The disputes and disagreements on important issues of the new constitution among political party leaders had never taken place. The working schedule of the Constituent Assembly had been amended for the 10th time. The meetings between political parties and their leaders only centred on gaining access to state rule. The Constitutional Committee tasked with finalising the draft of the new constitution had called the leaders of the 25 parties in the CA and warned them that unless there was consensus on the form of government, separation of power and other issues, the draft could not be prepared.

President Dr Ram Baran Yadav had met Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, UCPN (M) chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal, acting president of Nepali Congress Sushil Koirala and asked them to work seriously for constitution drafting. The disagreement between the parties was at its height. There was suspicion whether the CA would draft the new constitution or for the continuity of the CA itself. The UCPN(M) chairperson Dahal was not only accusing the losing forces of obstructing the constitution-drafting process and plotting to dissolve the Constituent Assembly but also threatening to launch people’s revolt if the constitution was not drafted on time. There was also debate with UML whether the government could draft the constitution and take the peace process to a logical conclusion.

There were also considerable number of people who questioned the fate of the peace process after the death of the Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala who was also the coordinator of the High-level Political Mechanism. Nepali Congress was in internal turmoil over leadership issue. UCPN (M) was requesting Prime Minister Madhav Nepal to give way to a UCPN (M)-led national government. However, the prime minister was instead requesting the UCPN (M) to mend its ways, and he was accusing them of being irresponsible and disturbing the environment for constitution drafting. The disputes among the parties, remaining works in the CA, and working style of the government had almost ended the hope that the constitution would be drafted.

Amidst the political confusion, former king Gyanendra reached Janakpur on 24 March 2010. He not only performed a puja on the occasion of Ram Nawami, he also gave an interview to the Avenues Television. On the question of his personal weakness for the end of monarchy, he said, “I don’t think it has already ended, so that’s only a ‘hypothetical’. Looking back in the pages of history, it (the institution of monarchy) has risen, fallen, in and out of power, so I think these kinds of things happen. So I want to repeat everyone should accept what the people seriously and responsibly decide”.

The former king Gyanendra’s remarks that everyone should accept the people’s verdict created a stir in Nepali politics. Leaders from the ruling and opposition parties heavily criticised the king. After the meeting between Nepali Congress and UML, leaders of both the parties took exception to the kings’ comments. UCPN (M) vice-chairperson Dr Baburam Bhattarai demanded that all state-provided facilities be withdrawn and action be taken against the king. The prime minister brushed it off as the former king’s daydream.

Five days after the king’s remarks, on 28 March 2010, former Prime Minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai issued a statement requesting that the constitution of 1990 be revived. He said, “The constitution cannot be drafted and it will increase anarchy. Keeping in the mind that the existence of the country is in peril in the present context, I request all the people and parties to move towards reviving the 1990 constitution”. He added, “The parties in the Constituent Assembly are in disputes over the hurriedly brought political cloak of federalism, secularism, and republicanism, and it is clear that these are against the unique identity and necessity of the country”.

The political parties including Nepali Congress, UML, and UCPN (M) objected to the statement of the former Prime Minister Bhattarai. Nepali Congress Party General Secretary Bimalendra Nidhi said that Bhattarai’s comments helped the regressive forces. UCPN (M) spokesperson Dina Nath Sharma accused Bhattarai of supporting the former king’s remarks. UML General Secretary Ishwor Pokharel said it was the latest test of conspiracy by the forces opposed to the historical achievement of the people at a time when the political parties have not been able to move ahead through consensus.

The political parties viewed Bhattarai’s statement as helping the former king’s plan to play a role as the possibility of drafting the constitution on time fades. UCPN (M), Nepali Congress, and UML again came together against what they perceived as attempts by the forces opposed to the people’s movement at discarding the achievements of the people’s movements in the face of bumpy political process and lack of consensus on several issues. On 31 March 2010, the meeting of the High-Level Political Mechanism was held and it opposed all the conspiracies against the achievements of the people’s movement and reiterated that the constitution should be promulgated on time.

The first paragraph of the press statement signed by UCPN(M) chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal, acting Nepali Congress President Sushil Koirala, and UML president Jhala Nath Khanal reads, “As a result of 60 years of peoples’ movements and revolutions, Nepal is on the way to becoming a federal democratic republic. Political parties are committed to complete the peace process and drafting the new constitution. Our attention has been drawn to the recent organised attacks against the historic achievements of secularism, federalism, and republicanism. We express our firm commitment to foil the daydreams and misadventures of the regressive forces who want to reverse the democratic and progressive changes. We firmly commit to unitedly thwart the regressive conspiracies which seek to take back the achievements of the people and prevent the peace and constitution-drafting process, and also ask the people to unite against such conspiracies”.

The parties also committed to complete the peace process for creating a conducive atmosphere for drafting the constitution. “In view of the provision of the article 138 of the Interim Constitution 2007 for state restructuring, the report of Committee on State Restructuring and Distribution of State Power and its requirement for technical assistance and the discussion on the report in the CA and its concern also for technical assistance, a policy decision has been made to constitute a high-level State Restructuring Commission. Concrete decisions on the Commission and promulgating the new constitution on 28 May by completing the peace process will be made at the next meeting,” states the second paragraph of the statement.

Though the three parties countered the statements of former king Gyanendra and former Prime Minister Bhattarai, they did not attempt to fulfil their commitment on constitution drafting. They not only did not reach any conclusion on completing the peace process but also on could not agree on state restructuring. Nepali Congress and UML requested UCPN (M) to submit a clear draft on Maoist combatant integration, management, and rehabilitation. They also brought other conditions, i.e., ending the paramilitary structure of YCL, return of captured land and houses, implementation of past agreements. UCPN (M) kept insisting on the prime minister’s resignation and tied it up with the extension of the CA tenure. They insisted that there was no point in extending the tenure of the CA as long as Madhav Kumar Nepal was the prime minister. Therefore, they went on to approve by their central committee not extending the CA deadline if the prime minister does not resign.

