By Dr. Hemant R Ojha
Nepalis have been waiting to see just when politics will become consequential in their lives. The first Constituent Assembly (CA) failed to deliver a new constitution. Nepalis had to reluctantly accept the unwanted extension of transitional politics, which involved the holding of yet another election to the CA. People wanted to end the transition as soon as possible so that more substantive issues of development and transformation could be dealt with. Now a new CA has been elected and the people’s verdict is clear—end the transition soon and open up space for actual transformation. The high turnout of the election despite threats of violence holds a special meaning to this end. The question now is whether the new CA will deliver a constitution on time and open the path for a ‘politics of substance’.
Substantial politics
Anil Bhattarai raised the need for a ‘politics of substance’ in his op-ed piece on January 5, 2010. He argued that Nepali political parties, including the radical Maoists, have failed to attend to substantive issues of society and the environment—famine, floods, healthcare and similar issues that concern people in everyday life. This question has become even more important as transitional politics continues without any change in the behaviour of the political parties.
In an era of globalisation, the rise of our two neighbours—China and India—in the global scene, the migration of millions of Nepalis abroad for work and the revelation of Nepal’s Himalayas as climate change hotspots, it is even more urgent that Nepali politics and the ways in which political parties organise their business become more engaged with substantive issues. This is not to suggest that we do not invest time in discussing important issues about the new constitution but to emphasise the need to recognise the contextual limits of politics and the urgency of linking politics to substantive issues. Nepal’s future relies on how fast and sincerely the political parties can change themselves to better recognise and respond to substantive political issues.
Politics of process
As politics has focused unduly on process at the expense of substance, we are losing on many substantive fronts, even when we are gaining on the ‘politics of process’—establishing a republic, electing a new CA, etc. The point is quite clear. Politicians are debating big issues but millions of ‘small’ people are losing out on many substantive aspects that affect their lives—health, education, environment, transport, agriculture, water and so on. This is reminiscent of a Nepali proverb where seven majhis kept on discussing without acting as their boat capsised. Nepal’s politicians are like those majhis, not taking action but spending precious time talking.
Politics of position
It is even more troubling to note that the politics of process—such as writing a new constitution—is more about a strategic ‘politics of position’ among the top leaders to capture key positions such as national President, prime minister and federal chief minister. The ostensibly radical politics of state restructuring is actually framed more by the hidden interests of individual leaders than by the larger interests of society. Even the radical leaders who made many sacrifices at one time have now entered a different stage where they indulge in the selfish politics of position.
Such politics of position is everywhere—in intra-party struggles and inter-party competitions. All major political parties have experienced serious divisions and have an undercurrent of group based tensions and non-transparent competition. It is unfortunate that political parties have failed to organise themselves by formulating transparent, fair and workable rules of the game to maintain integrity, effectiveness and accountability. The emergence of the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML as parties with national reach in the second CA election does not evade their many internal fault lines and vulnerability to divisions and fatal conflicts. Intra-party debates are inevitable but what is critical here is that parties have not demonstrated a capacity to manage the differences and diversity.
We cannot afford to prolong the transition for too long. It is now time to end transitional politics and this is only possible if parties embrace the people’s mandate. Parties need not prolong their job by engaging in the endless ‘politics of process’ around hundreds of contentious issues related to the constitution but focus on a few key agendas.
First, agree on three key elements of state restructuring—the number and boundaries of the federal states and the system of national government. It is clear that Nepal cannot sustain more than seven federal states so concentrate the debate on five-seven states. Second, agree on how power is shared between the president and prime minister. Third, decide on the form and boundaries of local governments.Remember that democracy is strong when we have strong local governments—
so prioritise this agenda as a constitutional issue. Do not leave this for the states to decide as the latter are likely to give little power to the local level. Once we move to the federal model, we may not need the two-tiered local governments we currently have (we can define local governments as intermediates between the districts and VDCs). That way every state can have roughly about 100 local governments, so altogether we can have between 500-700 local governments.
Keeping the politics of process focused and targeted on the three issues mentioned above can help reduce the duration of the transition, with the possibility of promulgating the new constitution in a year. A brief constitution is thus the best way to go; we can add complexities as we move ahead by defining different tiers of governments and holding their elections. But this is possible only when politicians seriously rethink the way they do politics.
“Views expressed here are personal and not associated with any affiliated organisations”.
