Bringing consensus back in Kathmandu
India should tell Nepali politicians to conclude the constitution in a manner that has universal acceptability
When Prime Minister Narendra Modi embarks on his second visit to Nepal to attend the Saarc Summit, he will also have key bilateral engagements with Kathmandu’s leadership. What is bound to strike the PM is how deeply polarised Nepali politics has become since the last time he visited.
Nepal’s second elected Constituent Assembly (CA) has a self-imposed deadline of January 22 to draft the statute but Kathmandu is divided. The ruling Nepali Congress-Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist) alliance is on one side, even as the opposition parties, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and the Madhesi forces of the southern plains, are on the other. The differences are both on substance and process.
All parties — including the former Left rebels — are committed to basic principles of liberal democracy. But the three big issues that have divided Nepali politics in recent years are to do with state restructuring, which will determine whether power remains concentrated in the hands of a few communities in Kathmandu or is spread across Nepal’s diverse social groups.
On the form of government, the NC and UML have jointly proposed a reformed parliamentary system. The Maoists have traditionally insisted on a directly elected presidential model. But after their last electoral drubbing, they appear to be realising there is greater leverage for smaller parties in a parliamentary system.
On the electoral system, the NC and UML are keen on a full first-past-the-post (FPTP) model. But the Maoists and Madhesi parties, as well as marginalised social groups like the Dalits, hill ethnic tribes (Janjatis) and women, have pushed hard to continue with the mixed electoral system that was used for the CA elections. This would include FPTP, but also proportional representation with affirmative action. This model has made Nepal’s legislature remarkably inclusive in terms of gender and minority representation.
And the most contentious of issues is the shape of federalism — names, demarcation of territory, and demographics. The NC and UML are late, reluctant converts to the idea of federalism. They would like administrative federalism, which prioritises principles like economic feasibility. The two have jointly proposed seven states at the moment, out of which six will be dominated by Hindu hill upper-castes.
The Maoists, Madhesis, and Janjatis want identity-based federalism, which gives marginalised groups a slight demographic advantage in certain provinces. The Madhesi forces want to see at most two states in the Tarai on an east-west basis, bordering India, while the NC and UML are keen to slice away key districts with a resource base in the east and west and merge it with the hills.
What is particularly worrying is the NC-UML game plan to ram through their model through a majority vote in the CA. The interim constitution prioritises consensus in the CA. And while it does say the statute can be passed with a two-thirds majority, the peace process has rested on partnership between all these four forces.
Within the NC itself, Madhesi MPs have begun a campaign against the proposal forwarded by their own party. The Maoists and Madhesi MPs have made it clear any attempt at unilateralism will see them resigning from the house. It is obvious that a vote may lead to a constitution, but that constitution will neither be durable nor win popular legitimacy.
If there is a will to negotiate, a compromise is likely. The Maoists may be persuaded to accept a parliamentary system, which they earlier so despised. The NC and UML, for their part, must internalise that Nepal is multi-cultural and identity-based discrimination has to be addressed through federalism.
It is in this context that Modi visits Nepal. While New Delhi need not involve itself in the specifics, as the facilitator of the peace process, India should tell Nepali politicians to work together, to negotiate in good faith, and to conclude the constitution in a manner that has universal acceptability. Only this will lead to peace, and a stable and democratic political order.