When it became clear that the new constitution would not be ready by 28 May 2010, Nepali Congress, UML and other parties reached a conclusion that if the CA deadline is not extended, the peace process would be in peril. They requested the UCPN (M) not to link the issue of CA extension and resignation of the prime minister. There was no alternative for the government and other parties but to extend the CA deadline in the absence of clear guidelines on the outcome of failure to complete the constitution and not extend the deadline. In the meantime, some leaders feared that there will be president’s rule if there is no extension of the CA. UCPN (M) also knew that there was no alternative to extending the CA deadline. Yet, it wanted to use the prime minister’s resignation as the last bargaining chip. Even after a long series of acrimonious recriminations, there was no sign of an agreement. Amidst the confusion, UCPN (M), Nepali Congress and UML reached a three-point understanding at midnight on 28 May 2010. After it was agreed on completing the remaining peace process, resignation of the prime minister and other issues, the CA tenure was extended by one year by amending the Interim Constitution for the eighth time.

The committees of the CA have drafted reports including the identification of their jurisdiction, building separate working schedule of sub-committees, internal working procedures, identification of experts and resources, and suggestions collected from the people. By following specific working procedures and processes, the reports have turned out to be more systematic. To make their jobs smooth and fast, the Committees have been discussed time and again in small groups with the formation of sub-committees and task forces.

On December 22, 2008, the Constitutional Committee had formed a task force for submitting a report on identification of jurisdiction of the Committee, formation of work details, internal working procedures of meetings, formation of working schedule, and identification of experts’ service to the Committee. Nilambar Acharya, Agni Prasad Kharel, Khimlal Devkota, Nilam Varma and Rukmini Chaudhary were in the task force.

The Constitutional Committee has formed various sub-committees: constitutional sub-committee, preamble sub-committee, constitution sub-committee, constitution amendment sub-committee, political parties and miscellaneous sub-committee, and emergency management sub-committee for the study of various themes under the responsibility of the Committee. A similar task force of Nilambar Acharya, Bhim Rawal, and Barshaman Pun was formed to draft a report through studying of questions and integrating the suggestions from CA members received in the secretariat.

A sub-committee was formed to finalise the concept papers of the various sub-committees after discussions in the Committee. This sub-committee was also tasked with providing analytical comments while preparing the final draft. From committee formation to report submission, 79 meetings were held for a time of 205 hours.

The National Interest Preservation Committee has formed a sub-committee to decide the jurisdiction of the Committee. The sub-committee held three meetings. The sub-committee for reference materials collection and capacity development also held three meetings. The sub-committee for management of international border and sovereignty, independence and constitutional measures of national unity held eight rounds of meeting. Similarly, the sub-committee for the identification of national interest and its definition as well as protection of national natural resources and international relations and international agreements and treaties sub-committee respectively conducted eight and seven rounds of meeting. The full meeting of the Committee was held 62 times on national interest protection including committee to a total of 337 hours.

Two sub-committees were formed under the Committee on Natural Resources, Financial Rights and Revenue Sharing. These two sub-committees were related with natural resources, and financial rights and revenue sharing. These sub-committees were given the responsibility of submitting a draft of the constitution within the jurisdiction of the Committee. The sub-committees spent 77 hours in 37 meetings. The full meeting of the committee took place 65 times for a total of 202 hours and 30 minutes.
Time spent by the Committees

Source: Based on the reports submitted by the committees
Note: the meeting duration of sub-committee and task force also included here.

Under the Committee on Determining the Structure of Constitutional Bodies, seven formal and an informal sub-committees have been formed. These sub-committees are; sub-committee for determining the working schedule of the Committee, National Human Rights Commission sub-committee, Election Commission sub-committee, Public Commission sub-committee, Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority sub-committee, Auditor General Office sub-committee, and sub-committee related to other commissions. One informal task force was formed with the intention to reach conclusions through discussion of other commissions. A total of 191 hours were spent in 54 meetings.

Two sub-committees were formed under the Committee for Determining the Structure of the Legislative Body. The first sub-committee was for the identification of resource materials, identification of experts on the constitution-drafting process, jurisdiction of the committee and formulation of working schedule of the Committee, and second for the drafting of the preliminary report including the Committee’s recommendations. The meeting of this Committee was held 55 times, and 209 hours and 45 minutes was spent all together.

On the Judicial System Committee, seven task forces and sub-committee were formed. The task forces are related with working schedule preparation, questionnaire, working details preparation of the Committee A and B , and management of opinions and suggestions, preparation of concept paper, and preliminary draft preparation. The meeting of the task forces was held 49 times and a total time of 118 hours and 15 minutes was spent. The full meeting of the Judicial Systems Committee sat for 135 hours 30 minutes in 50 meetings.

Committee on the Protection of the Rights of Minorities and Marginalised Communities formed two sub-committees and task force. First, a sub-committee on work performance, draft and concept paper preparation, and the second was formed for the analysis of opinions received from the people. From draft report to finalisation, 48 rounds of meetings were held and 352 hours were used for discussion.

The Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles has formed seven sub-committees and two task forces. The sub-committee for the identification of fundamental rights and duties and restriction on fundamental rights held 16 meetings for a total of 42 hours. Similarly, the meeting of the sub-committee on responsibility of the state, directive principles and policies was held seven times for a total of 16 hours. The meeting of the sub-committee related to citizenship was held 11 times for 21 hours 30 minutes. The meeting of gender and sexual matters sub-committee was held nine times for 15 hours 30 minutes. The meeting of sub-committee of social justice, inclusion and special protection was held 20 times for a total of 35 hours. In this way, the meeting of sub-committee “abashista” rights and inter committee coordination was held seven times, and 12 hours and 30 minutes were spent on the theme. The meeting of sub-committee of concept preparation and preliminary draft was held 55 times for a total of 143 hours.

The task force tasked with fundamental rights, formed under the sub-committee on concept and preliminary draft held 14 meeting for 41 hours and 30 minutes. Similarly, a directive principles-related task force was formed under the concept and preliminary draft preparation sub-committee, which held 10 meetings for 19 hours and 30 minutes.

The full meeting of the Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles was held 47 times for a total of 131 hours and 45 minutes and came out with the longest draft of any committee in the CA at 569 pages. The Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principle also held most meetings and discussions. A total of 197 meetings of the Committee, sub-committees, and task force were held for 478 hours and 30 minutes.

Under the Committee for Determining the Base of Cultural and Social Solidarity, two sub-committees were formed, one related to language and another to cultural and social solidarity. Fifteen rounds of meeting were held for the sub-committee related to language, and eighteen rounds of meeting for the sub-committee related to cultural and social solidarity. The complete meeting of this committee was held 47 times, including committee, sub-committee meetings for 223 hours and 24 minutes.

