Nepali political leaders have missed a self-imposed deadline for promulgation of the country's new Constitution. Last year, in the wake of the election to the second Constituent Assembly (CA), the lawmakers had kept January 22 as the deadline.
Analysis
Nepali political leaders have missed a self-imposed deadline for promulgation of the country’s new Constitution. Last year, in the wake of the election to the second Constituent Assembly (CA), the lawmakers had kept January 22 as the deadline. However, the political parties again failed to reach a consensus on key issues eluding a resolution. A durable Constitution requires the consent of at least the four major political forces and addresses at least the fundamental aspirations of Madhesis, Dalits, Janajatis, and women.
Though 30 political parties in the unicameral body had decided to draft the new Constitution within a year based on consensus. But the lawmakers could not even start preparatory work during the last year because of differences over process and procedure to forge consensus on contentious issues like the nature of federal structure, form of government, electoral system and the design of the judiciary.
Major political parties, including the ruling Nepali Congress and alliance partner CPN-UML as also the main opposition Unified CPN (Maoist) and Madhesh-based parties, had differences in opinions over the issue of federalism. As a result, several cross-party talks failed to yield any favourable result. The situation became worse when the Constituent Assembly turned into a battleground after opposition parties disrupted an assembly meeting on 20 January and attacked the senior ruling party members, resulting in chaos and injury to a group of security personnel. Shouting slogans, lawmakers from opposition parties, led by UCPN (Maoist), threw chairs and microphones when CA chairman Nembang asked Nepali Congress chief whip Chinkaji Shrestha to form a panel to initiate a voting process for the settlement of contentious issues.
At a press conference held on 21 January, Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, popularly known as Prachanda, accused Prime Minister Sushil Koirala of playing a "villainous" role in spoiling the whole process while former prime minister and senior UML leader Jhala Nath Khanal blamed the Maoists and their leadership for taking hostage the constitution-framing process. Under the circumstances, it has become very difficult to predict how much time it will take to have consensus among the political parties as the Maoists and their allies want the deadline to pass without any result so that they can blame the ruling Nepali Congress and UML for the failure of the constitution-drafting process.
Flashback
Here, it is important to recall the circumstances that led to the formation of the CA in the first place. The demand for the establishment of the Assembly came from the Maoists during the conflict, but other political parties became just as central to this agenda later. The CA was a commitment that was enshrined in the 12-point agreement, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), and the Interim Constitution. All of these documents state that all decisions of the peace process will be taken through consensus, and although consensus has often been elusive, the parties have discovered that they have had no option but to return to this very path. All decisions on matters related to the peace process have only been possible through consensus. The rehabilitation and integration of former Maoist combatants is a case in point.
When the parties have failed to achieve consensus, there have been political crises. But leaders have soon realised that they have no alternative to working together. This was the case after the dissolution of the first CA and this was the case even after the 2013 elections. Even though the UCPN (Maoist) performed poorly and initially decided to boycott the process, it eventually agreed to participate in the CA.
The UCPN (Maoist) agreed to this only after the ruling parties promised to abide by all previous agreements and understandings, and to own up to all decisions reached by the previous CA. It is also important to note that the provision for federalism was inserted in the Interim Constitution after the Madhes Movement of 2007. The purpose of federalism was to fulfil the aspirations of Nepal’s marginalised groups for dignity and representation.
Over time, the proponents of identity-based federalism have come to moderate their demands. They no longer demand ’priority-rights’ (agradhikar)?that certain ethnic groups will receive priority over others in certain states. And in the days before the dissolution of the first CA in 2012, there was almost an agreement on a federal model that included both identity and viability as factors. After their victory in the recent election, however, the ruling parties?Nepali Congress and CPN-UML?decided that they could not accept identity as a major factor in the delineation of provincial boundaries.
A group of experts argue that this has to change if a durable constitution is to be drafted. The parties have to reach a compromise on a federal system that recognises the identity of marginalised groups while at the same time, preventing the domination of one group over another. Identities should be accorded dignity and respect, but ethnic chauvinism should not be allowed to arise?whether from traditionally dominant groups or other groups in new federations, the experts argue.
International community concerned
The UN Resident Coordinator in Nepal issued a statement by saying that it is necessary to have the widest support from the Nepali people for the new Constitution to be implemented peacefully and for it to offer stability. At this moment the political parties need to redouble their efforts to secure an inclusive constitution. The United Nations, in a statement, said the Constitution is meant to be a foundational document that will guide the country’s course for the foreseeable future. "The international community is concerned that relations between the parties have been marked by tension in recent days. We call upon them to provide forward-looking leadership in the larger national interest and to continue constitutional negotiations in a spirit of flexibility and urgency."
