During the 2006 people’s movement, there was a common understanding among many professionals, retired politicians, NGO workers, human rights workers, lawyers, professors, journalists, artists, and respected independent personalities against the tyrannical rule of the kings and end to the armed conflict. They showed encouraging participation in the peacefully rallies jointly called by the Seven Parties and the Maoists. They did not take anyone’s “side” or stand in “favour” but stood for peace, constituent assembly, and democracy, and went on to form the civil society.

The civil society grew out of difficult circumstances yet encompassed all individuals of different ideologies. But it never had any organisational structure and does not. It never had a formal office, and it does not have one today. Whenever necessary, friends were called and available individuals had meetings wherever was convenient. However, they were all adherents of democracy, human rights, independent media, constituent assembly. Their access to and coverage by the media made their movement larger everyday.

Then, the political parties were forced to face the pressure of the civil society because they were a “loose” nation-wide network, which had a strong peace message. Civil society had become the focus of the people tired of politicians and their activities, and centre of hope and trust for people living under the fear of murderous activities of the Maoists. The people who had not heeded the call for peaceful rallies by the politicians and their activists, and friends of the Maoists suddenly joined the leaders of the civil society in the street protests. Therefore, civil society was powerful, peace-loving democratic pressure group without arms, ideology, and manifesto.

Civil society: past and present

The united civil society that took to the streets during the 2006 people’s movement was not to be seen united after the CA elections, especially during the process of constitution drafting. During the second week of March, 2010, the civil society had organised a 100-hour sit-in in front of the south gate of the CA building demanding “timely promulgation of the new constitution”, but by then the civil society movement had weakened to an extent, which had started after the declaration of republic by the first CA seating, and this was their first time in the streets since then. This sit-in, however, was not powerful, forceful, and participative, and there was no continuity to such events subsequently.

After the elections, some of the leaders of the civil society have got political appointments and cannot speak out, and others must be busy in their own personal works, and this “movement” has become weak and ineffective today. However, this is not only reason for the present state of civil society movement. The main reason is that the some of the leaders of the civil society movement have become close to the state powers and others are waiting for the opportunity. They have been motivated more by self-interest than their responsibility to society. While some are happy to carry party flags, others have developed cynical mindset of “nothing works”. However, this is not civil society and should not be.

In our case, civil society should be the watchdog for peace, constitution, and democracy, for which they need to move forward with common agenda, but they are not focused on this nowadays.

The way the civil society stood united for peace, constituent assembly, and democracy yesterday was really praiseworthy, and today it has no alternative but to come up with a common agenda to complete the peace process. They should be able to point out without fear the transgression of the leaders in breaching the spirit, values, and principles of the Interim Constitution 2007 which was partly a result of civil society pressure. A referee gives warning to players who do not abide by the rules and ejects them from the field if they fail pay heed to the rules. Similarly, civil society is a referee in the game of fluid political and insecure state rule of the country, and a referee should not favour a team or a player. However, our civil society is not only without any agenda, but they are seen to favour various political players; some are believed to be close to the UCPN (M), and some to UML, and some to NC, which is frustrating indeed.

On the one hand, the divided civil society, and on the other hand, “insolent attitude” of the parties towards civil society-raised issues, both are equally to be blamed. If a united civil society castigates the political parties for constitution-drafting, only then the parties pretending to be asleep will be roused. But, a divided and weak civil society will not be able apply pressure to the leaders from constitution drafting.

What should civil society do now?
Civil society has not been able to set a common agenda since the election to the Constituent Assembly. Now is not the time for civil society to become a mute spectator on what kind of constitution to be drafted. They cannot forget their responsibility to the country and society. Instead of speaking out of anger on issue like constitution drafting which will have far-reaching consequences, political parties should be provided suggestion that reflect the reality of Nepal and Nepali society. There is no place ambiguity. Civil society should be able to come out with “blue print” on the future form of government, model of federalism, management/integration of Maoist combatants, human rights, press freedom, judicial supremacy in the new constitution. Otherwise, their legitimacy will end because civil society is independent and it always sides with reality rather than any side or opposition. It is time civil society in Nepal fulfilled this responsibility.

There should have been civil society careful vigil over constitution drafting since 28 May 2008, but it did not happen. It has been their greatest failing because on that day political parties including UPCN(M) were retreating from their commitment to write the constitution in consensus as enshrined in the Interim Constitution by going for majority system instead of politics of consensus, the result of which the constitution-drafting process has come to a standstill.

Perhaps, civil society fell into the belief that the political parties and CA members will write a constitution as per the wishes of the people, but since they are not going to fulfil that responsibility, civil society cannot remain a silent spectator.

Civil society should be able to provide “tips” to institutionalise the democratic republic declared on 28 May 2008 as per the Interim Constitution 2007. Civil society should not keep people perplexed. Whoever makes a mistake should be clearly pointed out and civil society leaders should be free of “generalisation culture” of blaming the leaders for everything.

As the time for writing the constitution is slipping away, it is about time civil society focuses its attention towards it. The Interim Constitution-defined time of two years and six months of additional one year have already passed. However, there have not been any understandings on fundamental aspects of the constitution among the parties. There is every possibility of increasing political chaos and anarchy. There are signs of transition being prolonged. The civil society leaders could not imagine the dangers to be faced by the country on 29 May 2010.

Therefore, civil society should not forget its responsibility towards peace and constitution drafting. Yesterday, civil society suggested the parties and their leaders to “enter the federal democratic republic” and now why cannot they pressurise the leaders with a common agenda on its implementation and management? If the civil society leaders fail on this, the existence of civil society movement will be in peril.

The role of civil society for constitution drafting and completing the peace process has been very weak. Therefore, the civil society leaders should fulfil their responsibility towards country and the people by reactivating their civil society movement once again. Instead of taking sides but acting with selflessness, it should resolve intraparty disputes among the political parties. Civil society leaders should not hold off any longer on speaking about form of government, structure of federalism, management and integration of Maoists combatants, issues of inclusion and role of the parties.