The Committee for Determining the Form of the Government has formed two sub-committees; the form of the government and electoral system, and regulation of public service, formation and good governance. The sub-committee on the form of the government and electoral system held 19 meetings, and 31 hours and 45 minutes were spent on discussion. Similarly, the sub-committee on the regulation of public service, formation and good governance also held 19 meetings for 31 hours and 10 minutes. The full meeting of the Committee was held 77 times, and 183 hours and 55 minutes was focused on discussions.

Under the Committee of State Restructuring and Distribution of State Power, 12 sub-committees and task force were formed including the time table and work division sub-committee, the sub-committee to draft the questionnaire in order to collect public suggestions, the sub-committee to prepare the preliminary draft to make the concept papers within its jurisdiction. Likewise, another task force was formed to study about the selection of the essential subject matters, categorisation, editing, reframing of the draft concept paper and another task force to submit a preliminary draft of the constitution, determining the number of regions, bordering and naming of them. And, the task forces to prepare the draft of the concept paper were also formed.

The meetings of the Committee of State Restructuring and Distribution of the State Power took place 127 times, and its sub-committee meeting was held 49 times. The committee and sub-committee meetings spent 334 hours and 28 minutes in total. Some meetings took up more than thirteen hours a day. The meeting on December 21, 2009, started from 8 am and ended at 9 pm when drafts submitted by sub-committees were discussed upon and finalised.

The CA sat for 100 meetings in two years. According to the CA Secretariat employees, Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala had reached the CA meeting hall only four times. When he died on 20 March 2010, he had not signed on the attendance register even once. UCPN (M) chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal attended eight meetings. He attended five meetings after resigning from the prime minister’s post. He last attended the meeting on 4 February 2010. Senior Nepali Congress leader Sher Bahadur Deuba attended seven meetings in two years. He did not attend a single meeting for the whole of 2066 BS (mid-April 2009 to mid-April 2010). Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal attended 16 meetings of the Constituent Assembly.

Comparatively, UML chairperson Jhala Nath Khanal was more active in attending 34 meetings. Among leaders of the big parties, Nepali Congress parliamentary leader Ram Chandra Poudel has attended the most meetings. He not only attends the meetings but also participates in the discussions. He also gave presentations in his 63 meeting attendances. Leaders of the smaller parties attended most of the meetings and actively took part in discussions. Rastriya Janamorcha chairperson Chitra Bahadur K.C. attended 93 meetings.

By looking at the meeting attendance of the top leaders of the major parties, it is clear that the meetings are not their priorities. They did not take part in discussions in serious issues raised in the meetings. Instead of constitution drafting and issues to be covered under, they became more interested in rule and power. It never occurred to them to attend, sit through and take part in the discussions in the meetings, and that they have to conduct discussions among the public on constitution drafting. While they gave speeches outside the CA hall on party, constitution, and rule/state, they never gave a thought to addressing the issues raised in the process of reaching agreements, so much so that they never bothered about resolving the disputed issues. In their speeches, they tried to project a clean image by blaming other parties and leaders.

The leaders did not pay attention to the CA Rules and Regulations 2008. The Rule 132(1) of the Regulations states that the members have to notify the chairperson if they have to be absent for more than 10 days continuously. Rule 132(2) of the Regulations states that they have to give advance notification of such absences or within three days of attending the CA if there is a valid reason for not being able to do so earlier. Rule 132(3) states that notification of absence per the above rules should also state the reason and duration of the absence. Rule 132(4) has a provision that if it is an advance notice, then the chairperson has to present it to the CA for approval. The chairperson and the secretariat of the Assembly did not take interest in these provisions. The chairperson also fell behind in asking the senior leaders to attend the meetings so much so that even second-tier leaders could not be seen in the meetings. When this provision of advance notification was published by Naya Patrika (a vernacular daily) and a debate started on the possibility of loss of membership, only then the leaders started registering notification that they should have already done.

The 95th meeting of the Constituent Assembly on 4 March 2010 approved the notifications of absence of 52 CA members. Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala gave his notification of absence from 5 June 2008 to 16 August 2009. UCPN (M) chairperson and parliamentary leader gave his notice for 23 July 2008 to 15 June 2009, UML chairperson Jhala Nath Khanal from 16 April 2009 to 16 August 2009, Nepali Congress senior leader Sher Bahadur Deuba from 12 February 2009 to 6 September 2009. The leaders were absent from the CA meeting also rarely attended the committee meetings. The Regulations provide for removal of members who are continuously absent without any notification. Regulations 2008 Rule 77 states, “The committee chairperson of the CA can remove any member from the committee if he/she is continuously absent for four days on the approval of respective committee chairperson, and notify the Constituent Assembly”. However, none of the committee chairperson forwarded any recommendations to this effect.

Similarly, former prime minister and senior UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal gave his notification of absence from 8 June 2009 to 16 August 2009 and from 17 August 2009 to 14 December 2009. Madhesi Janadhikar Forum chairperson Bijaya Kumar Gachhedar gave his notification from 22 June 2009 to 16 August 2009. Many leaders had stated as special reason for their absence but they had not clarified the reason beyond that.

The dispute was not only over power but also over many policies. The leaders formed the High-level Political Mechanism, composed of leaders of Nepali Congress, UML, and UCPN (M), to resolve outstanding issues on peace and constitution-drafting process. Their meetings and discussion took place in party and parliamentary party offices but also in Radisson, Shangri-La and other star-rated hotels. They had to sort out issues related to the form of government, electoral system, judicial system, state restructuring and others, but instead they concentrated their talks on power and it related issues. UML chairperson Jhala Nath Khanal had said many times that there had been no talks about constitution-drafting process in the High-level Political Mechanism.

There were no efforts to inform the CA about the talks within the High-level Political Mechanism and between the party leaders. The leaders could not set a precedent of keeping the legislature-parliament informed of the dialogues between the party leaders about the peace and constitution-drafting process. UML CA members Ram Nath Dhakal and Bijaya Poudel raised this issue the leaders’ working style in the Assembly, which the top leaders did not attempt to address it. There were senior leaders of the parties in the Constitutional Committee; however, they did not try to resolve the disputes issues beyond presenting their own party’s views. They simply delegated the responsibility to other leaders form the party in the Committee. The leaders were more focused on putting out their party’s views rather seeking a consensus in the Committee discussions. That the Committee had to vote on 98 disputed issues in one day shows that the leaders did not seek consensus or failed to get agreements during the constitution-drafting process.

