To institutionalise democracy, it is not only the representatives of the people but also participation of the people is also required. For a constitution that is drafted after struggle, revolution and people’s movement, it is imperative that people’s feelings and aspirations are met through interactions and meetings with them to collect their suggestions during the constitution-drafting process. To reflect the people’s aspirations after the People’s Movement II, opinions were collected by the 10 thematic committees and the constitutional committee. The collection process itself was coordinated by the Public Opinion Collection and Coordination Committee.

A total of 40 teams comprising of CA members were involved in the opinion‑collection process. This process got completed though it was a challenge to prepare the questionnaires, fill them in the districts, collect them and study them to get the results at the end. This also raised some questions regarding the format of the questionnaires, filling process, its analysis and usefulness.

Some of the questions pertained to the sampling process, misspellings, CA members not being serious while filling out the questionnaires or employing the low-ranking officials to fill out the forms which raised the complaints of carelessness. Questions were raised regarding the inclusion of closed-ended questions and their non-analysis by the Committee and also the lack of analytical framework for open-ended questions. However, this Committee had played important role in establishing a mechanism for collection opinions from the central to the local level, collecting suggestions from the media, coordinating with other institutions and organisations to conduct discussion a the local level.

Working area of the Committee

Committee on Citizens is one of the three procedural committees formed to assist in the administrative and procedural work in the CA. basically, the working area of all the committees were defined where they were tasked with ease of access of the general people to the CA and coordination of effective communication regarding the constitution-drafting process and its activities among different stakeholders.

The Committee also had the responsibility to monitor and evaluate activities of the state, NGOs and INGOs, civil society and media regarding the CA, constitution-drafting process and its regular activities; to inform the citizens the process of participating in eh constitution-drafting process; to monitor the media centre.

Work plan of the Committee

The Committee had prepared a clear mandate for itself to make its work more effective and manageable. It had planned to establish and manage an information centre. It had also planned to collect and disseminate information from the CA as well as request for general people’s participation in the constitution-drafting through different media. It had also aimed to collect information through making people aware through the government media as well as different media, pamphlets, hoarding boards by inviting people to submit suggestions and opinions.
It had also prepared a draft to develop the capacity of the staff within the Committee and related officials. Its another objective was to coordinate government and public intuitions for collecting suggestions, under which to inform the public, NGOs and INGOS, private institutions, professional bodies, civil societies and citizens organisations were also involved.

The Committee had planned to establish a website/email to disseminate the activities of the Constituent Assembly and to encourage participation in constitution-drafting to collect suggestions as well. It included the establishment of centres, asking the chief district officers to coordinate the efforts, conducting discussion programmes from the central to the local level, running a hotline number and fax, and also collecting suggestions from Nepali in foreign countries.

The Committee had planned to collect, classify and forward the suggestions from the general populace, civil society, professional association, students, farmers, labours, religious, sportspersons and disabled associations/groups, NGOs, community organisations, civil society organisations and various federations, women’s’, indigenous, Janajati, Dalit, Muslim, Madhesi, backward and marginalised area, human rights activists to respective committees. In addition, its responsibility also included monitoring of the media centre, documentation and updating the collected suggestions.

Its responsibility increased more than it had planned. The meeting of January 23, 2009 between the CA Chairperson and different committee chairpersons also decided to give additional responsibility to this Committee, which included establishing a mechanism from the district to the local level and identifying persons and organisations. Also, it was also tasked with formation of a mechanism that included district-level NGOs, clubs, communities, active political parties and their sister organisations, representatives from women, Dalit, Muslim and minorities, active professional organisations, federations, indigenous social institutions. It also had the responsibility of conducting seminars, workshops and discussion programmes in the districts, electoral constituencies and villages.

What did the Committee do?

The Committee set up two opinion collection boxes at the western and southern gates of the Singha Durbar to collect suggestions from the public for constitution-drafting process. Another one was placed at the western gate of the CA building in New Baneshwor. There was a provision to forward details to this Committee of all the meetings and activities in different committees and the Committee gathered information from other committees. Experts were called in to discuss the role of the Committee and different ministries were consulted to seek their support in making the public opinion collection process regarding the constitution drafting more effective. The Committee also issued public service announcement in the media urging public participation in the constitution-drafting process. The Committee also gathered suggestions from districts with the chief district officer coordinating the heads of different government offices, representatives of political parties, VDC secretaries, and journalists.

The Committee had directed all the district government offices to establish a contact office and set up suggestion boxes to collect suggestion regarding constitution drafting. It had also conducted several discussion sessions with media houses on making the constitution-drafting process accessible to the general populace.

To ensure ease of access of general people on the constitution-drafting process, the Committee had held interaction programmes with officials from different organisations, experts and civil society; formed a mechanism to collect suggestions from central to district level; directed the ministries and relevant organisations to assist the 40 CA teams going to collect the opinions from the people. The Committee had forwarded the suggestions received through the CA teams, different organisations, individuals and toll-free number to respective committees. Altogether, it had received 549,763 suggestions.

