Commissioning commissions

Bipin Adhikari

THE KATHMANDU POST JULY 30, 2009
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=206899

Without an all-embracing theory, the process of drafting the constitution continues to be piecemeal, and both the need and calls for further reform will continue to rumble on for this very reason.

The report produced by the Constituent Assembly (CA) Committee on Determination of the Structure of Constitutional Bodies (CDSCB), which includes the preliminary draft and its concept paper, has surprised many critiques in the country by proposing creation of 11 commissions under the constitution in the making. This is the fourth committee submitting its report to the full house for further discussion and comments. As in the case of the last three reports, it appears the CDSCB committee members tend to see constitutional reform as part of pragmatic politics with no clear vision of the final product. They have created more problems than what they presume to have solved.

The principal objective of this report, as any other committee report on the given constitutional themes, is to act as a working document for the Constitutional Committee in light of the perceived shortfalls identified through deliberations, expert consultations, written submissions and from views expressed to the CA members in the field in respect of constitutional and other oversight bodies. This should have been done making the (questionable?) provisions of the earlier constitutions as a point of departure.

The major questions before the CDSCB should have been, one, what are the areas in which Nepal needs independent constitutional bodies or watchdogs; two, how these independent constitutional bodies or watchdogs should have been provided for in the changed context (it definitely involved decisions regarding their jurisdiction, power and modus operandi); and how these independent bodies were to maintain public accountability. The concept of independence without accountability neither bears any fruit nor protects any constitutional value.

As one expected, the committee has chosen to continue with all independent constitutional commissions under the Interim Constitution like the Commission on the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), Audit Commission (as of now, the Office of the Auditor General of Nepal), Public Service Commission, Election Commission and Human Rights Commission. It is, however, not clear in what areas involving these constitutional bodies there has been an attempt on the part of the committee to reform these institutions, make them more independent, and as a corollary, accountable to the constitution and the general public.

There were some issues to be addressed. In professional circles, many human rights practitioners wanted the chapter on National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to have a clear-cut reference on the 1993 Paris Principles relating to the status and functioning of national institutions for protection and promotion of human rights. It is not just about making this commission financially independent through the constitution, but also about linking the NHRC with developing international system and practices.

Similarly, some people had the opinion that there should be a rethink on the mandate of the CIAA. It needs to capture all areas of maladministration and good governance issues. Many new provisions were suggested to make the Election Commission smarter and more efficient, including vesting power in it whereby it could outsource some of its electoral tasks to private entities who could do the job more professionally under its general supervision.

Most of the commissioners or members in the existing bodies do think that they have not been given enough access to parliament to speak about their activities, and relate their mandate with the direct representatives of the people. Even now the government acts as a bridge, and that entails a lot of consequences. Unfortunately, the report of the committee does not deal with these issues.

Amazing more than this though is the proposal of the CDSCB to create six additional commissions to protect the interests of (a) Women (b) Dalits (c) Adivasis/Janajatis (d) Disabled people, minorities, marginalised communities, backward classes and areas (e) Madhesia and (f) Muslims. All these proposed commissions deal with the right to equality, non-discrimination and other human rights issues. While attempts have been made to lay down their powers and functions separately, no effort has been made to sort out conceptual cleavages on the constitutional arrangements and jurisdictional overlap between these commissions.

The issue of jurisdictional overlap is most prominent. There is no reason why an integrated national human rights commission cannot deal with all the components above — clubbing them together. The draft model constitution that this author suggested to the Constituent Assembly for their discussion in May this year also provided one human rights commission dealing with all human rights issues, whether they relate with caste, ethnicity or people from remote (backward) areas. An additional commission was recommended for Adivasis/Janajatis, minorities and communities depreciated as smaller castes.

While the first commission had the power to receive complaints of human rights violations, investigative powers regarding them and the power to award compensation to victims of human rights violations, the latter had to rely on the former as to all these things. But then the latter commission had all other powers and responsibilities regarding most of the issues that have a bearing on specific communities. This arrangement not only avoided jurisdictional overlap, but also allowed enough working space to the second commission and the elected government.

The committee concept paper has a serious flaw. If Muslims deserve an independent commission to protect their community interests in the state system, why not Kirants; and if Kirants, why not Christians? If Madhesis think they have a cause to protect through the new commission, what prevents Himalis (the high mountain dwellers) from claiming a similar commission on the same grounds? What type of justice is it? Should some people be left behind because they do not have enough heads in the Constituent Assembly? This type of proposal hardly makes any sense.

lawyers_inc_nepal@yahoo.com
Posted on: 2009-07-29 20:18:28 (Server Time)

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY: Different tongues

Bipin Adhikari

http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=204493

Like many countries in the world, Nepal is also concerned about the need to preserve its cultural and linguistic diversity according to the best formula that one can think of in the face of competing claims of different communities and cultures.

Many factors affect the existence and usage of any given language. Some of them may include the size of the native speaking population, its use in formal communication and the geographical dispersion and socio-economic weight of its speakers. A new constitution providing a policy in this regard can either mitigate or exacerbate the effects of some of these factors. It is, therefore, very important to be holistic and not to miss the jungle for the trees when working on a language policy.

In this context, it is necessary to put in perspective the language policy proposed by the Constituent Assembly (CA) Committee on the Determination of Grounds of Social and Cultural Unity for discussion at the CA plenary session. This is so far largely undone by the constituent of the constitution building process, not to mention the constitutional experts watching the process from outside.

The preliminary draft on the issue provides that all native languages spoken in Nepal are national languages. It is the obligation of the state to ensure equal protection, promotion and development of all national languages. Every native language community has the right to experience their linguistic identity and their relationship with it in dignified ways. Those without sight and voice will also have the right to use Braille and non-verbal communications.

Featuring additional changes, the draft recognizes Nepali — the present official language of Nepal — as the official language of the central government. Along with Nepali, each province has been given the competence to decide how many provincial languages it wants as its official languages. The local units within the provinces may also employ the local language of the area as the official language for their particular region as per the law enacted by the respective provincial legislature.

None of these provisions, however, are deemed to restrain anybody from the use of his or her native language to receive public services from the state. Although it will be necessary to define the nature of this last provision by law, the first three provisions are clear enough and mostly address many of the demands of Nepal's natives.

The committee draft also provides that the official language of the central government shall be the language to be employed for the communication between the centre and the provinces. There are two exceptions, however. First, a province may decide to communicate with the centre in one of the languages it has approved for official business within the province. It goes without saying that the central government has to prepare its bureaucracy — civil, military or judicial — to receive and process business in at least seven or eight languages and respond to the corresponding province as necessary.

Secondly, the provinces are to conduct their official business with each other in the official language of the centre and any other language to be mutually agreed upon between them. There is no provision which addresses the stake of a third party, for example, a province which is a little far from the provinces which have mutually decided to employ a particular language in their dealings with each other. Again, it could be a language, for which the central government has to be better equipped with — whether it is its choice or within its logistical capacity or not. It is assumed that this language policy can maintain the business requirements of the state as well as the cultural and social harmony in the country.

Many commentators, in the House or down the street, are pretending that the language problem has more or less been solved, at least at the committee level; and that efforts to introduce Hindi as a parallel governmental language along with Nepali has been checked at the threshold. The conclusion is without doubt a faulty one, if not malicious.

According to a provision, the central government may choose to recognize a language that fulfills certain required standards as its official language upon the recommendation of the language commission. The only requirement is that such a recommendation be passed by a simple majority of the central legislature.

In other words, the status of the Nepali language as the only lingua franca of the nation has been challenged on multiple fronts. It may no longer be the language of choice for the provinces, as an operative language between the central government and a province, or practically, even as the official language of the centre. The clutches around Nepali — the language of national integration — will try to keep it not just under size, but also inoperative because of a seemingly inappropriate approach.

Additionally, the above provision, which enables the central government to adopt any other language as the official language for its purpose is a carefully inducted provision to give unsoiled entrance to Hindi — a foreign language — as the second official language of the centre through the backdoor. This provision must be dropped altogether.

While the indigenous Nepali language and the treatment given to it by the proposed preliminary draft will have to be subjected to heated discussions and passed by a two-thirds majority in the Constituent Assembly, Hindi can now be the second official language by the decision of the government of the day. A language commission, or the fragile government of Nepal, which continues to be constituted by decisions made elsewhere cannot check the tide of events that unfolds here when it decides on a crucial national issue. It need not be emphasized here how such a decision will be enforced by proxy forces in Nepal overnight.

There is no reason why Hindi should be allowed in Nepal as an official language simply because it serves somebody's strategic interests here. It is an attempt to fish in muddy waters. If it is to be accepted as an official language either of the centre or of any province, it must be proposed and voted according to the Constituent Assembly process. There is a danger that a process to empower the natives and their language and cultures might further marginalize them through a provision whose effect is disastrous to the nationalist aspirations of the Nepalese people (already much fatigued by the sponsored changes).

An end to the political spin of this sort is not in sight. Even if a spin of some kind is intrinsic to politics, it just has to be kept in check and not allowed into areas like this where it should have no place.