If the leaders had come to the full sitting of the CA to discuss on the reports of the 10 thematic committees, participated in the discussion, then consensus could be sought on the bases of these discussions. UCPN (M) chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal did not participate in any of the discussion on the committee reports. Even during the full sitting of the Assembly, other leaders attended who instead of seeking consensus put their own party views. It is not easy to draft a constitution when no single party has a two-third majority and the constitution cannot be drafted as per the wishes of a single party. The party representation in the Assembly looks like the constitution is another document of the agreement between the parties. Had the leaders taken this into account, they would have analysed the policy issues, listened to others, and presented their opinions accordingly. The absence and inaction of the top leaders in the full sitting of the CA reflected poorly on other leaders and their views also could not gain any importance and to such a degree that these leaders felt that there is no alternative to a consensus between the senior leaders and it is only a formality to take part in these meetings.

Attendance in 101 meetings

Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala: 4 days
UCPN (M) parliamentary leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal: 8 days
CPN (UML) parliamentary leader Jhala Nath Khanal: 34 days
Nepali Congress parliamentary leader Ram Chandra Poudel: 63 days
Nepali Congress senior leader Sher Bahadur Deuba: 7 days
CPN (UML) senior leader Madhav Kumar Nepal: 16 days
Madhesi Janadhikar Forum parliamentary leader Upendra Yadav: 25 days
Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (Democratic) parliamentary leader Bijaya Kumar Gachhedar: 19 days
Tarai Madhes Loktantrik Party parliamentary leader Mahantha Thakur: 49 days
Rastriya Janamorcha parliamentary leader Chitra Bahadur K.C.: 93 days
Nepal Majdur Kisan Party parliamentary leader Narayan Man Bijukchhe: 43 days
Nepal Sadbhawana Party parliamentary leader Rajendra Mahato: 19 days

Notification of absence for special reasons

Girija Prasad Koirala: 5 June 2008 to 16 June 2009
Pushpa Kamal Dahal: 23 July 2008 to 16 August 2009
Jhala Nath Khanal: 16 April 2009 to 16 August 2009
Madhav Kumar Nepal: 8 June 2008 to 7 August 2009 and 17 August 2009 to 14 December 2009 (busy work schedule as well)
Bijaya Kumar Gachhedar: 22 June 2009 to 16 August 2009
Baburam Bhattarai: 10 November 2008 to 2 June 2009 and 27 October 2009 to 16 November 2009

Busy work schedule

Rajendra Mahato: 25 May 2009 to 11 June 2009 and 16 June 2009 to 16 August 2009 (special reason)
Sher Bahadur Deuba: 14 January 2009 to 6 September 2009
Krishna Bahadur Mahara: 7 August 2008 to 6 July 2009
Bishnu Prasad Poudel: 10 August 2008 to 16 August 2009
Janardan Sharma: 16 April 2009 to 5 June 2009
Sanjaya Kumar Shah: 29 April 2009 to 27 May 2009; 4 June 2009 to 26 June 2009; 1 July 2009 to 16 July 2009; 20 July 2009 to 16 August 2009 (special reason)
Ramshila Thakur: 25 May 2009 to 1 August 2009 (special reason)
Sharat Singh Bhandari: 25 May 2009 to 16 August 2009 (special reason)
Prakash Sharan Mahat: 25 May 2009 to 11 August 2009 (special reason)
Surendra Pandey: 26 May 2009 to 13 August 2009 (special reason)
Mohammad Aftab Alam: 4 June 2009 to 11 August 2009 (special reason)
Balkrishna Khand: 4 June 2009 to …… (special reason)
Uma Kanta Chaudhary: 22 June 2009 to 3 August 2009 (special reason)
Rambha Devi: 22 June 2009 to 7 August 2009 (special reason)
Salauddin Musalman: 22 June 2009 to 7 August 2009 and 17 January 2010 to 20 February 2010

Special reason: treatment of family members abroad

Mrigendra Kumar Singh Yadav: 16 July 2009 to 16 August 2009
Ram Bahadur Thapa Badal: 16 July 2009 to 16 August 2009 (special reason)
Dal Bahadur Rana: one month from 17 July 2009 (foreign trip)
Nima Lama: 18 July 2009 to 12 September 2009 (medical treatment)
Rupa B. K.: 30 July 2009 to 12 December 2009 (maternity leave)
Samita Karki: 8 August 2009 to 16 October 2009 (maternity leave)
Deepak Karki: 18 August 2009 to 10 October 2009 and 2066 Asoj to 2 August 2009

District Visits

Bishnu Prasad Rimal: 11 September 2009 to 19 September 2009
Amrita Thapa Magar: 3 October 2009 to 15 November 2009 (maternity leave)
Dilliman Tamang: 5 October 2009 to 22 November 2009 (medical treatment abroad)
Dip Kumar Upadhya: 7 October 2009 to 22 November 2009 (foreign trip)
Ram Saroj Yadav: 13 October 2009 to 9 November 2009 (personal household work)
Uma Bhujel: 13 October 2009 22 December 2009 (maternity leave)
Pratibha Rana: 18 October 2009 6 November 2009 (foreign trip)
Sunita Kumari Mahato: 28 October 2009 to 22 November 2009 (examination leave)
Laxmi Kumari Chaudhary: 18 October 2009 to 10 December 2009 (maternity leave)
Prakash Chandra Lohani: 3 November 2009 (1-1/2 month-long foreign trip)
Bishwa Nath Agrawal: 3 November 2009 to 16 January 2010 (personal household work)
Binod Kumar Chaudhary: 6 November 2009 (two weeks for special reasons)
Alauddin Ansari: 12 November 2009 to 22 December 2009 (Hajj trip to Mecca)
Amik Sherchan: 12 November 2009 to ……no month (medical treatment)
Angdawa Sherpa: 13 November 2009 to 25 December 2009 (medical treatment after an accident)
Mohammad Ishtiaq Rai: 20 November 2009 to 5 December 2009 (Bakr Eid, personal household work and special reason)
Chhiyama Rai: 30 November 2009 (personal busy schedule)
Baldev Sharma Majgaiya: 30 December 2009 to 14 January 2010 (foreign trip)
Damodar Chaudhary: 20 December 2009 to 12 February 2010 (personal household and party-related work)
Babina Moktan Lawati: 30 December 2009 (three week for party-related work)
Laxman Mahato: 4 January 2010 to 4 March 2010 (medical treatment)
Dharma Prasad Ghimire: 4 June 2009 to 12 February 2010 (hospitalisation)
Krishna Bahadur Gurung: 27 May 2009 to 10 June 2009 and 27 November 2009 to 31 January 2010 (special reasons)
Shrawan Kumar Agrawal: 20 January 2010 to 12 February 2010 (foreign trip on personal work)