A dispute arose between the Committee on Citizens and the Public Opinion Collection and Coordination Committee. Some members of the Public Opinion Collection and Coordination Committee objected to the suggestion collection by the Citizen Relations Committee. The dispute was settled only after it was clarified that the Committee on Citizens’ role would be during the drafting of the constitution and the Public Opinion Collection and Coordination Committee would have additional responsibility after the draft has been prepared. A meeting of the CA and chairs of different committees settled the dispute.

S. N.	Committee	CA teams	Others (unknown sources)	Email	Citizen Relations Committee	Total
1	Constitutional Committee	26,663	246	—	228	27,137
2	Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles	28,109	22,951	—	40,826	91,886
3	Committee on the Protection of the Rights of the Minorities and Marginalised Communities	41,250	219	—	10,271	51,740
4	Committee on State Restructuring and Distribution of State Power	46,742	825	23	13,340	60,930
5	Committee on Determining the Structure of the Legislative Body	37,033	72	20	967	38,092
6	Committee for Determining the Form of the Government	46,402	—	1	11,120	57,523
7	Judicial Systems Committee	48,215	318	—	761	49,294
8	Committee for Determining the Structure of Constitutional Bodies	33,702	108	72	5894	39,776
9	Committee on Natural Resources, Financial Rights and Revenue Sharing	36,981	89	—	1594	38,664
10	Committee for Determining the Base of Cultural and Social Solidarity	34,906	197	—	1197	36,300
11	National Interest Preservation Committee	48,985	68	—	9368	58,421
Total		428,988	25,093	116	95,566	549,76

Source: Committee on Citizen

Table: Details of suggestions received and sent to thematic committees

S. N.	Committee	04/26/2008	04/17/2009	04/19/2009	04/20/2009	04/26/2009	05/10/2009	05/11/2009	05/18/2009	05/19/2009	Total
1	Constitutional Committee	52	*	104	—	7	3	—	—	62	228
2	Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles	10,664	17,870	122	2068	7287	772	748	1235	60	40,826
3	Committee on the Protection of the Rights of the Minorities and Marginalised Communities	719	7884	81	1288	8	37	12	6	236	10,271
4	Committee on State Restructuring and Distribution of State Power	31	9626	85	1782	11	171	1568	6	60	13,340
5	Committee on Determining the Structure of the Legislative Body	1	7	91	81	8	2	714	6	57	967
6	Committee for Determining the Form of the Government	47	7859	111	1280	9	121	1615	6	72	11,120
7	Judicial Systems Committee	10	3	91	81	6	13	495	6	56	761
8	Committee for Determining the Structure of Constitutional Bodies	1	4588	62	1165	7	6	—	6	59	5894
9	Committee on Natural Resources, Financial Rights and Revenue Sharing	128	8	87	86	5	18	1204	6	52	1594
10	Committee for Determining the Base of Cultural and Social Solidarity	14	13	86	177	8	9	826	6	58	1197
11	National Interest Preservation Committee	18	7645	87	1167	6	19	335	6	85	9368
Total											95,566

The Constituent Assembly spent Rs. 1 billion, 446 million and five hundred thousand in the period from May 28, 2008 to December 15, 2009. This amount is only from the side of the Government of Nepal, and includes salary of CA members, meeting allowances, fuel expenditures, etc. This is also the expenditure of both CA and the parliament and this does not include the amount provided by the various donor agencies and other physical facilities.

The working schedule of the CA is not only ambitious, its expenditure is also enormous. Considering the population of Nepal, 601 members in the Constituent Assembly is a big number. It is clear that even the Constituent Assembly is dependent on the donor agencies to manage its furniture and computers for the fourteen committees and meeting hall. In addition, India has supported the CA by providing buses to transport CA members from Singha Durbar to the CA building at Baneshwor. In the beginning, that bus support was criticised on the use of Nepali and Indian flag and India’s support mentioned on the sides of the vehicles, but later these vehicles are used by erasing the mention of the Indian support.

To fulfil the need for a large building, donor agencies had proposed to build a National Panchayat building in the Panchayat era, but the project could not be completed and still that has not been finalised due to the stand that major law- and policy-making building should not be built under donor assistance.

Nevertheless, a large amount is being spent on the CA, but CA members and political leaders are not found serious on their responsibilities and that has created dissatisfaction among the larger public. CA members are disparaged and blamed for just receiving allowances. The country cannot sustain such a large CA for a long time.

This is only the description of expenditure through the formal system. A big amount is being spent outside the Assembly in the context of constitution drafting on expensive seminars and the awareness-raising programmes.

On the one hand, the deadline for new constitution drafting is nearing and on the other hand, expenditure is also increasing, but there is no minimum common understanding between the major political parties. Due to that reality, the one-hundred-and–first meeting of the CA was postponed for an uncertain period by declaring the vacant seat of late Girija Prasad Koirala.