Posted on: 2009-07-15 19:51:31 (Server Time)

उत्पीडकको गम्भीर आरोप - विपीन अधिकारी

http://www.kantipuronline.com/Nepal/article.php?&aid=10

Nepal Newsmagazine,Sunday, July 12, 2009

अल्पसंख्यक तथा सीमान्तकृत समुदायको हक-अधिकार संरक्षण समितिले हालै आफ्नो अवधारणापत्र र प्रारम्भिक मस्यौदा पेस गरेको छ, जुन अल्पसंख्यक तथा सीमान्तकृत समुदायको हक-अधिकार संरक्षणका सम्बन्धमा गरेका विभिन्न प्रस्तावहरूमध्ये एउटा प्रस्ताव समानताको हकसँग सम्बन्धित छ । यस अन्तर्गत खण्ड -३) मा राज्यले नागरकिहरूका बीच धर्म, समुदाय, लिंग वा वर्णलगायत कुनै पनि आधारमा कुनै पनि किसिमको भेदभाव गर्ने छैन भन्ने व्यवस्थ्ाासँग सम्बन्धित प्रतिबन्धात्मक वाक्यांश ध्यानाकृष्ट गर्ने खालको छ, जसमा भनिएको छ, 'तर आर्थिक, सामाजिक, राजनीतिक, शैक्षिक र स्वास्थ्यमा पिछडिएको समुदाय वा वर्गको पहिचान गरी उनीहरूको संरक्षण, विकास र सशक्तीकरणका लागि राज्यले विगतको उत्पीडनको क्षतिपूर्तिसहित सकारात्मक विभेदका आधारमा कानुनद्वारा विशेष व्यवस्था गर्नेछ ।'

समितिको अवधारणापत्र वा प्रारम्भिक मस्यौदामा उपरोक्त प्रतिबन्धात्मक वाक्यांशमा परेको 'विगतको उत्पीडनको क्षतिपूर्तिसहित' भन्ने पदावलीले केलाई बुझाउन खोजेको हो प्रस्ट हुन सकेको छैन । यस्तो पदावली दलित समुदायको हकमा पनि प्रयोग गरएिको छ । मौलिक हक तथा अधिकारको विधिशास्त्रमा भने यस प्रकारको क्षतिपूर्तिको प्रावधानले गहिरो अर्थ राख्छ ।

सामान्यतया हरेक समाजमा आर्थिक, सामाजिक, राजनीतिक, शैक्षिक तथा स्वास्थ्यको दृष्टिकोणले पछाडि परेका समुदायहरू हुन्छन् । पछाडि पर्नुका विभिन्न कारण हुन्छन् । एउटा प्रमुख कारण राज्यले उनीहरूप्रति चाहिँदो ध्यान दिन नसक्नु पनि हो । तर, कारण जेसुकै भए तापनि त्यसरी पछाडि परेको कारणबाट त्यस्ता समुदायहरू राष्ट्रको मूल प्रवाहबाट क्रमशः सीमान्तकृत हुँदै जान्छन् । यो प्रक्रियालाई नरोक्ने हो भने मुलुकको जनसंख्याको एउटा ठूलो भागले संविधानले सुनिश्चित गरेको मौलिक हक तथा अधिकार प्रयोग गर्न सक्दैन । त्यस्तो प्रक्रियाबाट एउटा न्यायपूर्ण समाजको स्थापना गर्न सकिँदैन । यी विभिन्न कारणहरूले गर्दा त्यस्ता पछाडि परेका अल्पसंख्यक वा सीमान्तकृत समुदायको पहिचान गरी उनीहरूको संरक्षण, विकास र सशक्तीकरणका लागि सकारात्मक विभेदलाई संविधानद्वारा नै स्वीकार गरी विशेष व्यवस्था गर्ने प्रचलन आज सबै प्रजातान्त्रिक मुलुकमा पाइन्छ । तर, यहाँ प्रयोग भएको 'विगतको उत्पीडनको क्षतिपूर्तिसहित' भन्ने पदावलीले संवैधानिक कानुनको त्यस्तो विवेचनाभन्दा फरक अर्थ राख्छ ।

कानुन चाहे देवानी प्रकृतिको होस् वा फौजदारी प्रकृतिको, उत्पीडनका लागि क्षतिपूर्ति भन्नु र मुलुकमा पछाडि परेको समुदायलाई सकारात्मक विभेद गरी अगाडि ल्याउने मनसाय राख्नु अलग-अलग कुरा हुन् । 'उत्पीडन' वा 'क्षतिपूर्ति' भन्ने शब्दले केवल विषयवस्तुको गम्भीरतालाई मात्र होइन, नयाँ परपि्रेक्ष्यलाई पनि समेटेको हुन्छ । जुन रूपमा लेखिएको छ, त्यस रूपमा हेर्दा उपरोक्त प्रतिबन्धात्मक वाक्यांशले नेपालमा उत्पीडक समुदाय छन् तथा ती उत्पीडकका कारणले गर्दा केही अन्य समुदायहरू आर्थिक, सामाजिक, राजनीतिक, शैक्षिक र स्वास्थ्य क्षेत्रमा पिछडिएका हुन् भन्ने निष्कर्ष दिन्छन् । यदि प्रस्तावित लक्ष्य त्यही नै हो भने अल्पसंख्यक तथा सीमान्तकृत समुदायको हक-अधिकार संरक्षण समितिले आरोपित उत्पीडक समुदाय को हो भनेर उल्लेख गर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ । उत्पीडन कसले गर्‍यो त भन्ने कुरोको टुंगो नलागीकन त्यस्तो उत्पीडक समुदायले राज्यलाई आफ्नो उद्देश्यका लागि प्रयोग गरेको हो वा होइन भनेर टुंगो लगाउन सकिँदैन । यदि राज्य सम्बन्धित छैन भने निश्चित रूपमा यसलाई क्षतिपूर्तिको दायित्व सम्बन्धमा जिम्मेवारी बोकाउन सकिँदैन । जबसम्म आरोप नै प्रमाणित छैन, क्षतिपूर्तिको दाबी कसरी लाग्छ, सोचनीय छ ।

त्यसैगरी क्षतिपूर्तिको कुरा उठाउँदा उत्पीडक यो हो भनेर लेखिदिनु मात्र पर्याप्त छैन । उसले दिएको पीडा केका आधारमा प्रमाणित गरएिको हो, सो पनि हेर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ । 'विगतको उत्पीडन' भनेर लेख्दा त्यस 'विगत' शब्दले कुन कालखण्डलाई जनाउँछ, उत्पीडन कहाँ गरयिो ? र, कति लामो समयसम्म गरयिो भनेर पनि उल्लेख गर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ । यतिले मात्र पुग्दैन । त्यस्तो उत्पीडन खप्ने आर्थिक, सामाजिक, राजनीतिक, शैक्षिक र स्वास्थ्यमा पिछडिएको समुदाय वा वर्गलाई जातीय रूपमा प्रमाणित गर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ । उत्पीडक भनेको यो यस्तो हो भनेर नलेखी यति विस्तृत तथा पहिचान गर्न नसकिने गरी उल्लेख गर्दा यसले कुनै समस्याको समाधान गर्दैन, बरु नयाँ समस्याहरूको उठान भने गर्छ । वास्तवमा उत्पीडन भएको छ भनेर कुनै अड्डा-अदालतको फैसला वा कुनै अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय ट्राइब्युनलहरूको निर्णय, राष्ट्रिय वा अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय आयोगले हस्ताक्षर गरििदएको प्रतिवेदनलाई किटानीका साथ उल्लेख गर्न सक्ने भए त्यसले एउटा लक्ष्य पूरा गथ्र्यो होला ।

उत्पीडक जाति वा वर्गको पहिचान गर्नुका साथै त्यस्तो जाति वा वर्गलेे लगातार रूपमा राज्यलाई अपहरण गरेर आफ्नो अभीष्ट पूरा गरेको पनि देखिनुपर्छ । यसरी जातिगत रूपमा आरोप लगाउँदा एउटा कसुरदार देखाएर पुग्दैन, त्यसको अविच्छिन्न प्रवृत्ति -ट्रेन्ड) पनि देखाउन सक्नुपर्छ । त्यस्तो प्रवृत्तिलाई स्पष्ट रूपमा देखाउन नसक्ने हो भने कुनै उत्पीडकले त्यस्तो पीडित जातजातिलाई समाप्त गर्न खोजेको थियो भन्ने दाबी फितलो हुन जान्छ । यी तथ्यहरूको अभावमा समितिको प्रारम्भिक मस्यौदामा जे उल्लेख गरएिको छ, त्यो विवादास्पद नै हो भनेर मान्नुपर्ने हुन्छ ।

उक्त प्रस्तावित अवधारणापत्र तथा प्रारम्भिक मस्यौदामा जेसुकै गरी क्षतिपूर्तिको विषयलाई उठाइए पनि यसको परण्िााम प्रस्ट छ । यसले नेपालमा उत्पीडक समुदाय छन्, त्यस्ता उत्पीडक समुदायले लगातार रूपमा अन्य समुदायलाई पीडा दिएका छन् भन्ने बुझिन्छ । तर, त्यस्तो उत्पीडित समुदायलाई संविधानले केवल सकारात्मक विभेद वा समावेशीकरण गरेर मात्र पुग्दैन, त्यस्तो ऐतिहासिक उत्पीडनका लागि क्षतिपूर्ति पनि दिनुपर्छ । र, त्यस्तो क्षतिपूर्तिको व्यवस्थाले मात्र अल्पसंख्यक वा सीमान्तकृत वर्गलाई सशक्तीकरण गर्न सक्छ भन्ने मान्यतालाई स्थापित गर्छ । क्षतिपूर्ति राज्यले दिने भन्नुको अर्थ उत्पीडक वर्गले राज्यलाई यद्यपि कब्जा गरेकै छ भन्ने हो । होइन भने क्षतिपूर्तिको प्रश्न नै उठ्दैन ।

क्षतिपूर्तिको कुरा कतिपय मुलुकहरूमा नउठेका भने होइनन् । तर, नेपालमा यसलाई जुन रूपमा उठाइँदैछ, त्यसप्रति सशंकित हुने ठाउँ छ । जस्तो- क्यानाडाको क्युबेक प्रान्त, संयुक्त अधिराज्यमा स्कट तथा वेल्सका बासिन्दा, स्पेनमा क्याटालान्स र बास्कको विद्रोह, बेल्जिएममा फ्लेमिस समुदायको दाबी, इटालीको दक्षिण टाइरोलमा बस्ने जर्मनभाषी अल्पसंख्यक तथा संयुक्त राज्य अमेरकिामा पोर्टोरकिोको प्रश्न छापामा आइरहने विषय हुन् । यी सबै क्षेत्रहरूमा बस्ने बहुमत समुदायले अलग मुलुक भई बस्ने वा त्यसै मुलुकमा रहे पनि क्षेत्रीय स्वायत्ततालगायतका सामुदायिक स्वार्थका विषयहरू उठाएका छन् । त्यो माग उत्पीडनसम्बन्धी माग होइन ।