Reasons for absence

Special reasons: 27
Busy work schedule: 3
Foreign trip: 9
Maternity leave: 5
Medical treatment: 4
Personal household work: 3
Party-related work: 2

Source: The Constituent Assembly Secretariat

High-level Political Mechanism was proposed by Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala. He reasoned that consensus, cooperation, and unity among major parties was needed to complete the constitution-drafting and peace process. He proposed the High-level Political Mechanism to that end. Koirala said that consensus, cooperation, and unity among UCPN (M), Nepali Congress, and UML for drafting the constitution.

After UCPN (M) chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal became prime minister after the Constituent Assembly election, the constitution-drafting and peace process did not move ahead smoothly. UCPN (M) could not take into confidence not only the Nepali Congress in the opposition but also parties in its coalition, UML and Madhes-based parties. Amidst the growing mistrust between the parties, the UCPN (M) government decided to sack the then Chief of the Army Staff Rukmangad Katuwal. The UCPN (M) government quit the government after the President upturned this decision at the request of 18 parties in the legislature-parliament. UCPN (M) stated that it had quit the government to prevent the development of two power centres.

After UCPN (M) quit the government, a non-Maoist coalition formed and Madhav Kumar Nepal became the prime minister through the majority of this coalition. UCPN (M), however, kept saying that the President’s move was unconstitutional and would not take part in the government-formation process and walked out when the prime minister was being elected. Koirala had first talked about a high-level political mechanism during the election of the prime minister and while UCPN (M) was boycotting the parliament. He said in the Assembly, “The mechanism will be the key to mend the broken unity, consensus, and cooperation of the past. I am trying for a way to move forward with consensus. Now you (Maoists) are boycotting, but I going to suggest a way out of this to move ahead with consensus and that is High-level Political Mechanism. I will also be a member and Dahal also should be a member”.

Koirala’s statement on the high-level political mechanism was looked at in two ways: first, as an important space to complete the peace process, and second, to remain above the government and weaken the role of the government.

After Koirala’s statement, there was a debate about the high-level political mechanism, and he kept talking about forming the mechanism. He seriously discussed about the mechanism with UCPN (M) chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal in a meeting on 27 July 2009, and Dahal also agreed to be a member of the mechanism and he said after the meeting, “We have agreed to complete the constitution-drafting and peace process, and there was a positive discussion for the formation of a high-level political mechanism.”

As soon as UCPN (M) leaders had agreed to be a member of the mechanism, Koirala met Prime Minister Madhav Nepal to discuss this further. The international community was positive about Koirala’s efforts, and Nepal-based UN Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) released a statement saying the mechanism would be vital for getting consensus among the parties. However, there was still difference of opinion regarding resigning from the government and forming another one. While the relationship between UCPN (M) and UML had reached a point of no dialogue, top leaders from UCPN (M), Nepali Congress, and UML had a meeting in Maharajgunj on 1 August 2009. The leaders agreed in principle to the formation of the mechanism for removing misunderstanding among the parties and to work for constitution-drafting and peace process.

A six-member working group was formed to finalise the details of the mechanism. Its members were Narayankaji Shrestha and Deb Gurung from UPCN (M), Gopal Man Shrestha and Krishna Sitaula from Nepali Congress, and Ashok Rai and Bishnu Poudel from UML. This process did not move as smoothly as the leaders had envisaged. Yet, the leaders in meetings and public programmes kept insisting on the necessity of the mechanism to resolve the political deadlock and constitution-drafting process.

Speaking at a tea party at UML party office, Balkhu, on 27 September 2009, Koirala said, “The mechanism will thwart the powers trying to put the country in peril. This will also defuse the tension from within and outside the party”. On the same occasion, Dahal said that the by removing the misunderstandings the mechanism could be formed.

While Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal expressed the belief that the mechanism will help remove the misunderstandings about the constitution drafting and within the party, UML chairperson Jhala Nath Khanal said that the mechanism would be helpful in resolving the interparty contradictions. At that time, UCPN (M) was continuing to obstruct the parliamentary meetings demanding correction of the President’s step. Still, they kept saying the mechanism would be helpful in resolving in resolving the differences.

Though the leaders had emphasised resolving the problems by forming the mechanism, they were silent on who was hindering its formation. On 15 October 2009 in a programme in Biratnagar, Koirala accused the UCPN (M) of being the cause behind not forming the mechanism.

Mechanism formed at last

Despite mutual mistrust and suspicion, the leaders did not stop meetings. In the process of meetings, the mechanism was formed on 8 January 2010 under the leadership of Nepali Congress president Koirala and UPCN (M) chairperson Dahal and UML chairperson Khanal as its members.
“With the aim to take the peace process to a meaningful conclusion, to draft the new constitution within time, to promulgate the new constitution from the Constituent Assembly on time, to remove present political impasse, we have formed a high-level political mechanism with membership of top leaders,” reads the release signed by all the three leaders. After signing the document, UCPN (M) chairperson said the mechanism would focus on taking the peace process to a meaningful conclusion, issue the constitution on time, and end present stalemate.

Though the top leaders were enthusiastic at formation of the mechanism, other leaders were not happy at the mechanism formation without specifying working procedure and authority. UML leader KP Sharma Oli had questioned whether the government would be run by the party or a mechanism formed without discussion in the party. Also, UCPN (M) vice-chairperson Baburam Bhattarai expressed that until a draft of consensus and cooperation is prepared, the mechanism would not have any relevance.