On top of the CA members getting regular salary, vehicles facility is provided to the leaders of 25 political parties represented in the CA. In addition, CA members receive transport allowances for the meetings, and chairpersons of the fourteen CA committees are provided vehicles.

Furthermore, CA has rented its secretariat in Birendra International Conference Centre (BICC) in Baneshwor to conduct its meeting, which is leased at Rs. 30 millions for the first year and there is a provision to pay Rs. 50 million in the second year. This contract is signed between the CA secretariat and the BICC. Information centre at the BICC was established with the support USAID.

On the constitution–drafting process of Nepal, various donor agencies have invested on media, ethnic organisations, CA members, women CA members, CA members from the indigenous nationalities with the aim of making them aware about constitution and its drafting process, but there is uncertainty on how long they will continue to invest in this process.

The first meeting of the legislature-parliament on May 28, 2008, paved the way to the implementation of republic from the Constituent Assembly with the amendment of the Interim Constitution. The meeting started at 9:18 pm under the chairmanship of Mr. Kul Bahadur Gurung, a senior leader of Nepali Congress and the oldest member of the CA. Girija Prasad Koirala, who was the then Prime Minister and the head of the state, tabled the proposal to declare the country as Federal Democratic Republic which was supported by more than the two-third majority in the CA. Subsequently, the CA declared the abolition of the monarchy and the implementation of the Federal Democratic Republic Nepal at 11:15 pm. Out of 564 CA members in attendance, only four CA members from the Rastriya Prajatantra Party voted against the declaration of the republic. The CA Chairperson Gurung declared that the proposal had been passed and that meeting also passed the Interim Working Procedure of CA- 2008.

The second meeting was held on June 5, 2008, and formed a committee to draft the CA regulations with Narayan Man Bijukchhe, chairperson of Nepal Majdur Kisan Party, as the coordinator, that included other forty-four CA members. Similarly, the fifth meeting was held on July 15, 2008 and passed the presidential election working procedure for the election of the President and the Vice-president of the country. The election was held on July 19, 2008 but the presidential election had to be re-conducted after neither of the candidates, Dr. Ram Baran Yadav (283 votes) and Ram Raja Prasad Singh (270 votes), got the 50% of the total votes in the CA. And another presidential candidate from CPN (UML), Ram Preet Paswan, got no vote because his party had decided to vote for the Nepali Congress candidate Ram Baran Yadav after his nomination.

However, Parmanand Jha, the candidate of Vice-president from Madhesi Janadhikar Forum was elected after getting 305 votes as the first Vice-president of the republic Nepal. In the same competition, Santa Shrestha of then CPN (Maoist) got only 243 votes, Astha Laxmi Shakya of CPN (UML) got four votes and Man Bahadur, Bishwokarma of Nepali Congress got 2 votes and 24 votes were cancelled. Dr. Ram Baran Yadav was elected as the first President of the republic Nepal with 308 votes in the election held on July 21, 2008. Then, he immediately went to meet his senior leader, Girija Prasad Koirala at the prime minister’s residence, Baluwatar, Kathmandu, and attended the public felicitation ceremony at Basantapur after praying at the Pasupatinath temple.

Selection of the Chairperson and Vice-chairperson of Assembly

The ninth meeting on July 24, 2008 elected CPN (UML) CA member Mr. Subash Chandra Nemwang as the Chairperson of the CA and the speaker of the legislature-parliament unanimously. Then onwards, the CA started to pick up its duties. The 13th meeting of the CA on November 14, 2008 passed the CA Regulations-2008. To ensure smooth running of the CA, two separate regulations for the legislature-parliament and the CA were drafted.
An ambitious timetable was passed by the CA to draft a new constitution within 82 weeks; however, that proposed timetable has been amended eighth times until December 16, 2009. Then the 15th meeting on November 28, 2008 elected the CPN (Maoist) CA member Purna Kumari Subedi as a deputy Chairperson of the Constituent Assembly. And the meeting on December 15, 2009 formed 10 thematic committees and 14 other committees including 3 procedural committees of the CA.

The timetable adopted by the CA had to be amended within a month. As per the timetable, the chairpersons of all the committees were to be selected by December 16, 2008, but it could not happen within the allocated time period. Then the meetings of all the committees were completed under the chairpersonship of the senior-most member in the committees. The committees remained chairperson-less until December 29, 2008. Therefore, the 19th meeting amended the Constituent Assembly timetable for the first time.

The 20th meeting of the CA on January 6, 2009 amended the timetable for the second time. The three meetings (21st, 22nd, and 23rd) were held dramatically one after another in the interval of half an hour on the night on January 10, 2009. The first meeting of the day accepted the resignation of UML CA member Sushil Chandra Amatya whereas the second meeting nominated Madhav Kumar Nepal as a CA member, then third meeting declared the nomination of Madhav Kumar Nepal, Baban Singh and Sadarul Miya Hak as members in the Constitutional Committee of the CA.