त्यसै गरी राज्यले केही खास समुदायलाई कुन रूपमा व्यवहार गर्ने भन्नेबारे पनि विभिन्न मुलुकमा छलफल भइरहेको पाइन्छ । चाहे त्यो क्यानाडाका इन्डियन वा इनुइत समुदाय हुन्, चाहे अस्टे्रलियाका आदिवासी वा न्युजिल्यान्डका माओरी समुदाय हुन्, अल्पसंख्यकका बारे छलफल भएको छ । स्क्यान्डिनेभियन मुलुकहरूमा सामी समुदायका मागहरू, ग्रीनल्यान्डमा इनुइत समुदायका अपेक्षा तथा अमेरकिामा रेड इन्डियन जातिको संरक्षण, यी सबै विषयलाई छलफल गर्न सकिन्छ । हामीकहाँचाहिँ किन पर्याप्त छलफल नभईकन यो विषयलाई प्रारम्भिक मस्यौदामा छिराइएको हो, बुझ्न गाह्रै परेको छ ।

संसारका सबै ऐतिहासिक मुलुकहरूझैँ निश्चित रूपमा नेपाल सम्पूर्ण जातजातिको दृष्टिकोणबाट एउटा भेदभावविहीन न्यायपूर्ण समाज थिएन । पूर्वमा वर्मादेखि पश्चिममा अफगानिस्थानसम्म यस हिमवत् खण्डको भोक, रोग र अशिक्षासँग गहिरो नाता छ । त्यसलाई प्रमाणित गररिहनुपर्दैन । यहाँ हत्या पनि भए, हिंसा पनि भए र राज्यले सबैलाई समान रूपमा आफ्नो प्रश्रय शक्तिको प्रयोगबाट संरक्षण दिन पनि सकेन । राज्यको क्षमता तथा दृढताको अभावमा धेरै जातजातिले अहिलेको मान्यताबमोजिम आफ्नो जातीयता, भाषा, संस्कृति तथा पहिचानको उत्थान गर्ने अवसर पाएनन् । प्रजातान्त्रिक व्यवस्थ्ााको अभावका साथसाथै राज्य संगठनहरूको विकास राम्रोसँग भइनसकेको मुलुकमा त्यो सम्भव थिएन । तर, त्यति कुराले मात्र राज्यलाई उत्पीडक भन्न मिल्दैन ।

उत्पीडनको आरोप असाध्यै गम्भीर प्रकृतिको आरोप हो । यसमा उत्पीडकको नियत निर्मल हुँदैन । त्यहाँ सत्तासीन जातिमा 'हामीहरू' र 'उनीहरू' भन्ने भावना प्रबल रूपमा हुन्छ । एकअर्काप्रतिको घृणाको कुनै सीमा हँुदैन । त्यसैले एकअर्कालाई सम्मान दिने चाहना पनि हुँदैन । यसै परपि्रेक्ष्यमा भएका पाशविकता, हत्या र आतंकले क्रमशः सम्पूर्ण समाजलाई जेल्छ तथा बलियाबाट निमुखाको उत्पीडनका प्रक्रियाहरू सुरु हुन्छन् । त्यस्तो वातावरणमा यो मुलुक चार जात छत्तीस वर्णको फूलबारी हो भन्न्ो भनाइ पनि राजनीतिक रूपमा व्यक्त गरएिको हुँदैन, न त मुलुकको साझा गन्तव्य नै निर्माण गरएिको हुन्छ ।

आधुनिक नेपालका संस्थापक राजा पृथ्वीनारायण शाहलाई सबै गलत प्रवृत्तिहरूको द्योतक बनाइने गरेको छ, अहिले । विजेता र विजितको कुरो पनि उठेका छन् । उनले गरेको राष्ट्रिय एकीकरण सामन्ती थियो होला तर यो न त मध्ययुगको युरोपमा भएको यहुदीहरूको हत्याको लडाइँ नै थियो, न त हामीले केही वर्षअगाडि देखेको बोस्िनया वा हर्जगोभिनाको जातीय युद्ध नै थियो । यसका निश्चित सैद्धान्तिक आधारहरू थिए । नेपाललाई असली हिन्दुस्तान बनाउने आकांक्षा राजा पृथ्वीनारायण शाह र उनीपछिका शासकहरूमा देखिएको थियो । तर, त्यहाँ कसैलाई जातिगत रूपमा समाप्त गर्ने आकांक्षा थिएन । त्यसैगरी एकीकरणका योद्धाहरू बाहुन मात्र थिएनन् । त्यसमा मगर, गुरुङलगायत अन्य जातिहरूकै प्रमुखता थियो । उनले लडाइँ गरेका अधिकांश बाइसे, चौबीसे, मल्ल वा किराँत राज्यका सेनापतिहरू खस नै थिए । त्यो लडाइँ जातियताको 'प्लेटर्फम'मा लडिएको थिएन । सैनिक वा राजनीतिक अभियानका रूपमा अरू जातिलाई मास्ने धर्म, संस्कार वा कूटनीति नेपालको इतिहासमा पाउन सकिँदैन ।

पृथ्वीनारायण शाहले नुवाकोटमा चढाइ गर्दा प|mान्स र बेलायतका बीच लडाइँ सुरु भइसकेको थियो र भारतमा मुगलहरूको साम्राज्यलाई बि्रटिसहरूले चुनौती दिन थालिसकेका थिए । उनको एकीकरणको प्रयासलाई जातीय रूपमा हेर्नेले उनको जमानाका मुग्लानका औरंगजेबलगायतका शासकहरू र तिब्बतको तत्कालीन शासनमा चीनका मञ्चुवंशका राजाहरूको क्रियाकलापलाई पनि हेर्नुपर्छ । अमेरकिी वा प|mेञ्च क्रान्तिभन्दा अघिका बीभत्स लडाइँ र रक्तपातलाई पनि बुझ्नुपर्छ । सामन्तवाद नै मानिएता पनि एकीकरणको एउटा राजनीतिक परविेश थियो । निश्चित रूपमा त्यस परविेशलाई चाहिएभन्दा बढी बदनाम गर्नुको परण्िाामहरू यो देशको राष्ट्रवादका लागि सही हुनसक्दैन ।

इतिहासलाई मूल्यांकन गर्दा आजको मापदण्डको आधारमा होइन, उसबेलाकै मापदण्डलाई पछ्याउनुपर्छ । कुरा केवल पृथ्वीनारायण शाहको मात्र होइन । आजको मितिसम्म राजा यलम्बरदेखि सुरु भएका प्राचीन किराँतकाल, उनीहरूपछिको लिच्छविकाल, खस राजाहरू, मल्लराज्य वा त्यस कालखण्डका बाइसे-चौबीसे राज्यहरूमा कहाँ, कुन समयमा, कुन जातिलाई कसले र कसरी जेलनेल, देशनिकाला, जातिहत्या वा आफ्नो क्षेत्रबाट जबरजस्ती निष्कासन गरेको थियो, कसैले लेख्न सकेका छैनन् । कहाँ कतिका चिहान खनिए र कुन जातिले कुन जातिलाई सामूहिक चिहानमा सुताएको छ, त्यो देखाउन सक्ने इतिहासकारहरू हामी पाउँदैनाँै ।

उत्पीडन वा जातीयता दुवै नेपालको राष्ट्रिय विकासका कुनै पनि चरणका लागि अपरििचत शब्द हुन् । त्यसो भए मानवताविरोधी अपराध गरेर आजको अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय मानवीय कानुनलाई उल्लंघन गरेको मानिन सक्ने त्यस्ता कर्महरू के हुन्, जसका लागि क्षतिपूर्तिको कुरा उठाइँदैछ ? खासगरी अहिलेका विवादहरूमा मुछ्न खोजिएको खस जातिलाई पीडाबोध हुने गरी आएको यो क्षतिपूर्तिसम्बन्धी व्यवस्थाले राष्ट्र निर्माणलाई तथा हामी सबै नेपाली भन्ने भावनालाई अवश्य पनि मद्दत गर्दैन ।

वास्तवमा क्षतिपूर्तिका बारेमा कुरा गर्दा अलिकति संवेदनशीलता चाहिन्छ । हल्काफुल्का र सतही कुरा गर्दा संविधानसभाजस्तो ठूलो प्रजातान्त्रिक प्रयोगप्रति जनताको विश्वास हराउँछ । अल्पसंख्यक तथा सीमान्तकृत समुदायको मौलिक अधिकारलाई सुनिश्चित गर्नका लागि संविधानसभाले मुलुकलाई यो विवादास्पद विषयमा मुछ्नु जरुरी छैन ।

-अधिकारी संवैधानिक मामिलाका विज्ञ हुन् ।

Minority report - Bipin Adhikari

The Kathmandu Post, July 02, 2009

http://www.kantipuronline.com/columns.php?&nid=202081

The report of the Constituent Assembly (CA) Committee on the Protection of Rights and Freedoms of Minority and Marginalized Communities, which is now under discussion at the plenary session of the House, captures many of the current requirements under its terms of reference. The report contains a concept paper and a preliminary draft as much as they relate with the minority rights issues to be covered by the new constitution to be drafted by the unicameral House.

The report deals not only with normal individual rights as applied to members of ethnic, class, religious, linguistic or sexual minorities, but also collective rights accorded to minority groups by virtue of their minority status. Marginalized groups are also carefully brought within the fold. In its entirety, it covers protection of existence, protection from discrimination, protection and promotion of identity, and participation in political life. But then it also happens to contain a very controversial provision while dealing with the right to equality.

As a proviso to the general rule which guarantees that the state shall not discriminate between people on the basis of ethnicity, religion and so on, it also goes on maintaining that the state shall provide by law special measures on the basis of positive discrimination along with compensation for the persecution rendered in the past for the protection, development and empowerment of the communities and classes left behind in economic, social, political and educational areas and in the area of health (emphasis added).

An identical provision has been proposed also in the context of racial discrimination and misconduct of "untouchability" and religious and personal persecution. Here, too, the state has been obliged to provide compensation for the discrimination, misconduct and persecution, in addition to the measure of proportional representation in state institutions.

Firstly, the committee intends to treat the first set of communities above differently than the second set of communities, yet both these provisions maintain that Nepal has been a persecuting state — a grave charge that remains to be substantiated on explicit grounds. Secondly, it defines discrimination associated with the untouchability stigma as racial.

At the outset, it must be emphasized that comparative constitutional law has developed a rich discourse over the last half century or so on how the state might respond in varying ways to the claims concerning historical injustices. There are different models of reverse discrimination or affirmative action, which could be applied to promote equal opportunity and set the balance right. They focus on measures ranging from employment and education to public contracting and health programmes. The drive behind them are two-fold: to maximize diversity in all levels of society, along with its presumed benefits, and to redress perceived disadvantages due to overt, institutional or involuntary discrimination.