Even Prime Minister Nepal was suspicious of the mechanism which had no clearly defined working procedure and that it might become a parallel power centre. Prime minister’s political advisor Raghu Panta said that the mechanism would only be effective with active help of the prime minister. There was pressure within the UML to include the prime minister in the mechanism and after it emerged in the news that the prime minister was unhappy, Nepali Congress president Koirala said that the prime minister would be included, but UCPN (M) was not positive on this.

“Since the present impasse is with the issue of the government, there is no necessity to include the prime minister. Inclusion of the one who is the cause of the impasse will not lead to a solution,” said UCPN (M) chairperson Dahal in Dhangadhi speaking to reporters. While there was still dispute about inclusion of the prime minister in the mechanism, a meeting took place between Congress president and UML chairperson on January 13, 2010, which paved the way for the inclusion of the prime minister as a permanent invited member.

Working procedure and Code of Conduct

The meeting of the mechanism on January 19, 2010 formed a working group representing the three parties to draft the working procedure and code of conduct of the mechanism. The members comprised of Narayankaji Shrestha and Deb Gurung of UCPN (M), Arjun Narsingh KC and Krishna Sitaula of NC, and Bharat Mohan Adhikari and Yubaraj Gyawali of UML. Based on the draft prepared by the working committee, the mechanism approved its procedure and code of conduct in the meeting of January 22.

The working procedure included completing the peace and constitution-drafting process by ending the political deadlock; review all the processes from 12-point agreement onwards to create an atmosphere of trust between the parties, work for formation of commissions envisioned in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Interim Constitution. The code of conduct included not attacking each others’ cadres, not abusing, not accusing among others.
The three parties agreed that the Mechanism would meet once a week. After the working procedure and code of the conduct of the Mechanism was endorsed, the UCPN (M) stopped its nationwide indefinite strike announced from January 24, 2010. UCPN (M) chairperson had said, “Maoists appeared more positive after efforts to end the political deadlock as a result of the President’s step was the first agenda. The indefinite strike from January 24 has been postponed in the hope that the mechanism will play an active role in ending the political deadlock and gaining consensus as well as work positively for peace and constitution-drafting process”.

The attempts at discussing the differences seen among the parties in Mechanism were not successful. There was no agreement despite attempts at resolving the dispute arising out of the President’s move. However, UCPN (M) laid more emphasis on the Mechanism rather than their agitation movement. UCPN (M) vice-chairperson Narayankaji Shrestha had emphasised the primary role of the Mechanism in resolving differences and disputes. The UCPN (M) leaders had expected more from the Mechanism regarding the formation of Army Integration Special Committee (AISC). They had stated that the Mechanism should set the number and standards of the combatants for integration.

UCPN (M) tried to bring up the issue of an alternative to the present government. Prime minister Nepal was suspicious of the comments by UML and Congress that the issue can be discussed if there is political consensus. The prime minister expressed his dissatisfaction that the Mechanism is being used to bring down his government. However, the prime minister was pacified after being reassured by the Congress president Koirala in a meeting on February 21, 2010, that the present government will promulgate the new constitution.

In a half dozen meetings that followed, the issues of the peace process, constitution drafting, and political issues among the parties were not discussed. When there was not any substantial progress despite several meetings, the political parties sought to take the peace process forward through discussions for political consensus. They made preparations to discuss to review the implementation of the 12-point and other agreements, creation of atmosphere of trust, resolution of dispute arising out of the President’s move, integration of Maoist combatants, differences in the constitution drafting, and formation of coalition governments.

A meeting was held in Godavari Resort of Lalitpur on March 2, 2010 to discuss on the above issues. UCPN (M) accused others of trying to isolate it by insisting on integration before promulgation of the constitution; UML and Congress emphasised seriously implementing the past agreements. Congress and UML had proposed among others that UCPN (M) should come up with a draft of the army integration, withdrawal of ethnic states, dissolution of the paramilitary structure of YCL.

The meeting was attended by 15 leaders including UCPN (M) chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Baburam Bhattarai, Narayankaji Shrestha, UML chairperson Jhala Nath Khanal, KP Sharma Oli, Bharat Mohan Adhikari, Nepali Congress acting president Sushil Koirala, Sher Bahadur Deuba, Ram Chandra Paudel, Ram Sharan Mahat. Congress president Koirala did not attend the meeting due to health reasons, and Prime Minister Nepal stayed away from the meeting. The parties could not reach a conclusion in the daylong discussion.

Mechanism fading

There were no meetings of the Mechanism as the health of Koirala deteriorated. Koirala urged the leaders to move forward based on consensus, cooperation, and unity. However, his advice was not heeded. The Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala died on March 20, 2010, without any agreement among the political parties.

After the death of Koirala, parties got into dispute regarding the leadership of the Mechanism. While Congress claimed the leadership, UCPN (M) claimed the leadership as the largest party. UCPN (M) claimed that it had accepted Koirala based on seniority. The Mechanism met after the death of Koirala on March 26, 2010. The meeting presided by UCPN (M) chairperson Dahal endorsed condolence motion on the death of Koirala and decided to seek an end to the political deadlock through the Mechanism.

Another meeting was held on March 31, 2010 presided by Congress acting president Sushil Koirala. The meeting decided to promulgate the new constitution within May 28, 2010, saying that regressive forces becoming active. The meeting also decided to give continuity to the peace and constitution-drafting process and complete the nomination of the state restructuring commission. However, the parties did not pay attention to implementing these decisions.
As there was no consensus on political issues among the parties and the date for promulgating the new constitution neared, the Mechanism could not become active. Meetings took place among the three parties; however, there was no efforts to take forward them as Mechanism meetings, and Koirala-proposed Mechanism fell into shadow along with his death.

Conclusion

The formation of the Mechanism was positive in giving the transition a right direction when there was no consensus among the political parties. The Mechanism could have served as an appropriate forum to discuss constitution writing as the parties were more focused on getting the seat of power and fighting among themselves. However, the intention in forming the Mechanism did not bear expected results. In the four months of its formation, it could not achieve besides drafting its working procedure and code of conduct.

Instead of focusing on the peace process and constitution drafting, the parties tried to use the Mechanism to fulfil their own self-interests. While UCPN (M) tried to use the Mechanism for its political objectives, Congress and UML only saw it as path to gaining government seat. Congress and UML had stressed integration of Maoist combatants in the meetings. Both sides kept raising unresolved past issues instead seeking consensus out of the disagreements.
Failure to make appropriate preparations before meetings and inability of Koirala to attend the meetings due to his ill-health did not help in creating an atmosphere of trust. Other leaders did not want to hold discussions in Koirala’s absence. On the other hand, the government was always suspicious of the Mechanism; especially every time UCPN (M) raised the issue of national consensus government, Prime Minister Nepal always suspected that the Mechanism was meant for toppling his government. The parties’ focus on government formation overshadowed the constitution-drafting process.

