The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) welcomes the agreement over the extension of the term of the Constituent Assembly in Nepal, though it was arrived at the last moment. It renews the hope to establish strong and long-lasting democratic institutions that could reach out to the people of Nepal.
These institutions are expected to form the basic framework that guarantees the durability of the peace process and the construction of a stable and democratic state. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that the circumstances within which the term of the Constituent Assembly is extended have shown that the obstacles that prevented the Constituent Assembly to complete its mandate within the assigned timeframe remain more than ever present. Among other factors, the work of the Constituent Assembly was notably hampered by the fragility of the peace process which failed to foster trust among the political actors, and further eroded their will to learn how to evolve within a democratic framework.
Nepal seems to be therefore stuck in a vicious circle in which the entities in charge of building institutions of the country to encourage the development of a stable, democratic and appeased society have fallen prey to political actors who do not truly adhere to the democratic principles. In that perspective, deep evolutions will be necessary in order for the extension to be an opportunity to fully empower the Constituent Assembly to realise its objectives.
The past two years have been a first opportunity for the actors in the political scene to interact within a democratic structure including learning how to evolve and defend their interests respecting democratic rules. The negotiations involved in the drafting should have encouraged the transformation of all the political actors into democratic and civilian parties. A successful constitution drafting process requires a fundamental transformation in the way the actors analyse their situation and formulate their problems as well as in the tools they use to defend their interests.
Unfortunately, the actors have failed to abandon their conflict-oriented mindset, logics and perceptions. When the Maoists make an extensive use of the fear of a new uprising and of their ability to block the country for several days in order to favor their political agenda, not only is it an attitude clearly unacceptable in a democracy but it is also a sign of the persistence of their conflict-based perception of politics.
The constitution drafting process is supposed to be the time where the foundations for a consolidated democracy are laid; but it is in that process itself that the political actors in the country have shown how difficult it would be for them to abide by the democratic rules. The Maoists’ position which conditioned the extension of the Constituent Assembly’s term to the resignation of the Prime Minister in favour of a ‘national unity government’, led by them, had for instance no ground in the interim constitution of Nepal and showed that they were ready to subject this crucial issue to their own political agenda.
Similarly, they unilaterally announced their own ‘people’s constitution’. This populist attitude, by short-circuiting the work of the Constituent Assembly, once more highlighted the Maoists’ unwillingness to democratically cooperate within that structure.
At the other end of the political spectrum, the ruling coalition’s decision that the Prime Minister should only resign if the Maoist party fulfills its transformation into a civilian party, dismantles the Young Communist League and return the seized property seems to indicate that other items of the political agenda are again likely to interfere with the smooth drafting of the constitution.
The Maoists are not the only ones to be blamed for this deadlock. Almost all the political actors in the country have participated in creating a climate unfavorable to the consolidation of democratic principles. Threats and attacks against journalists who dare publicizing critical news have come from all the sides of the political spectrum, therefore preventing the spring of a democratic debate. Political interference within the course of justice is also unacceptable in the process of building a democracy but none of the political groups in the country has refrained itself from doing so, in particular to protect those of their members or supporters who were accused of human rights violations. Only a few days after the decision to extend the term of the Constituent Assembly, the Nepali newspapers reported incidents which highlight that this decision is unlikely to incite the political actors to abstain from such practices.
On Saturday, the Maoists have reportedly torched a van carrying copies of two newspapers they had blamed for publishing speculative news about the abduction of the Chitwan Cancer Hospital executive director Mr. Bhakta Man Shrestha. At the other end of the political spectrum, the government has recently decided to award honorific distinctions to controversial individuals some of which have been accused of having committed human rights violations during the conflict, including members of the Armed Police Forces who had been charged of using force to quell the 2006 people’s movement. Similar news profusely illustrate that political mistrust and violence, fuelled by the unaccountability of those who have committed human rights violation and which affects the development of traditions of democracy and dialogue have bright days ahead.
The ordinary citizens are the most affected by this climate. A healthy democratic life does not mean a delegation of power from the people to those they chose as their leaders once in a few years at the time of the elections. On the contrary, the continuous implication of all the citizens in the political debate is an essential ingredient to a vivid democracy. The citizens should therefore be at the center of the constitution drafting process.
Nevertheless, if originally twelve weeks were supposed to be allocated to public consultation, repeated amendments to the Constituent Assembly schedule have reduced this time to four weeks. This situation has contributed to the alienation of the ordinary citizens from the political debate, although they should own it. They have been the passive audience of the discussions which have led to the extension of the Constituent Assembly’s term and it is unlikely that this decision have empowered them more. But there is no denying that an active participation of the ordinary citizens in the political transformations their country is undergoing is the key of a parallel transformation of the rigid structures of the society into appeased, democratised and egalitarian ones.
The institutions of Nepal are in dire need to be strengthened, democratised and extended in such a way that they will effectively protect the rights of the Nepalese citizens. Indeed, the lack of functioning state institutions deprives the citizens of any kind of protection against those who benefit from that situation to abuse their power and encroach upon the rights of the most vulnerable. The institutions should also be there to correct the inequalities within the society and to guarantee the equal representation and protection of all the citizens.
The AHRC has regularly called for dispositions encouraging the formulation of quotas or measures of affirmative action for the promotion of the rights of the most vulnerable communities (Dalits, women and indigenous people) or the drafting of a long-awaited law criminalizing torture which would be concrete (and non-exhaustive) steps in the right direction.
The institutions which would be in charge of carrying this transformation have to be strong and as such should be the result of a democratic process. To that purpose, the AHRC calls upon all the political actors in Nepal to refrain from resorting to practices which are in violation to internationally accepted human rights norms and hamper the spring of democratic traditions. This implies accepting to respect the freedom of expression of all and encouraging the pluralism of views expressed by the media, promoting the participation of the ordinary citizens through longer rounds of consultations and holding their members or supporters accountable for the crimes they might have committed.
It is only if the political actors in Nepal fully adhere to the principles of democracy and pluralism that the extension of the Constituent Assembly’s term can be welcomed as a sign that Nepal is moving in the right direction.