The 24th meeting on January 13, 2009 elected the committee chairpersons unanimously except the Constitutional Committee and the Committee on Public Opinion Collection and Coordination. The election held between UML member Madhav Kumar Nepal and Dalit Janajati Party leader Bishwendra Paswan for the Constitutional Committee chairperson in which Madhav Kumar Nepal was elected. For the chairperson of the Committee on Public Opinion Collection and Coordination, Madhesi Janadhikar Forum member Pramod Kumar Gupta was elected defeating the CPN (Marxist-Leninist) member Janaki Kumari Chalise.

Likewise, the same meeting nominated Achyut Raj Pandey, a leader from Nepali Congress, as a member of the Assembly instead of Bishwa Nath Upadhyaya who had not taken oath as CA member. The committee chairs were dominantly by the leftists in the Assembly. Out of 14 committee chairs, seven committee chairs are leftists and rest chairs are headed by Nepali Congress, RPP, Forum and Tarai Madhes Loktantrik Party (TMDP). After selecting the chairperson of the committees, 601 members were divided into 40 different groups to collect public polls/suggestions, and the groups were sent to districts for the purpose with 60-page long 3.4 million questionnaires. The suggestions should have been collected within March 28, 2009, but that could not be done. So the timetable was amended for the third time by the 26th meeting of the CA, which extended the opinion collection until April 13, 2009. The committees were unable to submit the concept papers and the preliminary drafts within the allocated time. Then the 27th meeting of the CA again amended the timetable on April 28, 2009, and a new date of May 24, 2009 was set to submit the concept papers and the preliminary drafts. When the National Interest Preservation Committee submitted its concept paper and preliminary draft, only then did the CA get its first business.

The Relationship between Committees and the Assembly

Unless the thematic committees submit the concept papers and the preliminary drafts to the CA, the Assembly does not get its business. The full meeting of the CA discusses on the drafts prepared by each committee. Thus, the committees are the source of the constitution‑drafting process.
The various thematic committees were formed to draft the constitution successfully in South Africa. Nepal seems to have been influenced by this success when the Constituent Assembly of Nepal formed the constitutional, thematic and procedural committees. But Nepal did not keep in mind that South Africa had made 34-point basic guidelines prior to starting its business of writing the constitution. Thus the constitution-drafting process in Nepal has become a journey through a dark cannel. Nepal is not yet clear on form of government and kind of constitution needed to support that system.
All the political parties are pushing their agendas in the new constitution. Amidst this kind of dilemma and suspicion, the committees are attempting to draft preliminary reports. The Assembly has held discussions on eight thematic committee drafts until now. And the three other committees are working to prepare their drafts. Each committee had made their own internal timetable where numbers of activities had to be repeated, and there were disputes over allegation of overstepping the jurisdiction. The misunderstanding on the jurisdiction was somehow solved by the CA chair in the presence of the chief whips and the committee chairs.

Discussion on the Committee Reports

• National Interest Preservation Committee

The CA got its first business on May 25, 2009 after the National Interest Preservation Committee submitted its draft. The Committee chair Amik Sherchan of CPN (Maoist) submitted the draft to the CA chair Subash Chandra Nemwang, then a date was set for full meeting of the CA for discussion on the report. The 29th meeting on May 27, 2009 passed Proposal of Concept Papers and Preliminary Draft Report Study Committee, headed by Laxman Lal Karna, a leader from Sadbhawana Party. Then the report of the National Interest Preservation Committee was discussed in the Assembly from May 31 to June 5, 2009.

In the report of Committee on Preservation of the National Interest, the Committee members were divided into two fractions when the UCPN (Maoist) members proposed “the compulsory army training to every Nepali citizen over the age of 18”. The Nepali Congress and CPN (UML) members presented a different opinion on that provision, so as happened in the full meeting of the CA meeting as well. The UCPN (Maoist) members argued in favour of compulsory military training to everyone above age 18 to preserve national sovereignty whereas other parties argued against possible dangerous militarisation of society. Similarly, there were heated arguments over choice of words; the UCPN (Maoist) advocated for writing the phrase “people’s war”, “people’s army” in the new constitution whereas other parties only wanted to mention only “armed conflict”.

In this way, the discussion on the preliminary draft by the Committee displayed a clear influence of the party lines. Though the CA regulations is silent on whether the members have to follow the whip or not, there was clear indication of party influence and a sort of whip during the members discussions.

