Though the main political party Nepali Congress, CPN (UML), UCPN (M) leaders had been saying that the constitution would be promulgated on January 22, the constitution-drafting process could not move forward as per the Constituent Assembly timetable. The Constitutional Political Dialogue and Consensus Committee of the Constituent Assembly held continuous discussion and talks on the disputed issues of the Constituent Assembly; however, there was no progress on the main contentious issues of state restructuring, form of government, judicial system and other issues.

The plan of the main parties and the government to hold a national political conference with parties outside the Constituent Assembly including CPN (M) and other parties to seek consensus on constitution-drafting also could not take place. The main reason was the agenda put up for discussion. The parliamentary meeting also got interrupted continuously due to issues in the implementation of past agreement between the ruling coalition and the opposition parties. The constitution-drafting timetable got affected because there was no consensus among the main parties, the national political conference with CPN (M) could not take place, and disputes remained between the ruling coalition and the opposition parties. This created doubts on the political parties’ claim of promulgating the constitution through process on January 22.

Timetable Affected

In the meeting of the Constitutional Political Dialogue and Consensus Committee, majority of the parties agreed on the Constitution of Nepal as the name of the new constitution; barring candidates with corrupt, morally bankrupt, and those convicted of serious offense; establishment of seven constitutional commissions; Nepal becoming federal democratic republic among others. However, Rastriya Janamorcha and RPP-Nepal opposed the proposal for making Nepal a federal democratic republic.

While there were agreement on various issue in the Dialogue Committee, Congress, UML, and UCPN (M) held discussions on the most disputed issues of the constitution of state restructuring and form of government. As the possibility of an agreement among the three parties became unlikely until the second week of September, Congress and UML started discussions on the alternatives. Congress and UML started stressing on deciding on the disputed issues if there was no consensus through voting in the Constituent Assembly. And instead of finding a consensus on the disputed issues, UCPN (M) started stressing on taking the constitution-drafting process ahead only after the national political conference with CPN (M).1 Prachanda believed that the party can be reunited with Vaidya Maoist faction in the pretext of finding a consensus on constitution-drafting and he kept trying. This was the main reason for deferring the Constituent Assembly timetable.2 Congress and UML who were reading to go for voting if there was no consensus by September 6 rejected the UCPN (M) proposal. Congress and UML were in favour of forwarding the agreed and disputed issues to the Constituent Assembly but UCPN (M) wanted to extend the deadline. Congress vice-president Ram Chandra Paudel said, “Let’s forward the agreed and disputed issues to the Constituent Assembly. Let’s stick to the process and not think that issues will be omitted in the process”.3 However, UCPN (M) chairperson Dahal reacted, “The constitution was amended before, so why can’t the regulations be amended now? Let’s extend the deadline by one month. The sky won’t fall if there is no constitution on January 22.”