repeatedly regretted the fact that the state has not implemented this provision even after all these years. It has indeed been bold enough to instruct the government that it must move forward towards a secular regime.<br /><br />The importance of secular laws and institutions cannot be over-emphasized in a progressive society. They are important because they are essential for the protection and promotion of human rights of all the people. But many democratic countries have conceded to the pressure and created exceptions in their legal systems to remain politically correct. The most recent example is Britain, which has officially adopted Islamic law, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases. <br /><br />The British government has sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence. Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. These courts are hearing cases where Muslims involved agree to be bound by traditional sharia law; and under the 1996 Arbitration Act, the court’s decisions can then be enforced by the county courts or the High Court. Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims. <br /><br />So a sort of parallel legal system has already come into the picture there. Critics fear that Britain’s Islamic hardliners will now try to make sharia law the dominant legal system in Muslim neighborhoods, and warn that women often receive less favorable treatment at the hands of the traditional Islamic courts.<br /><br />It is good that this country already has a system of uniform civil law. One possible alternative for Nepali Muslims would be to review the provisions of this national civil code and ask the government to revise and streamline the provisions which are objectionable from a secular point of view. Sharia law has certain religious values for Muslims, but then secular laws would have that value for every community. <br /><br />It is interesting to note that Turkey, a predominantly Muslim state, has a secular constitution which provides for freedom of religion and many other human rights. It has very carefully worked out a civil code that very keenly secures the rights of all communities. The government, however, imposes some restrictions on all religious expression in its offices and state-run institutions, including universities, usually for the stated reason of preserving the state’s secular character. <br /><br />The secularity, bearing the meaning of protection of beliefs, plays an important role to protect the state in Turkey. The region has a long and rich Islamic tradition stretching back to the dawn of the Seljuk period and the Ottoman Empire. Yet it still believes that secular institutions can serve all. This model could definitely be studied.Nepal Constitution Foundationhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04052441151614249189noreply@blogger.com0