• Committee on Protection of the Rights of Minorities and Marginalised Communities

Along with the discussion on the report of the National Interest Preservation Committee, the Committee on Protection of the Right of Minorities and Marginalised Communities Chair Lalbabu Pandit of CPN (UML) also submitted the Committee’s report on May 31, 2009. The Committee on Protection of the Rights of Minorities and Marginalised Communities had completed it concept paper and preliminary draft report by May 22, 2009, but UCPN (Maoist) members had delayed the report signing for a few days on one pretext or another. It later transpired that the UCPN (M) members wanted a committee headed by the Maoist should submit the report first. A UML member said, “The UCPN (M) leadership wanted to give a message that the committee had done an exemplary work to the public. One of the Maoist members said to the Committee chair informally the Maoist members had not signed the report to simply allow the National Interest Preservation Committee to submit the report first to send a message to the public. The signing on next day without any hesitation also proved the Maoists’ intention.
The CA members expressed their opinions on the report in the full meeting of the CA from June 7 to 11, 2009. The meetings dwelt on the definition the minorities and marginalised communities and their basis of identification and whether reservation quotas set be allocated and to implement a policy of positive discrimination. The Committee had submitted the report without defining the minorities and marginalised communities. The Committee was criticised for not completing its mandate properly. Of all the reports submitted until now, this is the only one that appears incomplete. Thus, the Committee for Studying Draft Reports and Concept Papers, headed by Agni Prasad Kharel of CPN (UML) is discussing with the experts on the definition of minorities.

• Committee for Determining the Base of Cultural and Social Solidarity

The chair of the Committee for Determining the Base of Cultural and Social Solidarity Nabodita Chaudhary of Rastriya Prajatantra Party submitted the committee report to the CA chair on June 22, 2009. The members in the 42nd meeting expressed their opinion on the draft report for 5 days from June 26, 2009. The debate on language policy was concluded through voting after a heated debate.
After the Madhesi political parties strongly demanded to recognise Hindi language as one of the official languages in the new constitution, several meetings were disrupted. one meeting had to be cancelled due to ”Madhesi” not being properly. In the full meeting, the same demand was again repeated by the Madhesi parties. They argued, “Hindi is a lingua franca of the Madhesi peoples; therefore, it should be recognised as an official language in the constitution.
The NC, UML and other smaller party members said that making Hindi an official language might hurt the sovereignty of the country and argued for Nepali in Devangari script to be the official language. The UCPN (M) remained a mute spectator on this issue, but its members form the hills were against granting Hindi an official status. Some were for multilingual policy of making any language with over 1% speakers as one of the official languages.

• Committee for Determining the Structure of Constitutional Bodies

In the 47th meeting held on July 17, 2010, the report of the Committee for Determining the Structure of Constitutional Bodies prepared by the its chair Gobinda Chaudhary of Terai Madhes Loktantrik Party was presented for discussion in the CA. Some members argued for the development of the constitution bodies in order to address the issues related to the structure of constitutional bodies, their formation and existing challenges. The members argued for and against the Committee proposal to form 11 constitutional bodies. There was disagreement whether the Commission for the Investigation of the Abuse of Authority should remain as a constitutional body or to make it a powerful body under the executive. The members reminded the Assembly that the forming more constitutional bodies will also increase the expenditure and their importance will decrease once state power is distributed to the provinces.
The chair of the Committee for the Determining the Form of the Government Ramesh Rijal presented its draft for discussion on August 7, 2009. The Committee has proposed the bicameral (House of Representation and the National Assembly) system based on the Westminster Model. But the UCPN (Maoist) voiced strong difference of opinion, advocating for a unicameral system deviating from its earlier stance. Similarly, other political parties also raised their different voices on the form of government.

• Judicial System Committee

After submitting the preliminary draft report of the Judicial System Committee by its chairperson Prabhu Shah Teli of UCPN (Maoist), the 59th meeting of CA started to discuss it in the full meeting on September 13, 2009. The Committee Chairperson had passed the report in the absence of members from other parties. Then other political parties except UCPN (Maoist) registered different opinions. The Committee report was fully influenced by the Maoist ideology of appointing the chief justice and other justices from outside the judiciary through a special parliamentary committee. According to them, the constitution will be interpreted by the parliament if necessary.
The justices and the lawyers did not agree with the Committee report. Nepal Bar Association openly criticised the Committee report claiming that the provision will undermine the independence of the judiciary. Several debates and discussions were held regarding the future structure of the judiciary outside the CA, while the CA members were debating on the judicial supremacy and the supremacy of the parliament. The differences prevailed on the structure of the provincial judiciary as well.
All the political parties except UCPN (Maoist) stood against the provision of appointing the chief justice and other justice through a special committee of the parliament. The members of the Nepali Congress emphasised on the judicial council or any independent body for recommending the names for appointments to the post of the chief justice and justice. The discussion on the report was completed on September 17, 2010.

• Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

The Assembly started to discuss on the report tabled by the Chairperson Binda Pandey of CPN (UML) of the Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles on November 15, 2009. After the 7th amendment in the CA Timetable-2008 on November 19, 2009, the discussion on the report continued for five days. the members expressed different opinions regarding what should be included under the fundamental rights. The citizenship issue created a tense environment in the house after some Madhesi members warned of a Jihad inside the CA. While the discussion on the report was going inside the house on November 23, 2010, a group led by CA member and the chairperson of Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN) Pashang Sherpa burnt the draft report outside the CA alleging non-incorporation of their agendas in the report, but the fact is that the Committee Chairperson Binda Pandey and Sherpa are both CA members from CPN (UML). This has created confusion and suspicion before the new constitution is ready and there is no telling how many groups will burn the constitution on the day it is promulgated.

