No Flinching İn Nepal Constitution Stand-Off

After nearly two months of political deadlock over the drafting on Nepal's constitution, recent attempts at rapprochement between the ruling coalition and Maoist-led opposition have failed.



Both sides have hardened their positions, meaning the prospect of a constitution, awaited since the end of civil war in 2006, remains distant. 



On March 29, police clashed with cadres of the Maoist-led opposition alliance of 30 political parties during protests against the government in several parts of the country, injuring more than a dozen people.



On the same day, over one and a half months since the brawl in parliament which led to the breakdown of constitution talks, Subash Chandra Nembang, the parliamentary speaker, called a meeting of the parliament for April 6, a move the opposition claims would harm efforts for negotiation because they were not consulted before the decision.  



Last week the opposition alliance, which counts the Madhesis of the plains as important members, announced a second stage of protests, although some programs such as picketing government offices have been withdrawn. The opposition leaders, however, have said they would go ahead with a three-day general strike beginning on April 7.



Rajaram Gautam, a political columnist with Annapurna Post newspaper said the ongoing political stagnation was hurting the country's much needed post-war recovery.



"The political deadlock is a slow poison. It's gnawing away at the economy and other things. More so in Nepal because everything revolves around politics," Gautam told Anadolu Agency.



While the main task of the constituent assembly, a 601-member body that doubles as parliament, is to deliver a post-war constitution after the end of the Maoist insurgency in 2006, there are unresolved issues, the most crucial being the demarcation and naming of states in a new federal set up.



The ruling alliance of the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) favours fewer federal states based on economic viability and geography.



The opposition alliance pushes for identity-based federal states, arguing that such a model would address the problems of marginalization of ethnic groups that have historically faced discrimination at the hands of the Kathmandu rulers.



The brawl in parliament occurred after the ruling alliance, which has a two-thirds majority required to approve the constitution, began a voting process to meet the January 22 deadline to deliver the charter.



Despite the assurances of flexibility and willingness to sit for talks from both sides, little progress has been made. Rather, they have drifted apart and have displayed belligerence.  



On February 28, the opposition parties organized a huge rally in Kathmandu, participated by tens of thousands of their cadres in a show of strength. But even such mass demonstrations failed to apply pressure on the government.



"If the ruling parties try to force through voting process, we may even quit the constituent assembly altogether," Ganesh Man Pun, a Maoist lawmaker, told AA.



"We have urged the ruling parties to be flexible. Publicly their leaders sound very positive and seem willing to compromise on the contentious issues, but once we sit for talks, they become rigid. They don't want to give up anything," he said.



He said his party wanted the constitution to be a social contract that incorporated the aspirations of the people.



"We want the constitution to address the issues raised through people's movement. It also should reflect the agreements signed by various governments with ethnic groups. But the leaders of ruling parties repeat that they have the numbers. Their intention is to force us into accepting the majority position," he said.



Pradeep Gyawali, the spokesman of the ruling Unified Marxist-Leninist party, said the opposition alliance was heading towards confrontation. "They obstructed the parliamentary proceeding, which led to the brawl and the adjournment of the house. Now they want to obstruct the work at government offices," he said.



Gyawali said some of the past agreements contradicted one another. "In order to fulfill the demand of the agitators, the government of the day agreed to various demands and some later turned out to be contradictory. Now it would be a tall order to meet all those demands."



Meanwhile, criticism against Prime Minister Sushil Koirala, the president of the Nepali Congress who took power a year ago with the promise of a constitution, is mounting.



"The constitutional process has been stuck for months. Sushil Koirala has neither been able to take opposition parties into confidence, nor does he seem to have the guts to push ahead with voting process in the CA," an editorial in the Republica English daily noted on Monday.



"Bogged down by compulsions of coalition polity, this government has been characterized by a sense of drift and failure of its leader to assert his authority."



Political analysts such as Gautam attributed the prolonged instability to the politicians setting their sights on next elections to secure political future.



"Most politicians have set their sights on upcoming polls. They want the federal states to be carved out in such a way so that they will still win from their constituencies. Theirs is not a principled position on federalism. In fact, they are negotiating to secure a political future," he said.



 "Maoists are no longer the revolutionary new forces they would like others to believe. They have been co-opted to the parliamentary system. All four major political parties are divided not due to any huge concerns for people and the country. Their views differ when they don't agree on power-sharing and the access to state resources," said Gautam.



www.aa.com.tr/en - Nepal