Though there were differences on dozens of issues among the political parties, the senior leaders neither attended/took part in the CA meetings and discussions nor in the Constitutional Committee. Had they done so, the Mechanism would have helped resolve the differences between the parties and led to discussions on the issues to be included in the constitution. However, due to inability of the leaders to rise above personal interests and party politics, the Mechanism did not make any significant contribution to the constitution-drafting process.

Beginning and activities of the Mechanism

• Speaking at the legislature-parliament on May 23, 2009, Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala expresses the need for a high-level mechanism to seek unity, consensus, and cooperation between the parties.
• Meeting between Congress president Koirala and UCPN (M) chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal at the former’s residence in Maharajgunj on July 27, 2009. UCPN (M) agrees to be in the mechanism.
• Meeting of senior leaders of UCPN (M), Congress, and UML at Congress president’s residence on August 1, 2009 agrees to form a high-level mechanism to remove differences and take the peace and constitution-drafting process forward. A six-member working group is formed to draft a model of the mechanism.
• The High-level Political Mechanism is formed on January 8, 2010 under the leadership of Congress president Koirala and includes UCPN (M) chairperson Dahal and UML chairperson Jhala Nath Khanal.
• Meeting between Congress president Koirala and UML chairperson Khanal on January 13, 2010. Agreement to include Prime Minister Nepal as an invited member.
• The High-level Political Mechanism endorses its working procedure and code of conduct on January 22, 2010.
• Meeting of the High-level Mechanism including party leaders at Godavari Resort concludes without any agreements.
• Meeting of the Mechanism on April 1, 2010, concludes that regressive forces are becoming active and reiterates commitment to promulgate the new constitution by May 28, 2010

Objectives, working procedure, and code of conduct of the Mechanism

1. Concluding the peace process to ensure sustainable peace in the country is the main task at the moment. This issue has followed a distinct process. This Mechanism will help that process be completed on time by resolving any present and potential problems in the future.
2. The Mechanism will play an important role in resolving complexities of constitution drafting to promulgate the new constitution within the stipulated timeframe of the Interim Constitution.
3. It is not possible to complete our task without consensus between the main political parties of the country. Therefore, this Mechanism will end the present political deadlock and help move forward with consensus.
4. This Mechanism will make serious efforts to end the crisis of trust and suspicion among the main political parties in the country by reviewing the past agreements since the 12-point agreement to create an atmosphere of trust in the future.
5. Since this is a political mechanism, it will follow common approaches to resolve political complexities and problems. It will work collaborate in consensus to resolve other important disagreements and disputes regarding important issues.

Working procedure

1. It will seek consensus among the main political parties to end the present political deadlock.
2. It will form different sub-committees on different issues of peace and constitution-drafting process to assist the relevant authorities.
3. Normally, the Mechanism will carry out its meeting through a weekly meeting.
4. It will seek for formation of different commissions mentioned in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Interim Constitution.
5. It will review past peace and other agreements on investigating the disappeared and making them public, return of seized houses and lands and properties among others and work towards implementing them and can form a sub-committee regarding this.
6. The Mechanism can revise its working procedure as necessary.
7. The Mechanism will take all decision on consensus basis.

Code of conduct

1. Since national consensus is the present necessity, all have to emphasise mutual consensus.
2. However large the differences, party leaders, cadres should not use degrading language in speaking and writing to make accusations or slanderous comments. Treat one another with respect and restrained behaviour.
3. No physical attack will be carried out against other parties’ cadres and such activities will be controlled entirely.
4. In case of differences seen, immediate dialogue should be held between parties to try solve them.

Source: The Kantipur, January 23, 2010

Where there is no democracy there is no press freedom, and where there is no press freedom, there is no democracy in practice. Thus, the direct impact of political governing system is seen on journalism, and the status of journalism reflects the political situation. There is press freedom under democratic political system, and its role is taken seriously. Media is taken as the fourth estate due to its nature of work as a watchdog to bring the right and wrong activities of legislative, judiciary, and executive to the general public.

In the context of Nepal, while practice of democracy has reached six decades, the beginning of the newspaper publication is more than a century. Although various newspapers, radios, and television station were in operation, the media industry could not take off as an industry due to illiteracy and low economic capacity among others. The environment became favourable to the media sector after 1990 to emerge as an industry.

By the end of April 2010, there were two thousand and thirty eight registered newspapers in Nepal and among them five hundred fourteen are regular. In addition to Radio Nepal, more than two hundred FM stations are in operation, and thirty one television stations have acquired approval license to broadcast, and out of them eleven are in operation. The scope of new media also is expanding. The data reflects that the scope of journalism is wide and broad.

Despite the fragile political situation, there has been quantitative as well as qualitative improvement in the media sector of Nepal, and the role of media during this transitional political situation has been supportive. The role of Nepali media has remained supportive in the constitution-drafting process, but due to the failure to create necessary pressure through keeping peace and constitution in focus, a conducive environment to resolve important issues could not be created.

Priorities Everywhere

The CA election emerged as the special priority area of Nepali Media, receiving coverage not only from the perspectives of news, articles, interview, but for stimulating debates as well. The CA received priority from Nepali media due to its relation with the peace process and the constitution-drafting process. The concern and interest of the whole people towards the CA remained vital to Nepali media from commercial as well as business perspective.

The role of media has been important in creating a conducive environment leading up to the CA election but also towards successfully completion of the CA elections and to arrive in the present situation. The media have shown solidarity on peace and the constitution by creating a favourable atmosphere for the CA. Some media houses presented more analytical reports on the outcome of the CA election, regarding the representation of class, caste, ethnicity and region.

To some extend Nepali media were fairly successful in making people realise there is representation of all sides in the CA by providing analysis of the results from multidimensional perspectives. The media were in favour of politics of consensus between the political parties with the strong focus of on the issue of differences between political parties, regarding the government handover of power, implementation of republic system and power sharing.