The intention here, as far as the report of the committee is concerned, seems to be apparently different. Going beyond the historical wrongs, it talks about "persecution", which in general may imply the systematic mistreatment of a community by another community through murderous activities and efforts of extermination, enslavement, deportation or maltreatment on political, racial or religious grounds. The most common forms of persecution are religious, ethnic and political, though there is naturally some overlap between these terms. In any case, the term "persecution" implies deeply traumatic injustices.

Without generalizing too much, certain apparent characteristics of persecution could easily be established. When the committee uses the term, (a) It assumes in the first place that Nepal has a history of persecution (b) That the persecutors have acted with the power of the state in the job of persecution (c) That this went on for a long time of history and (d) Resulted in continuous deprivation of some groups, which needs to be remedied by offering compensation by the state. It also implies that affirmative actions or measures of positive discrimination are not enough to redeem them.

In the given framework, the "state" must be defined as persecutor, and compensation must be paid by it as the culprit of history. It goes without saying that the state (persecutor) here means the Khas community, especially Bahuns and Chhetris, who are now implicated for capturing this country for long. This is the community that produced King Prithvi Narayan Shah, who unified the country in the latter half of the 18th century and allegedly started the process of persecution through his new establishment. Linked with this is the argument that Khasas are the invaders while the other communities are the victims. The committee has not offered the basis on which this conclusion has been grounded.

The world definitely has a history of systematic mistreatment of groups due to their religious affiliation — resulting in the persecution and killing of millions. Atheists have experienced persecution throughout history. In the two thousand years of the Christian faith, about 70 million believers have been killed for their inability to turn back from their religion. The persecution of Jews occurred many times in Jewish history. Hindus have been historically persecuted during Islamic rule on the South Asian subcontinent. The persecution of many ethnic groups, not to mention ethnic Germans and albinos, are the most scandalous episodes in world history. These are not stories of isolated examples, but of unrelenting persecution over a long period of time. But do they have parallels in Nepal?

During 1915-20, when Ismail Anwar was the ruler of Turkey, 12 lakh Armenians, almost 8 lakh Greeks and 5 lakh Assyrians were eliminated because of ethnic reasons. It is said that during the reign of Chairman Mao Tse-tung of the Chinese Communist Party, more than seven million people were killed due to political and ethnic reasons. During 1932-39, Joseph Stalin eliminated 2.3 million people from different parts of the Soviet Union. Adolf Hitler of Germany was by all means the worst persecutor. He killed six million Jews to establish what he described as Nazism just seven decade ago. During 1941-44, almost 50 million people were killed in Japan.

Cambodia's Pol Pot regime of 1975-79 and of North Korea's Kim Il Sung's regime between 1946-1994 were the other worst scenarios. All these examples can help explain what persecution is, and at what time the state must be identified with the persecuting rulers or their communities.

Even among the cases softer than them, treating the problems of Nepal on a par with the treatment of indigenous peoples, such as the Indians and Inuits in Canada, the Aboriginal people of Australia, the Maoris of New Zealand, the Sami of Scandinavia, the Inuits of Greenland and the Indian tribes of the United States cannot be prudent. There are many such examples, where natives suffered because of persecution rendered by outsiders who settled in the country.

Unfortunately, Nepal as a persecuting state does not fit anywhere. The committee report must then be discussed why the state should be scolded for grave injustices and persecution that it has not committed against anybody. And if the purpose is only to create space for further affirmative action and positive discrimination measures for those who deserve them, why the reference about persecuting state or the persecuting community. If the strategy is not to diminish the political identity of this country, there is scope for serious discussion.

Missing links

The Committee on Preservation of National Interest falls woefully short of expectations

http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=197466
The Kathmandu Post, June 04, 2009

BIPIN ADHIKARI

When Nepalis talk about national interests, they talk about very basic things about their survival. These basic things are the country's perceived needs and aspirations in relation to their immediate external environment.

Nepalis do not have the luxury of worrying about interests that are remote in a geographical, moral or worldly sense. They hardly expect a higher level of security that many in the developed world will think of, rarely imagine prosperity that many countries in Europe and America might want, and never dream of advancing any of their national values to other countries, or set objectives that are much more expansive in space, time and even conception. However, it does not mean Nepalis do not (or should not) have survival instincts.

Just early this week, India's Border Security Force (SSB) violently evicted thousands of Nepalese families by crossing the international border once again. Kantipur reported that among the more than 6,000 people chased away from their villages, 1,800 had to look for shelter in the Satbariaya forest in Deukhuri. Indian troops invaded their land, burned their homes and told them that they could no longer live in that area. Over 15 young women are said to be still missing. Once again, the troops moved the pillars marking the border between the two countries approximately 35 metres into Nepali territory. This is the everyday trauma that Nepalis have been forced to suffer by a jealous neighbour.

While the Committee on Preservation of National Interest (CPNI) has become the first among the 10 thematic committees of the Constituent Assembly (CA) to present its report to House Chairperson Subhash Chandra Nembang within the revised time schedule, the question whether its report has been able to propose arrangements that might preserve Nepal's vital interests as a nation is open to discussion. The issue here is: Has the committee responded to the trauma which the people of this country have been forced to suffer?

The committee report comprises a concept paper on the areas of its competence, a preliminary constitutional draft based on it, which also has a separate column for an explanatory memorandum for every issue dealt thereon. Led by UCPN (Maoist) leader Amik Sherchan, the committee has claimed that its report is based on consultations with 26 subject matter specialists and a review of the recommendations of 48,985 respondents to the questionnaires distributed by them early this year. Besides, 46 in-house experts of the government were also consulted on different issues.

In addition, they also checked 294 suggestions received from different quarters. Further, 7,500 informal slips were received and entertained by the committee to gauge public opinion. The committee had 98 meetings to finalize the report in its present shape, and spent 337 working hours to process all concerns. Moreover, the committee had created eight sub-committees -- one each for the eight constitutional areas allocated to the committee by the CA Rules 2008 to provide small group focus on these matters. Some of the sub-committee members said they are happy with the net output of the process they followed so vigorously.

Indeed, the report has captured many of the issues that relate to the preservation of Nepal's national interests. It has not been able to hit the core of our problems, however. Some of the fundamental issues that should have been addressed by the report at this level have been left unattended, miserably failing to read the nerve of this poor country. Some others do not find proper expression in the present draft format, even though several inputs have been received from the people on this score. Apparently, the plenary session of the CA has to compensate for these deficits, or send the report back to the committee for improvement.

To begin with, it is very important for Nepal to close all its open international borders and guard the house against unsolicited intruders to preserve its core national interest. This strategy has to encompass national border security, immigration control, sanctity of Nepal's airspace and a mechanism to fight terrorism and other sponsored activities from outside the country. Just recovery of lost lands, demarcation of the international border and its regulation is not enough. The committee needs to come forward and reflect boldly on the suggestions received from the common people, which among many other things, include explicit demand for passport control for every foreigner visiting Nepal.

The CA must also say no to the strategy of overwhelming Nepal's indigenous population by unsolicited immigrants. This country cannot remain a population importing country anymore. It would not be able to offer another round of five million citizenship certificates to immigrant Indians after another 20 years without finishing itself. The practice of offering citizenship en masse must be constitutionally halted for ever. Together with this, Nepali natives must be protected from pseudo Nepalese enjoying dual citizenship. The constitution should be able to provide stringent action against foreigners holding Nepalese citizenship while retaining their native passport.

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.

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.

The world has never been a safe place for small states. Nepal is not safe either. 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?

lawyers_inc_nepal@yahoo.com
Posted on: 2009-06-03 20:30:45 (Server Time)

Yes, Westminster - Bipin Adhikari

http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=199655

The Kathmandu Post, June 18, 2009

While Nepal's Constituent Assembly (CA) is considering whether it should endorse the parliamentary system that Nepal has been practicing for many years or go for a new system when it writes the country's new constitution, the need to reform parliament is also on the agenda of Westminster and Number 10, Downing Street, the office of the British prime minister.

Although most British people do not think of any other form of government for their country, there are many who agree that the Westminster system that they have been practicing needs reform from within. While the reform process has been on for more than a decade, in a recent statement to the House of Commons, Prime Minister Gordon Brown was compelled to expedite changes on a range of subjects including expenses of the members of parliament, freedom of information and modernisation of House procedures on a priority basis.

The prime minister said his government planned to introduce legislation that could see a shift from self-regulation of the House of Commons, the lower house of the British parliament — and subsequently the House of Lords — to an independent and statutory regulation. A new Parliamentary Standards Authority would be given the power to regulate MPs' allowances and the House of Commons would be asked to agree on a code of conduct for MPs in order to increase their accountability.

Gordon Brown emphasized, “There will be consultation with all sides of the House to come forward with new proposals for dealing effectively with inappropriate behaviour, including potentially the options of effective exclusion and recall for gross financial misconduct identified by the new independent regulator and the House itself.” His proposal on the expenses of legislators came in addition to those already in place with cross-party agreement, such as the requirement for all spending to be receipted and incomes from second jobs to be fully accounted.

Apart from this, the British prime minister also assured, what his predecessor Tony Blair pronounced more or less as early as 1997, his determination to set out proposals for public debate on five major issues in the coming months: reform of the House of Lords to an elected House, introduction of a written constitution, devolution of power from Westminster, reform of the electoral system and increased public participation through electoral registration and greater engagement of young people, including a potential lowering of the voting age.

He also said, “Our proposals will also be informed by leading external figures, including academics and others who command public respect and have a recognised interest or expertise in the different elements of democratic reform.”

These renewed assurances are coming up following the resignation of Michael Martin, speaker of the British House of Commons last month. Martin had to resign under growing public pressure against his inability to check the ongoing financial misconduct in the House. For the first time in history, the British people read in the Telegraph that their legislators claim reimbursement from the government for everything from cookies and pet food to installing chandeliers, cleaning of a moat and even mortgage payments. They were surprised that many lawmakers employ family members as staff, allowing them to charge numerous routine household expenses to British taxpayers.