• Committee on Natural Resources, Financial Rights and Revenue Sharing

After submission of the preliminary draft of the Committee on Natural Resources, Financial Rights and Revenue Sharing by the chairperson Amrita Thapa Magar to the CA Chairperson on November 20, 2009, the full meeting of the house discussed the report for five days. The members were divided into two groups on the issue of land reform: revolutionary land reform or scientific land reform. The Maoist members stood in favour of nationalizing the land without providing any compensation to the land owner if it crosses the land ceiling whereas other political parties were against this proposal. Nepali Congress leader Pradip Giri opined in favour of scientific land reform, and CPN (UML) Chief Whip Bhim Prasad Acharya also supported Giri’s argument. The UCPN (Maoist) member Hari Roka said food security should be given priority in the new constitution.

Conclusion

The time allocation is determined as per the seat won by the political parties in the CA. Though the attendance of the members in the CA meetings was enthusiastic during the initial discussion secessions on the concept papers and the preliminary drafts, later on hardly 60-70 members were found to be present in the meetings. hardly 70 members out of 601 in the CA attended the full meeting while discussing on the report of the Committee for Determining the Structure of the Legislative Bodies on August 11, 2009, which is a reflection that the constitution-drafting process is not a priority for the CA members.

Initially the CA members had given importance to the CA meetings, but gradually decreasing attendance of the members during thematic report discussions led to whip being issued for their presence during the discussion sessions on the reports. The top-level leaders rarely attended the full meeting sessions of thematic committee reports. The political parties attempted to endorse own party agendas in the constitution for which the Concept Papers and Preliminary Draft Report Study Committee was formed to reduce the differences in the concept papers and the preliminary drafts. The committee was led by Sadbhawana leader Laxman Lal Karna. When Karna was nominated as a minister, his duty was handed over to UML leader Agni Prasad Kharel and the Committee has completed worked to minimise the differences of six different committees and is working on two committee reports.

The major political parties UCPN (Maoist), Nepali Congress and UML have formed an informal mechanism to settle the differences. The 9-member committee comprises the top level leaders of the parties, chief whips and other members Radheshyam Adhikari, Agni Prasad Kharel and Ekraj Bhandari. But unless there is common consensus on the basis of the constitution among the political parties, forming this kind of mechanism cannot be meaningful at all.

The structural weaknesses of the CA, the declaration of the ethnic autonomous provinces by the UCPN (Maoist) after quitting the government has further added complexity to the constitution‑drafting process. The UCPN (Maoist), which started the insurgency against the governance system then 14 years ago from the western Nepal of Rolpa and Rukum, is pushing the current peace process and the constitution-drafting process into the whirlpool of confusion by declaring the Kochila and Limbuan ethnic autonomous provinces from east Nepal. They started to declare autonomous provinces as part of their third phase of movement against the “illegal move” of the President from December 11, 2009 in the name of civilian supremacy. The Maoist called strike due to the Kailali incident on December 6, 2009, which caused cancellation of the CA meeting by posting a notice, the first time in the 14-month history the CA. in addition, the CA chair, vice-chair and members have to play the dual roles of CA members and the member of parliament. the structural weakness and Maoist behaviour in the parliament has also affected the Assembly as well. How can a person who is sloganeering against the government go on to the serious issue of constitution drafting the next moment? This fact has made the CA meetings unproductive.

(The article is based on the activities from May 28, 2008 to December 15, 2009 in the CA).

Many political, economic, social and cultural issues were raised during the 2006 People’s Movement and CA elections. While political parties and various organisations had raised issues at the organisational level, individuals on their own also had raised their issues. Madhes, Tharuhat, and Janajati and indigenous issues came out during various movements. The CA committees tried to institutionalise these issues by including them in the constitution.

The concept papers and preliminary draft papers are prepared after serious study and many discussions. To conduct in-depth studies in new issues and to seek Nepal’s uniqueness in view of international experience and practice is not an easy task. Despite this, the committees have crossed this hurdle and prepared their reports. All the committees have included their respective issues in their reports. Sometimes, this has resulted in long reports. For example, the report of the Committee for Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is 569 pages long, which is the longest report in the CA. on the other scale, the report prepared by the Committee for Determining the Structure of the Legislative Body is only 113 pages long.

The Constitutional Committee, the most important committee in the CA, took to voting to settle many issues. This voting in the Committee with the responsibility to prepare the first draft of the constitution reflects the differences in the constitution-drafting process.

The Committee for the Protection of the Rights of Minorities and Marginalised Communities spent most of its time looking for definition. The NC and UML which believe in the separation of powers became suspicious when the UCPN(M) proposed that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court could be appointed from outside the judicial system and the parliament will be the final interpreter of the constitution. In the voting that took place after the UCPN(M) did not budge from its instance, it got the majority votes, and other parties’ differing opinions were included in the final draft submitted to the CA.