The international community has condemned violence or threats of violence and urged all parties to return to the negotiating table. This is the time for the political parties to demonstrate leadership and fulfil their historic responsibility. This is a sentiment widely shared by all influential international actors in Nepal, including that of all five permanent members of the UN Security Council, including China.
The Ministry of External Affairs of India has said that it expects all Nepalese leaders to work together in the final stage of the peace process and in drawing up a new Constitution that honours past agreements and the mandate of the elections.
(The writer is a Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Kolkata)
Banning JuD: Real shift in Pak terror policy?
Taruni Kumar
Pakistan’s decision to ban a number of militant organizations, including the Jamaat-ud Dawa (JuD) and the Haqqani Network, is a step that many believed it would never actually take in its fight against terror. JuD acts as a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the terror outfit responsible for the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. Both India and USA have pushed to ban JuD in the past and demanded that its chief Hafiz Saeed be hauled up for his alleged involvement in the attacks. While the ban may seem like a marked shift in Pakistan’s policy, the timing of the announcement raises scepticism. In fact, there is still confusion about whether or not the ban has been put in place.
The Foreign Office spokesperson, Tasneem Aslam, in her weekly briefing said that Pakistan, as a member of the United Nations, is obligated to proscribe the entities and individuals that are listed by the organisation including JuD. She added that Pakistan is required to freeze assets and enforce travel restrictions on the listed organisations and that the country has taken this action after a statutory regulatory order (SRO) was issued.
There was initially some confusion about Pakistan’s intentions when the Minister for Defence Production Rana Tanvir made a statement calling JuD a charity organisation and saying that it would not be banned. While Tasneem Aslam’s statement seemed to clarify Pakistan’s stance on the issue, the US has said that it has no confirmation on the ban. Pakistan’s High Commissioner to India, Abdul Basit, has also stated that only JuD’s assets have been frozen and the organisation itself has not been banned.
The move is particularly significant because of Pakistan’s history of cherry picking between good and bad militant groups. The country’s war on terrorism has always been stunted by its decision to support some terror outfits while targeting others. This lack of consistency has also led to the international community viewing Pakistan’s efforts with scepticism. Also, Pakistan has in the past banned LeT but not dissociated itself from or cracked down on it.
Strategic implications
The announcement could also have strategic implications for the India-Pakistan-US relationship as it comes just days before US President Barack Obama’s visit to India for the latter’s Republic Day celebrations. There is speculation that this decision could be used by President Obama as a bargaining chip with India in his attempt to bring the derailed Indo-Pak relationship back on track.
Aslam also mentioned that Pakistan hopes President Obama will raise the issue of the cross-border violations with India. She hinted that India was the perpetrator in the violations. According to the statement, some elements are unwilling to see Pakistan succeed in its anti-militancy drive and are attempting to detail its North Waziristan operation by drawing the military’s attention to the Line of Control.
Reports in the media have also portrayed this decision as having been influenced by pressure from the US Secretary of State John Kerry. During his recent visit, he praised the country’s initiatives against militancy and insisted that the war must be fought without any discrimination between different terrorist organizations. However, when Aslam was asked about US pressure, she said that the country had taken this decision for the protection of its own people and that it was part of the new National Action Plan. US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki, in a statement to reporters, said that the Pakistani government had made clear that it was in the country’s own interests to take steps against all militant groups and to not differentiate between them.
Difficult to implement
Hafiz Saeed has stated that the organisation will continue its "charity work" despite the ban. Media reports suggest that many believe controlling the organisation’s activities across the country and stopping its funding will be extremely difficult to implement. JuD’s official reaction accused the Pakistan government of banning the organisation under pressure from the US to "please India".
The implementation of such a ban and not just its announcement is the crucial element that will define whether or not Pakistan has changed its line on terrorism. As of now, there is no clarity about whether or not JuD, Haqqani Network and other militant organisations have been banned in the country. President Obama and Prime Minister Modi’s discussion on terrorism during the former’s visit to India will also highlight whether the announcement’s timing was to facilitate US’ attempts to positively influence the Indo-Pak relationship.
(Mihir Bhonsale is a Research Assistant at the Observer Research Foundation, Kolkata Chapter).
Country Reports
Controversy over Cabinet nominees
The list of cabinet nominees submitted to the Afghan Parliament by President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah has run into trouble. A total of seven candidates have been rejected by the joint parliamentary committee on charges of dual citizenship.
However, a number of members of the Lower House of the Parliament insisted that the rejection of these nominees should be reviewed. Differences among the lawmakers is said to have started a brawl in Parliament.
No comments:
Post a Comment