These revelations also disclosed how legislators used public money to fix a tennis court, pay for an ornamental bird house or furnish lavish second homes. Some of these claims were said to be legally valid; but some, like claiming mortgage payments for mortgages that had already been paid off, could spark criminal charges. No doubt the House of Commons has faced an unprecedented public backlash, with voters especially incensed that public funds were squandered amid a deep recession that has sent the country's unemployment rate soaring.

It is rare in Britain for a speaker to resign. In fact, it is happening for the first time in three centuries. The last speaker to be forced from his position was Sir John Trevor who was found guilty of accepting a bribe in 1695. In a sharp break with British tradition, the speaker was asked to step down from the powerful post citing lack of leadership on his part. He was blamed for creating a climate in which such excesses were allowed. The press also alleged that Speaker Martin actively attempted to block Freedom of Information requests which would have exposed the unacceptable billings, charged to the public coffers, by members of Parliament and of the government.

Under British tradition, speakers usually choose when they retire, and are generally not subject to the whims of the electorate. Tradition dictates that major political parties don't field candidates in the speaker's constituency. They are usually treated with great respect, and criticizing them publicly is just not done. Unlike in the U.S., where the speaker of the House of Representatives, the counterpart of the British House of Commons, is often a partisan advocate for the majority party, the British speaker is supposed to be impartial and independent of government. U.K. tradition calls for the speakership to alternate from one party to the other whenever the post is open.

Even if the prime minister has shown his determination to bring the (sovereign) parliament within the legal regime, he is being pressured to call an election (due in mid-2010) as soon as possible, offering voters a chance to kick out lawmakers who have abused their expense accounts. He has rejected such a call, and has decided to respond to the pressure for reform through cross-party dialogue and legislative process. That reform will inevitably clean up the system of allowances, especially the second home perk under which MPs claimed for furnishings and gardening costs, and probably end the system of self-regulation by the Commons.

There are many activists, especially from the opposition benches, who think that a wider shakeup is needed. Compared with their colleagues in the United States Congress, British legislators have less power over the public purse, less power to create legislation, less power to investigate and just as much time to fill.

In recent years, some sort of populism has crept into British parliamentary discourse as well. There are some who want the power of the prime minister to dissolve the House of Commons to be regulated. Others have been championing the cause of a fixed term parliament (as in America and Germany) — doing away with the power of the prime minister to discipline the House. Some want it stipulated that no prime minister or minister can serve more than two terms. There are still others who want at least some percentage of all parliamentary legislation to be reserved for private members' bills.

Noble thoughts, indeed; but there is no guarantee that they will work. There are many parliamentary democracies, take India or Australia, for example, where such untoward incidents hardly happen because there is a centralized system of finance and auditing in place, thus giving no premium power to legislators. Even in Nepal, the constitution does not give (financial autonomy) to any constitutional body which relies on appropriation from the national treasury.

A clean-up of the British parliamentary system in this regard is long overdue; but reforms that do not go well with time-tested parliamentary parameters might not work just by wishful thinking. There is a risk for sure. It will also send a very negative message to other parliamentary democracies around the world, inviting deeper crises in the way institutions will be refashioned to solve problems. Britain, after all, is home to the mother of parliaments that traces its origins back at least 800 years.

Posted on: 2009-06-17 20:39:11 (Server Time)

रिपोर्ट - कहिले पूरा होला केन्यालीको संविधान बनाउने धोको? - डा. विपिन अधिकारी

संविधानसभाको नाउँमा करिब १० वर्षसम्मको अन्योल, अस्थिरता तथा हत्या-हिंसा र आतङ्कपछि पनि नेताहरूको महत्वाकाङ्क्षाका कारण केन्याले प्रजातान्त्रिक संविधान पाउन सकेको छैन। उता, नयाँ संविधानको नाममा हत्या-हिंसा र आतङ्क मच्चाउनेहरू सत्तामा स्थापित भने भइसकेका छन्।

HIMAL KHABAR PATRIKA, वर्ष १९, अङ्क ०५पूर्णाङ्क २४३
http://www.himalkhabar.com/hkp/news.php?id=2528

केन्या विभिन्न जाति, धर्म र समुदायका मानिसहरू बसोबास गर्ने पूर्वी अफ्रिकाको एउटा सुन्दर मुलुक हो। करिब चार करोडको सङ्ख्यामा रहेका केन्यालीहरूमध्ये बहुसङ्ख्यक शिक्षित छन्। आर्थिक अवस्था पनि तुलनात्मक रूपमा राम्रै छ। छिमेकमा इथियोपिया, सोमालिया, तान्जानिया, युगाण्डा तथा सुडान छन्। तान्जानिया बाहेक उसका अन्य छिमेकीहरू भोक, रोग, अशिक्षा, विद्रोह तथा हिंसाले तहसनहस अवस्थामा छन्।

सन् १९२० भन्दा अघिसम्म केन्या बेलायतको पूर्वी अफ्रिका-संरक्षित राज्य (ब्रिटिश इष्ट अफ्रिका प्रोटेक्टोरेट) को नाउँबाट चिनिन्थ्यो। त्यसभन्दा अगाडि त्यहाँ पोर्चुगल तथा जर्मनीले लामो अवधिसम्म शासन गरेका थिए। सन् १९२० मा नाम परिवर्तन गरेर केन्या उपनिवेश तथा संरक्षित राज्य (प्रोटेक्टोरेट) को संज्ञा दिइएको यो भूमि सन् १९६३ सम्म बेलायतको उपनिवेशका रूपमा रह्यो। सन् १९५२-५९ मा ब्रिटिश शासनविरुद्ध भएको माउ माउ विद्रोह पछि बेलायतले सन् १९६३ मा शासनसत्ता केन्याली जनतालाई फिर्ता गर्‍यो र केन्या विधिवत् स्वतन्त्र भयो। स्वतन्त्र हुँदा केन्या राष्ट्रमण्डल (कमनवेल्थ) को सदस्य रहने व्यवस्था गरिएको थियो र राष्ट्राध्यक्ष चाहिँ बेलायतकी महारानी नै थिइन्। त्यसको एक वर्षपछि, सन् १९६४ मा यसले आफूलाई गणतन्त्र घोषणा गर्‍यो र राष्ट्रपतीय प्रणाली अवलम्बन गर्‍यो।

सन् १९६३ मा संसद्को चुनाव जितेर प्रधानमन्त्री बनेका केन्या अफ्रिका नेशनल युनियन (कानु) पार्टीका जोमो केन्यात्ता गणतन्त्र केन्याका प्रथम राष्ट्रपति भए। बेलायतबाट मुक्त केन्याले अङ्ग्रेजी भाषा, स्वतन्त्र अर्थव्यवस्था तथा क्षेत्रीय व्यापारिक तथा वित्तीय केन्द्रको रूपमा आफ्नो पहिचानलाई कायमै राख्यो।
केन्याको संवैधानिक विकासक्रमलाई औपनिवेशिक परिवेशमा हेरिनुपर्छ। खासगरी ब्रिटिशहरूको शासनबाट मुक्त भएपछि नै केन्याको संवैधानिक यात्रा शुरु हुन्छ। यद्यपि, त्यहाँ सन् १९४० को दशकमा शुरु भएको स्वतन्त्रता र अधिकार आन्दोलनसँगै नयाँ संविधान र संविधानसभाको चर्चा बेलाबेलामा हुँदै आएको थियो। तर, अन्य विकासशील देशहरूमा झ्ैँ केन्यामा पनि संविधानसभाको अवधारणाले त्यतिबेला मूर्तरुप लिन सकेन। ब्रिटिशहरूले छाड्नुअघि केन्यालाई सहमतिको आधारमा एउटा संविधान दिए। त्यो संविधान बेलायत र केन्याका विशेषज्ञ तथा राजनीतिज्ञहरूले लण्डनमा बसेर लेखेका थिए।


त्यसबखत कतिपय केन्यालीलाई त्यो संविधान प्रजातान्त्रिक लाग्यो भने कतिलाई त्यसमा उपनिवेशको गन्ध आउन थाल्यो। अझ् कतिले त सार्वभौमसत्ताको बेइज्जती पनि भने। र, स्वतन्त्रताका लागि गरिएको सम्झ्ौता स्थायी हुन सकेन। प्रजातान्त्रिक प्रक्रियाले अघि बढ्ने हो भने भएको संविधानको इमान्दारीसाथ प्रयोग गर्नुपर्छ भन्नेतिर पनि कसैको ध्यान गएन।


स्वतन्त्र भएको वर्ष दिन पनि नबित्दै नयाँ सरकार तथा केन्याको राजनीतिक वातावरण तत्कालीन शीतयुद्धको प्रभावमा परिसकेको थियो। नवोदित स्वशासन प्रणालीका घटकहरू शीतयुद्ध सञ्चालक शक्ति राष्ट्रहरूप्रति ध्रुवीकृत हुन थालेका थिए। सत्ताधारी केन्या अफ्रिकन नेशनल युनियन (कानु) को एउटा घटकले विदेशका वामपन्थी शक्तिहरूबाट सहयोग प्राप्त गर्न थालेको थियो भने अन्य कतिपय राजनीतिक घटकहरू पश्चिमी मुलुकतर्फ आकर्षित हुँदै गए। परिणामतः देश अस्थिरताको भुमरीमा पर्दै गयो।
अस्थिरता बढ्दै जाँदा, सत्तारुढ दलले ब्रिटिशहरूले दिएको संविधान संशोधन गर्‍यो। मूल्य, मान्यताका कुराभन्दा पनि प्रतिपक्षको आन्दोलन र सत्तापक्षको सत्तालिप्साका कारण संविधान संविधान रहिरहन सकेन। आफूलाई बलियो बनाउने वहानामा जातिगत राजनीतिको आड लिने क्रमको सुरुआत भयो।


महत्वाकाङ्क्षी र स्वार्थी नेतृत्व स्वतन्त्रतापछिका झ्ण्डै १५ वर्ष केन्या अफ्रिकन नेशनल युनियन (कानु) पार्टी र त्यसका नेता एवं स्वतन्त्रता सङ्ग्रामका नायक जोमो केन्यात्ताले लगभग एकछत्र रूपमा शासन चलाए। १९७८ मा जोमोको मृत्युपछि डेनियल आराप मोई राष्ट्रपति बने। स्वतन्त्र भएदेखि नै लगभग एकदलीय शासनअन्तर्गत रहेको केन्यालाई सन् १९८२ मा औपचारिक रूपमै एकदलीय घोषणा गरियो। तर यो घोषणासँगै राजनीतिक उदारीकरणका लागि मोईको सरकारमाथि देशभित्र र बाहिर दुवैतिरबाट चर्को दबाब पर्न थाल्यो। विभिन्न जातीय खेमामा विभाजित प्रतिपक्ष तत्काल उक्त पार्टीलाई सत्ताबाट हटाउन समर्थ थिएन, तर पनि प्रयासहरू भइरहे।