The Committee for Determining the Form of Government suffered many problems due to lack of clarity in its regulations. The article 78 of the regulations states “the majority decision of the present members in the meeting shall be the official decision of the committee, and in case of equal votes, the chairperson’s will be the deciding vote”. In the voting for form of government and electoral systems, the outcomes were not as anticipated by the regulations. None of the proposal of the UCPN(M), UML, NC, and Terai Madhes Loktantrik Party got a majority, and this led to the dilemma of whether the proposal receiving the highest votes should be the official or not.

The Committee chairperson Shambhu Hajara Dushad has said regarding the efforts to resolve the deadlock, “Regarding the concept paper and the preliminary draft, 12 informal meetings were held, including in the presence of the top leadership of the major three parties, to resolve the outstanding issues unanimously and submit the concept paper and the preliminary draft to the CA. however, I would like to report to the CA the failure to give a consensus document by including the views of all the members while respecting the wishes of the people and preamble of the Interim Constitution despite serious efforts”.

The Committee for Determining the Base of Cultural and Social Solidarity did not get sufficient time to study the suggestions due to the volume and nature of suggestions. “The suggestions from the general people and various organisations were related to the various committees; therefore, extra time was needed as some difficulties arose while studying the suggestions”, states the report. It further states, “Within the stipulated time period, the Committee had to define its working area and activities, identify experts and invite them, prepare questionnaires and analyse the suggestions from these questionnaires as well as suggestions from other media, and only then prepare the concept paper and preliminary draft, which left insufficient time for detailed discussion and study. Due to the novel nature of some of the issues of the Committee, there was felt a lack of reference materials”.

The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of Minorities and Marginalised Communities had to contend with complex work and limited available time. “The Committee had about five months to submit its concept paper and preliminary draft report to the CA. the issues within its ambit were very new and complex.” The report further states, “There was lack of reference materials in the subjects within the Committee’s scope of work. It was a challenge to prepare the draft report within the stipulated time after consulting and analysing the views of the general public, representative organisations and institutions and other stakeholders and regulatory bodies.”

The Committee for Determining the Structure of the Legislative Body remained cognizant of the challenge to study and draft reports based on a comparative study of world’s systems in a succinct manner. The Committee’s report states, “The concept paper does not include discussion on formal theoretical literature, historical development regarding its subject matter and comparative study of experiences worldwide, which would only make the report complex and unwieldy”.

The Committee on Natural Resources, Financial Rights and Revenue Sharing has reported of many issues regarding the utilisation and management of natural resources. It further states, “There are many technical and sensitive issues within the ambit of the Committee’s work: the issue of financial rights and revenue sharing after the country transforms into a federation from a unitary state; the need to ensure the access of the people over the natural resources; and sustainable, effective utilisation and management of the resources”.

The Committee faced problems mainly due to the issue of state restructuring and form of legislative bodies not being finalised. The report adds, “The issue of state restructuring and form of legislative bodies does not fall into the area of the Committee’s work and these issues have not been finalised yet and which did create some confusion; however, this draft is only provisional and will only be final after the relevant Committee settles the issues, so with this understanding, the Committee has submitted its draft and concept paper envisioning a three-tiered federal, provincial, and local level structure”.

The Committee for Determining the Structure of Constitutional Bodies states that it had to spend time to identify its working area and the area being new added some complexity in its work. “The Committee had to spend much of its time to identify the constitutional framework and its structure required for governance. There was consensus on the need to form constitutional bodies that act as watchdogs on the work of the government are transparent and accountable to the people, but also the need to form separate commissions were identified based on the need to end prevalent caste, regional, class, gender, lingual and cultural discrimination, and to ensure proportional inclusion of these people and, based on the concept of social justice, provide equal opportunity in political, social, economic, educational spheres as well as in the state structures, which added complexity to the novel issues at hand.”

The Committee has also mentioned the difficulty of identifying its responsibility. Regarding its difficulty, it states, “It was extremely challenging to prepare this concept paper as it needed to incorporate the suggestions of the people, representative organisations, relevant stakeholders and institutions, and opinions of experts, against the historic background of the country and the experience of democratic exercises in other countries”.

The National Interest Preservation Committee faced a different challenge in its work of identifying its responsibility and preparation of its report. The report states, “Suggestions were asked from the public through public media; however, limited reach of these media to the public resulted in low number of suggestions. The 40 public opinion collection teams were limited to the questionnaires instead of household visits, which has resulted in a sampling effect in the preparation of the report. The Committee also experienced the inadequacy of physical and technical resources and limited manpower in the Committee while preparing the draft report and the preliminary concept paper”.

The Committee has reported in its report that it experienced problems due to lack of clear guidelines and standards before it started its work which resulted in slow work performance; lack of skilled, experienced and experts while preparing the draft and preliminary concept reports; and unavailability of resources and references materials on time.

