In
the last few years, Nepal has sought consensus on various issues, but it has
been elusive. Most people believe it is just round the corner, only to be
disappointed repeatedly. The political parties are convinced they are within
touching distance of the target, only to realise that it is in effect a moving one.
The
search for consensus has proven to be futile. Immediately after the first
Constituent Assembly election, the parties sought to arrive at consensus on
several issues, key among which were the form of government and the basis for
the federal structure of Nepal. These are major issues and each of the four key
political parties has had strong views on these issues among others. Hence, assuming
they will compromise on the stance on the basis of which they contested
elections is rather unrealistic.
There
were occasional bouts of optimism, but it all amounted to nothing as consensus
could not be arrived at in almost half a decade. Ultimately, we had another election
in November last year. Unfortunately, if the initial signs are anything to go
by, we are likely to be repeating the same mistake again.
Sushil
Koirala, president of the Nepali Congress has already stated that the parties
will do their best to forge consensus on contentious issues relating to the
constitution and if they fail, then they will hold a referendum nationally. The
caveats are already being put in place and perhaps unknowingly, the stage is
already being set for another failed attempt at writing a constitution.
In
principle, forging consensus may seem like a good idea as it reflects the
willingness of the political parties to be flexible in their approaches to a
new constitution. However, in reality, the time that will be taken to reach the
consensus sought (if reached at all), is a luxury Nepal can ill afford. It is
an approach that has been tried once and failed.
In
this time, governance has been ignored. It has taken a backseat for too long
and the search for consensus will only prolong the state of inertia the country
finds itself in.
It
is time for a new approach. It is commendable that a consensus was sought. But
now that it has failed to materialise, it is time to adopt a fresh approach. If
the approach was not going to change following the last election in November,
then we should perhaps not have had an election in the first place. With the
focus squarely on the building of consensus, the election was just an event
that detracted from the consensus-building process and cost the state millions
of rupees.
And
when do we arrive at consensus? Is it when all legislators are in agreement on
something, or 500 are, or 400? One can come up with any arbitrary number and
not be wrong. Or right. The point is that election results showcase people’s
aspirations and it is the task of the assembly to try and bring these aspirations
to fruition. This column firmly believes that all matters should be put to a
vote in the assembly and key changes that are being sought in the constitution
should be implemented if they are approved by a two-thirds majority, even if
that means 200 members of the assembly are left dissatisfied. Even if certain
complex issues require deliberation, they should at least first be put to vote
in the assembly and then solutions found within the assembly and not outside of
it.
All
601 members are not going to be in agreement on any single issue. In fact if
they were, we’d have a problem larger than what a lack of consensus seems to
be.
(This appeared as a column in the Himalayan Times on the 18th of January, 2014).