स्वतन्त्रता प्राप्तिपछि राष्ट्रपति बनेका जोमो अति महत्वकाङ्क्षी भएको प्रतिपक्षी दलहरूको आरोप थियो। उनको शासनकालभरि अन्य दल स्थापित हुन सकेनन्। जोमोको प्रयास जहिले पनि शक्तिको केन्द्रीकरण र अन्य राजनीतिक दललाई कमजोर तुल्याउने वा प्रतिबन्ध लगाउनेतर्फ नै लक्षित रह्यो। उनले त्यो उद्देश्य प्राप्तिका लागि संविधान संशोधन पनि गराए। उनीपछि राष्ट्रपति बनेका डेनियल आराप मोई पनि उस्तै देखिए। यी दुवैले आ-आफ्नो जातीय समुदायलाई राज्य व्यवस्थामा प्रश्रय दिए।


जनतामा भित्रभित्रै असन्तोष व्याप्त थियो; सन् १९९० मा पुनः विभिन्न आन्दोलनहरू शुरु भए। ती आन्दोलन बहुदलीय निर्वाचन, राष्ट्रपतिको पदावधि घटाउने तथा राजनीतिक स्वतन्त्रता सुनिश्चित गर्नुपर्ने मागका साथ भएका थिए। आन्दोलनको दबाब बढ्दै गएपछि, सन् १९९१ मा राष्ट्रपति मोईले संविधान संशोधन गरेर बहुदलीय प्रणाली स्वीकार गरे। तर सन् १९९२ मा सम्पन्न सांसद् र राष्ट्रपतिको बहुदलीय निर्वाचनमा पनि आराप मोई र उनकै पार्टी कानु विजयी भए। सन् १९९७ को आम निर्वाचनमा पनि प्रतिपक्षले आशातीत सफलता हासिल गर्न सकेन। त्यसमा कानु पार्टी विजयी भए पनि जनताको असन्तोष र आक्रोश साम्य हुन सकेन। आन्दोलनको दबाब थेग्न नसकेपछि सरकार सोही वर्ष संविधान संशोधन गर्न बाध्य भयो। संसद्ले नयाँ केन्या पुनरावलोकन ऐन पारित गर्‍यो। यसको उद्देश्य संविधानको पुनरावलोकन गर्नुथियो। पुनरावलोकनपछिको विकल्प नयाँ संविधानको निर्माण हुनसक्थ्यो।


शक्तिशाली राष्ट्रिय सम्मेलन अर्थात् संविधानसभा पुनरावलोकन ऐनमा संविधान पुनरावलोकनका तीन चरण उल्लेख गरिएको थियोः १) सानो पुनरावलोकन आयोग गठन गर्ने र त्यसमार्फत जनताको राय लिएर प्रारम्भिक मस्यौदा तयार गर्ने। २) उक्त मस्यौदालाई राष्ट्रिय सम्मेलन द्वारा आन्तिम रुप दिने। ३. राष्ट्रिय सम्मेलनद्वारा अन्तिम रुप दिइएको मस्यौदालाई संसद्बाट पारित गर्ने। ऐनअनुसार पुनरावलोकन आयोग गठन गर्ने र जनताको राय/सुझ्ावका आधारमा संविधान संशोधन वा पुनर्लेखन गर्ने प्रस्ताव ल्याउने जिम्मा पनि आयोगकै काँधमा थियो। अनि आयोगले तयार पारेको संविधानको प्रारम्भिक मस्यौदामा छलफल गरी टुङ्गो लगाउनका लागि राष्ट्रिय संविधान सम्मेलनको व्यवस्था गरिएको थियो। यो नै केन्याको संविधानसभा थियो। यो सभामा ६२९ जना जनप्रतिनिधि (डेलिगेट्स) थिए। यसमा मत दिन नपाउने पुनरावलोकन आयोगका आयुक्तहरू, संसद्का सबै सदस्य, हरेक जिल्ला परिषद तथा राजनीतिक दलका प्रतिनिधि र धार्मिक, व्यावसायिक एवं नागरिक संस्थाहरूको प्रतिनिधित्व गराइएको थियो।


सो ऐनअनुसार मस्यौदा संविधान सहमतिका आधारमा बनाउनुपर्ने थियो। दुईतिहाई बहुमतविना यो पारित वा संशोधन हुन सक्दैनथ्यो। दुईतिहाई प्रतिनिधिहरूको समर्थन नहुने अथवा एकतिहाई प्रतिनिधिले विरोध गरिरहेको विवादास्पद विषयलाई राष्ट्रिय जनमत सङ्ग्रहमा लगिनुपर्ने प्रावधान थियो। त्यसरी परिमार्जित संविधानलाई संसद्मा पेश गर्नुपर्ने र संसद्ले त्यसलाई या त विना संशोधन स्वीकार गर्नु पर्थ्यो, या त अस्वीकार गर्नुपर्ने हुन्थ्यो।


पुनरावलोकन ऐनले नयाँ संविधानलाई आफ्नै भूमिमा निर्माण गरिएको दस्तावेजको रूपमा जनताले स्वीकार्न र अपनत्व महसूस गर्न सकून् भनेर संविधान निर्माण प्रक्रियामा व्यापक जनसहभागिता तथा विशेषज्ञहरूको राय सल्लाह जुटाउने व्यवस्था गरेको थियो। यो सम्पूर्ण प्रक्रियामा सरकारको कुनै भूमिका नरहने व्यवस्था पनि गरिएको थियो। अर्थात् सरकारले न त यो प्रक्रियालाई नियन्त्रण गर्न सक्थ्यो न त प्रभावित पार्न नै। यसले गर्दा यो प्रक्रिया बलियो र पारदर्शी देखिन्थ्यो। संविधान निर्माणको विषयमा संसद्ले पनि हस्तक्षेप गर्न सक्दैनथ्यो। राष्ट्रपतिले पुनरावलोकन आयोग र राष्ट्रिय सम्मेलन अर्थात् संविधानसभामा पनि भाग लिन पाउँदैनथे। यसरी हेर्दा केन्याको राष्ट्रिय सम्मेलन अर्थात् संविधानसभा निश्चय नै शक्तिशाली थियो। साथै, संविधान निर्माणमा अपनाइएको प्रक्रियाका कारण त्यहाँ सहमतिविना अगाडि बढ्न वा बढाउन सकिँदैनथ्यो। सबैलाई मान्य हुनेगरी नै त्यो दस्तावेज पारित गर्नुपर्ने बाध्यता थियो। तर पुनरावलोकन ऐनबमोजिम काम शुरु भएपछि बीचमा आएर त्यसका विभिन्न संशोधनहरू गरिए र त्यसले संंविधान निर्माणको शुरुको उद्देश्यलाई नराम्रोसँग प्रभावित तुल्यायो।


अन्त्यहीन यात्रा केन्याको संवैधानिक पुनरावलोकन प्रक्रिया विधिवत् रूपमा सन् २००० मा शुरु भएको थियो। सोही वर्षको मध्यसम्ममा नयाँ संविधानको प्रारम्भिक मस्यौदा समेत तयार भइसकेको थियो। आयोगको योजना सन् २००२ को डिसेम्बर सम्ममा राष्ट्रिय सम्मेलनलगायत सबै प्रक्रिया पूरा गरी संविधान लागू गरिसक्ने थियो। तर सन् २००२ को निर्वाचनपछिका राजनीतिक घटनाले यो योजनालाई तहसनहस पारिदियो।


अक्टोबर २००२ मा तत्कालीन राष्ट्रपति मोईले संविधानले आफूलाई दिएको अधिकार प्रयोग गरी संसद् विघटन गरेर संविधान पुनरावलोकन प्रक्रियालाई पहिलो धक्का दिए। सालतमामी हुनुभन्दा पहिले नै पुनरावलोकन प्रक्रिया समाप्त हुनका लागि डिसेम्बरसम्म संसद् जीवित रहनु जरुरी थियो। त्यसो हुँदा मात्र सांसद्हरूले राष्ट्रिय सम्मेलन (संविधानसभा) मा भाग लिइरहन पाउँथे। सांसद्हरूविनाको राष्ट्रिय सम्मेलन पूर्ण हुन सक्दैनथ्यो। यसले गर्दा पुनरावलोकन आयोगका अध्यक्षले पुनः चुनाव नहुन्जेलसम्मका लागि सम्मेलनलाई स्थगित गर्नु पर्‍यो। राष्ट्रपति मोई आफैँ संवैधानिक सुधारका कट्टर विरोधी थिए। ब्रिटिशहरूले दिएको पुरानै संविधान बमोजिम संसदीय निर्वाचन होस् भन्ने उनको चाहना थियो। त्यसैमा उनी आफ्नो राजनीतिक भविष्य देखिरहेका थिए।


पुनरावलोकन प्रक्रियालाई अर्को धक्का नेसनल रेन्बो कोलिसन ले लगाइदियो। विभिन्न पार्टीहरूको यो गठबन्धन सत्तारुढ दल कानु को विरोधमा सङ्गठित भएको थियो। उसले जुनसुकै हालतमा पनि निर्वाचन जित्ने रणनीतिअन्तर्गत सबै खालका पार्टी र समूहहरूलाई गठबन्धनमा समावेश गर्‍यो। गठबन्धनको उद्देश्य र आधार सैद्धान्तिक नभएर केवल सत्तामा स्थापित हुने मात्र थियो। बन्दै नबनेको संविधानअनुरुप चुनाव लड्दा भोलि संयुुक्त सरकारमा कुन पार्र्टीलाई कति अवसर प्रदान गर्ने भन्ने मनगढन्ते सम्झ्ौता पनि त्यसले गर्‍यो। खासगरी चुनाव जितेर स्थापित हुनका लागि यो गठबन्धनलाई प्रतिपक्षी नेता राइला डिङ्गाको सहयोग चाहिन्थ्यो। नयाँ संविधान बनेपछि आफूलाई प्रधानमन्त्री बनाउने आश्वासन पाएपछि डिङ्गा गठबन्धनका नेता म्वाई किबाकीलाई सहयोग गर्न सहमत भए। किबाकीले सत्ता सम्हालेको १०० दिनमै नयाँ संविधान बनाउने चुनावी वाचा पनि गरे।