The Constitutional Committee has mentioned that the stipulated time was not sufficient in view of the variety and sensitivity of the issues. The Committee’s report states, “It was not possible to reach every VDC and wards while collecting public opinions during the visits as there was very limited time. Therefore, with these limitations in mind, the concept paper cannot be claimed to be complete in every respect. Also, the available secretariat, physical resources, and manpower were not sufficient”.

Despite repeated amendments in the CA calendar, the Committee for Restructuring and Distribution of State Power had difficulty submitting its report. “State restructuring and distribution of state power is a challenging issue. It was not possible to complete this task without clarification on theoretical concepts from specialists and technical help and suggestions. Since the Committee’s work is a subject of enormous public interest and failure to submit its concept reports and preliminary draft on time and resultant amendments in the CA calendar has been well known to the general public through various media. It is natural to take a long time to discuss every issues within the stipulated timeframe”, reports the Committee chairperson Lokendra Bista. He adds, “The Committee had responsibility for state restructuring and distribution of state power, which are very important issues and also new for us. In addition, the concept paper and draft had to represent the concerns and ambitions of the people while at the same time reaching a consensus on various views of the political parties and diverse views, concerns, and values of the honourable members of the Committee through discussion and dialogue”.

The Committee also could not receive enough suggestions in comparison to the distributed questionnaires. The report adds, “During public opinion collection process, oral suggestions could not be recorded, sufficient questionnaires could not be distributed at the local level and even among those not all provided suggestions”. It further describes the difficulty in writing reports from not being able to hold extensive discussions with invited experts and insufficient suggestions from the public as the media does not reach the general public.

Thus, every committee experienced problems in its own way though the Committee for Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles has not mentioned any problems and challenges it faced in its report.

Relation between Committees and the CA

The Constituent Assembly does not get any ‘business’ until the thematic committees of the Assembly prepare concept papers and preliminary draft reports. The CA members need to discuss the draft reports prepared by various committees almost on a daily basis to prove that constitutional committees are real sources for drafting the constitution.

South Africa formed various thematic committees to ease out the process of drafting constitution. Nepal has followed the same methodology. But South Africa had already prepared 34 fundamental norms of its constitution before it set to prepare drafts for a final constitution. Nepal does not seem to be aware of the exigency of writing constitution. Because of this, Nepali constitution writing process has become almost like a travel through a dark tunnel. It is not clear on which basis and what sort of government system, the CA will set to draft the constitution.

Though the CA members came to the Assembly meetings in the considerable number in the earlier days, the presence of the members began to wane in the latter times during the discussion session on reports submitted by different thematic committees. For example on August 12, hardly 70 CA members attended the discussion session on the draft report submitted by “Committee on Determining Structure of Legislative Body”. This indifference indicates that the CA members have not prioritized the constitution writing in their working list. This demanded upon the political parties to impose whips on their members to attend the meetings. Top leaders of the main political parties were hardly seen attending any discussion sessions on the reports prepared by various thematic committees.

Because of the intransigent attitude of the political parties, contradictory opinions started to pour down. As a result, the heaps of different opinions began to pile up. This demanded upon the CA to form a separate constitutional committee in the co-ordination of Sadbhabana Party CA member Laxmanlal Karna to study about reports. But after Karna became the minister in the cabinet, Agniprasad Kharel (UML) got assigned this job of coordinating the Committee.

Recently, at the end of November, Maoist, NC and UML formed a 9 member “Informal Mechanism Committee” to address and resolve differing and opposite views put in the discussion sessions. Top leaders of the three major parties, chief think tanks from three parties and CA members Radheshyam Adhikari, Agniprasad Kharel and Eakraj Bhandari are the members of the committee.

Structural lapses during the formation of the Constituent Assembly, Maoists’ street protests after quitting the government and declaration of the so called autonomous federal states complicated the constitution writing process. Maoist Party, which had launched its ‘people’s war’ from Rolpa and Rukum, of the Western part of Nepal fourteen years ago, against the then state system, declared “Limbuwan” and “Kochila” as autonomous states in the eastern part of Nepal, and this pushed the constitution writing process further toward uncertainty. The party began its third phase of protest against the ‘unconstitutional move’ of the President to guarantee the civilian supremacy. Because of the Kailali incident, Maoists announced nationwide general strike on 6th December, the CA members could not participate in the Assembly. Subsequently, for the first time in the one and half year’s history of the CA, the meeting was postponed by pasting a notice in the wall.

Since the Speaker and the Deputy-Speaker of the CA are members of the legislative body, they have greater responsibility of acting out multiple creative roles. Because of several structural lapses, the CA meetings became adversely affected by obstructions created by Maoists. It is very ridiculous to observe a member shouting slogans against the government one moment and taking part in the constitution writing process the next moment. Such flaws abound. That’s why the Constituent Assembly meetings have not been able to render any significant fruits.