The Interim Constitution 2007 has a provision of the Legislature-Parliament and the Constituent Assembly where CA is for the purpose of the constitution-drafting process and Legislature-Parliament is responsible for running the government, passing the budget and enacting laws. Although it took long time to be clear on the differences on their role due to the engagement of same people in same hall holding meetings. But the role of media’s efforts to clarify the facts and differences between the CA and legislature-parliament and their role was important.

In the beginning, the role of media was highly constructive towards the CA. Most of the journalists were in the favour of institutionalising the political change because they were involved in the activities of news collection during the People’s Movement. Furthermore, journalists were positive based on the assumption that political leaders who were able to bring a republican system through the People’s Movement will be able to complete the peace process to its logical end. Even the media houses were confident about the Constituent Assembly drafting the constitution and bringing peace to the country.

Consciously or not, Nepali media gave special priority to CA-related news. The activities of the CA were covered and presented on the front page of newspapers, broadcasted by radios and televisions with special importance. The task of reporting about the CA was complicated as well as challenging as only a small number of journalists were familiar with the constitution-drafting process of the CA.

In the context of reporting, issues related to committee formation, terms of references of the committees, working schedule of the CA, and questionnaire prepared by the various committees were comparatively easier to report, but it was challenging to prepare news reports about policy and theoretical aspects of the constitution-drafting process. Altogether there are 25 political parties in the CA and represent different backgrounds and ideology. The participation level of most of the political parties remained high putting their differing views on various issues.

Most of the political parties’ leaders were found to be speaking not only during the CA meetings but also in the committee meeting. And it was difficult for journalists to report on a single theme while including different perspectives of the leaders. The coverage of large and small political parties was different; even though the media attempted to put the views of small political parties as well, these attempts were not sufficient. As in the larger national politics which is dominated by larger political parties, their opinions and differences between them dominated and got full exposure in the media as well.

Limited Focus

In the CA, there were 10 thematic committees, three procedural committees and the Constitutional Committee. In order to identify themes and make it easier to manage these issues, committees had formed thematic sub-committees as well. In addition to full meetings of the CA, meeting with political parties and discussion were also related with the issues of the CA. reporters were not in a position to cover all the issues and positions raised in the CA. Therefore, journalists had prioritised certain themes of the CA in their reporting.

Governing and electoral systems were the main themes in the Committee for Determining the Form of the Government. Media focused with special priority on the debate between presidential or the prime ministerial system of governance. Similarly, media were centred on the issue of whether to adopt full proportional electoral system based on ethnicity or mixed electoral system.

The focus of media was in the lower house, upper house and numbers of the members in these houses as discussions took place in the Committee for the Determining the Structure of the Legislative Body. The media emphasised on the numbers of commissions on the Committee for the Determining the Structure of Constitutional Bodies.

Media focused on the definitions of minorities and marginalized communities, and how to include the rights of the marginalized communities and minorities in the new constitution as the issues were discussed in the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of Minorities and Marginalized Communities.
In the reporting of the Committee for Determining the Base of Cultural and Social Solidarity, media focused on the issues of language rights, protection of minority languages as well as the choice of word on whether to call the twelve-year Maoist insurgency either ‘conflict’ or ‘people’s war. ’

The media focused on power sharing on the Committee on Natural Resources, Financial Rights and Revenue Sharing. Similarly, issues such as the authority of the centre, region and local level were in the priority of media. Journalists were much more interested on the issue of land reform with or without compensation.
In the Judicial System Committee, media centred on chief justice, appointment of judges, qualification for judges, minimum conditions to be the judges and its impact on the balance of power.

Federal units, their names and number, and bases for determining the areas of the federal units were the central theme to the media in the Committee on State Restructuring and Distribution of State Power. On the Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, media were found to be more focused on the rights of media, freedom, equality, life and property. In the context of the Constitutional Committee, constitutional provision regarding political parties, preamble to the constitution, emergency authorities, and pluralism were spotlighted by the media.

Failure of Media to go in depth

The role of media was found to be limited to the technical aspect and regular activities, despite the vast number of issues related to theoretical and policy aspects in the CA. Media were not particularly interested on in-depth analysis regarding strength and weakness on theoretical and policy-related aspects. Journalists were found wanting in identifying the main gist of the various issues being raised daily in the CA and its committees. The reason is due to the failure of media houses to develop a mechanism to look and analyse various themes and events.

Journalists were not interested to make the extra effort to analyse all the aspects on a regular basis. The meeting of various committees was held on the same day. Limited numbers of human resources remained the obstacles to understand all things about the committees. In addition, CA was influenced by the public opinions of top political leaders and the meetings of top political parties. Similarly, CA was influenced by the activities of the government (power-sharing) and the resultant disputes between political parties. Therefore, media focused more on government formation rather than the constitution-drafting process. Anil Chhetri, a reporter, who is involved on reporting legislative affairs, mentioned that the constitution-drafting process is being affected by the entry of various issues such as the government formation, political issues and legislature’s works into the CA.

Weakness of the Media

The role of media is not noticeable in the latter days. In the beginning, media were working together on the issue of constitution drafting process; however, they have also been divided in recent days. Instead of analysing the coalition politics and policies dispassionately, the media were also affected by partisan politics.
The role of media has been weak with the failure to point out political parties’ faults while they were competing only for the government by influencing the constitution-drafting process and the peace process. The voice of media itself became feeble when they started to views that favourable to themselves. Media remained silent on the inefficiency of the political parties and their activities, even though these activities were hindering the peace process and the constitution-drafting process.

Gradually, the role of media failed to prioritise peace and the constitution-drafting process, and media was not far behind in giving priority to conflict-fuelling issues and peace spoilers. Media equated the disputes between the parties with the transition period. In recent days, instead of ‘setting agenda’ in favour of peace and constitution, the media tone has been one of pessimism. The media sector itself is seen to be at a loss about the peace and constitution-drafting process. Media totally failed to highlight and provide adequate direction of politics and raise the other issues. Furthermore, the role of media has been to highlight ‘debates’ as ‘disputes’ and ‘compromise’ as the ‘confrontation’ between various actors who played pivotal role in the People’s Movement. The media failed to fulfil historical responsibility due to their nature of emphasising events rather than causes and context without considering the long-term effect and causes of their activities. These issues pose a serious question mark on the role of media in the peace and constitution-drafting process.