नभन्दै, किबाकीले राष्ट्रपतिको चुनाव पनि जिते। झ्ण्डै ४० वर्षको प्रयासपछि, केन्याको सत्ता शान्तिपूर्ण ढङ्गबाट प्रतिपक्षी राजनीतिक शक्तिको हातमा गयो। तर सत्ता प्राप्तिको चाहनाले वशीभूत भई किबाकीले चुनावअघि गठबन्धनका विभिन्न घटकहरूसँग गरेको सम्झ्ौता आफैँमा एउटा दुःखान्त नाटकको सुरुआत थियो। त्यो सम्झ्ौता स्वार्थमा लिप्त भई गरेको एउटा अतिरञ्जनापूर्ण दस्तावेज थियो। सम्झ्ौतामा सहभागी सबै घटकको माग-दाबी पूरा गर्न कसैले पनि सक्दैनथ्यो। यसैकारण, संवैधानिक पुनरावलोकन प्रक्रियामा धेरै फेरबदल गर्नुपर्ने भयो। त्यसपछि संविधानका विभिन्न नमुना एवं सिद्धान्तहरू अघि सारिए। एउटाको कुरो अर्कोसँग बाझ्िन्थ्यो। गठबन्धनकारी दलहरूबीच मतभेद बढेर किबाकीले व्यवस्थापन गर्नै नसक्ने स्थितिमा पुग्यो।


१०० दिनमै नयाँ संविधान दिन्छु भनी सत्तारुढ भएका किबाकीले आफ्नो वचन पूरा गर्न नसकेपछि समय सीमा सार्न बाध्य भए। पुनरावलोकन ऐनबमोजिम दोस्रो चरणमा गर्नुपर्ने राष्ट्रिय संवैधानिक सम्मेलन (अर्थात् संविधानसभाको बैठक) अप्रिल २००३ मा मात्र शुरु भयो। त्यो सम्मेलन शुरु त भयो तर सहभागीहरूको छलफल आरोप-प्रत्यारोपमै सीमित हुनथाल्यो। लामो अवरोध र तीनपटकको राउण्ड टेबल वार्तापछि पुनः मार्च २००४ मा सम्मेलनले काम शुरु गर्‍यो। त्यसले कनिकुथी एउटा संविधानको मस्यौदा बनायो। यसैबीच वैकल्पिक मस्यौदाहरू पनि आए। करिब एक वर्षसम्म निरन्तर वार्ता भइरहे पनि सम्मेलनले तयार पारेको मस्यौदालाई न त संसद्ले स्वीकार गरी जारी गर्न सक्यो, न त जनमतसङ्ग्रहका लागि जनतासमक्ष प्रस्तुत गर्न। यसरी संविधान निर्माण प्रक्रिया पटक-पटक अवरुद्ध हुन थाल्यो।


खिचलोका कारण धेरै थिए। तीमध्ये तीनवटा प्रमुख थिए। पहिलो, कार्यपालिकाको बनोटका बारेमा थियो। राष्ट्रपतिका साथै प्रधानमन्त्रीको व्यवस्था गर्नु जरुरी छ कि छैन भन्ने विषय धेरै विवादास्पद बन्यो। दोस्रो, शक्तिको निक्षेपीकरण (डिभोल्युसन अफ पावर) को कुरामा सहमति हुन सकेन। कोही संघीयताको सनातनी मापदण्डअनुसार प्रान्तीय इकाइहरूलाई कानून बनाउने अधिकार दिन चाहँदैनथे भने कोही संघीयताको सनातनी मान्यता स्थानीयस्तरमा चल्न नसक्ने दाबी गरिरहेका थिए। तेस्रो, मुस्लिम समुदायका लागि मुस्लिम कानूनअन्तर्गत बेग्लै देवानी अदालतको व्यवस्था गर्नु ठीक छ वा छैन भन्ने विषय पनि संविधान निर्माणको प्रक्रियामा जटिल मुद्दा बन्न पुग्यो।


राज्यको शासकीय स्वरुप, प्रान्तहरूको निर्माणदेखि पहिचानका विषयमा उठेका यस्ता सबै प्रश्नलाई समेटेर राष्ट्रिय रूपमा नेतृत्व दिने सक्षम र दूरदृष्टियुक्त राजनेता त्यो सम्मेलन अर्थात् संविधानसभामा कोही पनि देखा परेनन्। सबैले आ-आफ्नै डम्फु बजाउन थालेपछि सम्मेलनको नैतिक पक्ष झ्न्झ्न् कमजोर हुन पुग्यो। उदाहरणका लागि, सम्मेलनमा कार्यकारिणी अधिकारसहितको प्रधानमन्त्रीको पक्षधर डिङ्गाले नेतृत्व गरेको समूह र यसलाई सुन्नै नचाहने कार्यकारिणी अधिकारसहितको राष्ट्रपतीय प्रणालीका पक्षधर राष्ट्रपति किबाकीको समूहबीच तीब्र विवाद देखियो। राष्ट्रपति किबाकीको भनाइमा केन्याका लागि कार्यकारिणी अधिकारसहितको राष्ट्रपति आवश्यक थियो। यहाँनेर, कार्यकारी राष्ट्रपतिको शक्तिलाई व्यवस्थापिका तथा न्यायपालिकालगायतका पृथक् र स्वतन्त्र संस्थाहरूबाट नियन्त्रण तथा सन्तुलन गराएर उनले भनेजस्तै पद्धतिमा जाने विकल्प पनि खुला थियो। तर डिङ्गा त्यसो गर्न पनि तयार थिएनन्। गठबन्धनका विभिन्न घटकले चुनाव पूर्व गरेको सम्झ्ौतामा डिङ्गालाई भावी प्रधानमन्त्रीका रूपमा प्रस्तुत गरेका थिए। र, त्यहाँ यी दुईबीचको इगो को टकराहट पनि थियो।


सम्मेलनको पहिलो दुई चरण अत्यन्त तनावपूर्ण रह्यो। तेस्रो तथा अन्तिम राउण्डको वार्ता भने अगाडि बढ्नै नसकी असफल भयो। जनवरी २००४ मा सम्मेलनमा प्रतिनिधित्व गर्ने प्रमुख गैससका प्रतिनिधिहरूले निराश भएर बैठकस्थल छाडे। अहिलेसम्मका सारा प्रक्रिया सर्वसम्मतिबाट अघि बढ्न नसकेर खेर गएकोमा उनीहरू खिन्न थिए। तैपनि सम्मेलन भने रोकिएन। प्रक्रिया नबिथोलियोस् भनेर एउटा समूहले विभिन्न प्रस्ताव अगाडि सारिरह्यो। त्यसमध्येको एउटा प्रस्ताव, शक्तिशाली राष्ट्रपति र प्रधानमन्त्रीसहितको कार्यपालिका बनाउने पनि थियो। तर यो विषयमा पूर्ण सम्मेलनमा मतदान हुँदा प्रतिनिधिहरूले शक्तिसम्पन्न कार्यकारी प्रधानमन्त्रीसहितको कार्यपालिका तथा राजनीतिक शक्ति निक्षेपीकरणलाई आत्मसात् गर्ने पक्षमा मतदान गरे। भनाइको अर्थ, एउटा पक्षले मात्र चाहेबमोजिम हुन सकेन। परिणामस्वरुप, त्यसको भोलिपल्टै किबाकीले राष्ट्रिय सम्मेलन (संविधानसभा) बाट आफ्नो पक्ष निस्किएको घोषणा गरे।


किबाकीको पक्ष बाहिरिए पनि राष्ट्रिय सम्मेलनका बाँकी सदस्यहरूले सम्मेलन चलाउन छाडेनन्। छलफल भई नै रह्यो। शक्तिशाली प्रधानमन्त्रीको अवधारणामा आधारित मस्यौदा संविधान तयार पनि भयो। अनि त्यसैलाई पुनरावलोकन ऐनबमोजिम संसद्मा पेश गर्ने योजना बनाउन थालियो।


त्यसैबेला, केन्याको उच्च अदालतले नयाँ संविधानको कुनैपनि मस्यौदा राष्ट्रिय जनमतसङ्ग्रहबाट अनुमोदन नहुन्जेल लागू गर्न नसकिने आदेश जारी गर्‍यो। अदालतको यो आदेशबमोजिम संसद्ले सम्मेलन (संविधानसभा)द्वारा प्रस्तावित संविधानको मस्यौदालाई संशोधन गरी जनमतसङ्ग्रहमा पठाउने निर्णय गर्नुपर्ने भयो। तर किबाकीका समर्थकहरू उक्त मस्यौदा आमूल संशोधन गरेर मात्र जनमतसङ्ग्रहमा लैजान चाहन्थे। अर्थात् संसद्ले मस्यौदालाई या त पूर्ण रूपमा स्वीकार गर्ने या त अस्वीकार गर्ने भन्ने कुरामा पुनरावलोकन ऐनको प्रावधानअनुरुप चल्न उनीहरू तयार थिएनन्। सम्मेलनले प्रस्ताव गरेको मस्यौदा संविधानमा थुप्रै विवादास्पद मुद्दा भएकाले सांसद्हरूबीच उक्त सम्बन्धमा सर्वसम्मति गरेर मात्र जनमतसङ्ग्रहमा लैजानुपर्ने उनीहरूको तर्क थियो।


त्यसरी सर्वसम्मति गराउने कुरा कुनै राजनीतिक अवस्था, विश्वास/सिद्धान्तबाट भन्दा आ-आफ्नो दलीय स्वार्थबाट प्रेरित थियो। जस्तो, संसद्द्वारा मस्यौदा संविधान संशोधन गरिनु अवैधानिक हो भन्दै डिङ्गाले यो प्रक्रियाबाट आफू अलग भएको घोषणा गरे। त्यसलाई बेवास्ता गर्दै अर्को पक्षले सम्मेलनद्वारा प्रस्तावित मस्यौदालाई संसद्मा मतदानमा लैजानुअघि संशोधन गर्ने प्रस्ताव पारित गर्‍यो। डिङ्गा तथा कानु लगायतका दलहरूले त्यसको विरोध गरे। फरक मत राख्ने सांसद्हरू सदन वहिष्कार गर्दै निर्णयका लागि आवश्यक गणपूरक सङ्ख्या पुग्न नदिने अभियानमा लागे। अर्कोतर्फ, संशोधित ऐनबमोजिम जुलाई २००५ सम्ममा मस्यौदा संविधानलाई अन्तिम रुप दिइयो। यसमा राष्ट्रपतिद्वारा नियुक्त तथा राष्ट्रपतिप्रति उत्तरदायी प्रधानमन्त्रीको व्यवस्था गरिएको थियो। डिङ्गा तथा उनका समर्थकहरूले चाहेजस्तो संसदीय व्यवस्था तथा शक्ति निक्षेपीकरणको प्रावधान यसमा थिएन।


संसद्द्वारा संशोधनसहित पारित गरिएको उक्त मस्यौदा संविधानलाई नोभेम्बर २००५ मा जनमतसङ्ग्रहमा लगियो। यो नै एउटा विडम्बना थियो। अर्कोकुरा, त्यतिबेला जनताको मत बुझने स्वतन्त्र वातावरण थिएन। संशोधनका विरोधीहरूले राष्ट्रपति अधिनायकवादतर्फ अघि बढेको भन्ने प्रचार गर्न थाले। प्रस्तावित भूमिसुधार आयोग र त्यसको अधिकार बारेमा विभिन्न प्रश्न उठाइयो। त्यसैगरी धर्मनिरपेक्षका पक्षधरहरूले धार्मिक अदालतको व्यवस्था खारेज गर्न माग राखेर आन्दोलन शुरु गरे। कलह बढ्दै जाँदा संवैधानिक सम्मेलन कामै गर्न नसक्ने अवस्थामा पुग्यो। शुरुशुरुमा अमिल्दा कुरा दुई चारवटा मात्र थिए। तर पछि हरेकजसो विषयमा खिचलो र मतमतान्तरहरू देखा पर्दै गए। सबै पण्डित हुन थाले।
मुस्लिमहरूले माग गरेको देवानी (सम्पत्ति, जग्गा-जमिन सम्बन्धी) अदालतदेखि कार्यकारिणी अधिकारसम्म, समलिङ्गीहरूको अधिकारदेखि युवा तथा सीमान्तकृत वर्गसम्म, संसद्मा महिला प्रतिनिधित्वको विवाददेखि शक्ति निक्षेपीकरणको विषयसम्म, जग्गा-जमिनको हदबन्दीदेखि मानवअधिकार तथा राष्ट्रपतिको महाभियोगसम्मका विषय विवादास्पद रूपमा देखिए। संसदीय प्रणाली कि राष्ट्रपतीय प्रणाली? भन्ने विषय पनि टुङ्गो लाग्न सकेन। त्यसबखत इजरायली नमुनाको शासन प्रणालीको कुरा गर्नेहरू पनि त्यहाँ थिए। शुरुमा महिला अधिकार, विशेषज्ञको सरकार (नन्-इलेक्टेड क्याविनेट) देखि मृत्युदण्ड जस्ता विषयमा कुनै विवाद थिएन। तर पछि त्यसमा झ्गडै हुन थाल्यो। विभिन्न संस्कृति तथा सांस्कृतिक समुदायको पहिचानको विषयलाई लिएर पनि विवाद पैदा गरियो। संवैधानिक सम्मेलन (संविधानसभा) सकिएको एक वर्षपछि केन्याको ल सोसाइटीले प्रकाशित गरेको एउटा प्रतिवेदनले ३४ वटा विषयमा विवाद रहेको देखाएको छ।


मस्यौदा-संविधानले केन्याली समाजमा झ्न् धेरै विवाद सिर्जना गरिदियो। यस्तै विवाद, तनाव र हिंसा उन्मुख वातावरणमा जनमतसङ्ग्रह गरियो। जनमतसङ्ग्रहमा उक्त मस्यौदा संविधानलाई ५८ प्रतिशत वयस्कले अस्वीकार गरिदिए। करोडौँ डलर खर्च र वर्षौँै लगाएर सम्पन्न गरिएको एउटा प्रक्रिया सबै जनतालाई आन्दोलित तुल्याई कुनै समाधानै नदिई असफल भयो। यथार्थमा यो प्रक्रियापछि केन्याली समुदाय अरू बढी विभाजित हुन पुग्यो।


उक्त सम्मेलन (संविधानसभा) असफल हुनुमा सबैले आ-आफ्ना तर्क र वितर्क पेश गरेका छन्। तर, निचोडमा भन्दा केन्याको यो असफलताले, न्यूनतम प्रजातान्त्रिक आस्था नभएको परिस्थितिमा कुनैपनि राजनीतिक संयन्त्रले काम गर्न सक्दैन भन्ने देखाएको छ। खासगरी कानूनको शासन तथा संविधानवादको महत्व बुझ्ेको वर्ग समाजमा कमजोर भएपछि प्रजातान्त्रिक पद्धतिमा आमजनताको रुचि तथा विश्वास घट्छ। केन्यामा त्यही भयो।


नयाँ संविधान बनाउने बहस चलिरहँदा सन् २००७ मा केन्यामा पुनः निर्वाचन गरियो। नेशनल युनिटी पार्टीका उम्मेदवार राष्ट्रपति किबाकीले फेरि निर्वाचनमा भाग लिए। प्रतिपक्षमा अरेन्ज डेमोक्रेटिक मुभमेन्ट (डिएम) नामक गठबन्धन खडा भयो। त्यसमा पनि विभाजन आएपछि डिएम-केन्या नाउँको नयाँ पार्टीको जन्म भयो। र, संस्थापन पक्षको उम्मेदवार राइला डिङ्गा बने। अनि किबाकी, डिङ्गा र विभाजित डिएम-केन्याको कालोन्जो मुस्योकाबीचको त्रिपक्षीय प्रतिस्पर्धामा डिङ्गा अगाडि देखिए। मतगणना भइरहँदा राष्ट्रपति किबाकी नाटकीय रूपमा प्रतिपक्षी नेता डिङ्गाभन्दा अग्रस्थानमा पुग्छन्। र, सशस्त्र प्रहरीले निर्वाचन आयोगलाई घेरा हालेर राष्ट्रपति किबाकी विजय भएको घोषणा गरिन्छ। त्यस लगत्तै डिङ्गाले पनि आफूलाई जनताको राष्ट्रपति भएको दाबी गर्दै घोषणा गर्छन्। राष्ट्रपति किबाकी किकियु जातिका हुन् जसको केन्यामा सबैभन्दा धेरै जनसङ्ख्या छ। सन् १९६३ देखि त्यही जातिकै हालिमुहाली छ केन्यामा।


निर्वाचन पर्यवेक्षकहरू निर्वाचनमा धाँधली भएका प्रतिवेदनहरू सार्वजनिक गर्न थाल्छन्। अनि शुरु हुन्छ त्यहाँ विभिन्न समूहहरूबीच दङ्गा। पार्टी-पार्टीका मानिसबीच पनि मारकाट शुरु भयो। निर्वाचन परिणामको घोषणापछिको हिंसामा ११०० भन्दा बढी मान्छे मारिए। कसले कसलाई मार्‍यो भन्ने कुराको हिसाबै छैन। ३,५०,००० मानिस विस्थापित भएको देखिन्छ। र, मारकाटको शृङ्खला बढ्दै जाँदा शान्ति स्थापनाको लागि अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय समुदाय समेतको सहयोगमा किबाकी तथा डिङ्गा समेतको संयुक्त सरकारको परिकल्पना गरिन्छ। दुई पक्षबीच शक्ति बाँडफाँडलाई लिएर निकै घम्साघम्सी हुन्छ। संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघका पूर्व महासचिव कोफी अन्नानको व्यक्तिगत सक्रियतामा केन्यामा हत्या र हिंसा त बन्द भयो तर न्यूनतम प्रजातान्त्रिक मूल्य, मान्यताको अभाव अद्यापि छँदैछ। राज्यको शक्ति क्षीण भइसकेको छ। राजधानी नैरोवी बाहिर शान्ति सुरक्षाको स्थिति भयावह छ। भ्रष्टाचार निर्मूल गर्ने तथा राष्ट्रपतिको अधिकार कम गर्ने विषयमा सहमति भए पनि गत वर्षको दङ्गा, हत्या, हिंसाका जिम्मेवारहरूलाई कारबाही गर्ने कुनै सहमति र सुरसार छैन।


हाल केन्यामा सर्वसम्मतिको युनिटी गभर्नमेन्ट छ। संविधानसभा असफल भएकोमा कसैलाई शङ्का छैन। त्यसैले संवैधानिक सुधारका लागि विशेषज्ञहरूको एउटा समिति पनि बनाइएको छ। यसले निर्वाचन क्षेत्रहरूको सीमाङ्कन र सत्य, न्याय तथा मेलमिलाप आयोग स्थापनाको प्रयास गर्दैछ। तर, अफसोचको कुरा के हो भने करिब १० वर्षसम्मको अन्योल, अस्थिरता तथा हत्या-हिंसा र आतङ्कपछि पनि महत्वकाङ्क्षी नेताहरूका कारण केन्याले प्रजातान्त्रिक संविधान पाउन सकेको छैन। सार्वभौम संविधानको नाममा हत्या-हिंसा र आतङ्क मच्चाउनेहरू नै सत्तामा स्थापित भइसकेका छन्। तीमध्ये कोही राष्ट्रपति भएका छन्, कोही प्रधानमन्त्री तथा मन्त्री। तर अर्को संविधानसभाको कुरा गर्न कोही पनि तयार छैन। यस्तो लाग्दछ, त्यहाँ संविधानसभामार्फत प्रजातन्त्र संस्थागत गर्ने कसैको इच्छा नै छैन। कहिले पूरा होला केन्यालीको प्रजातान्त्रिक संविधान बनाउने धोको?

lawyers_inc_nepal@yahoo.com