Can the political parties issue whip to their CA members to support the party-line over constitutional issues and agendas or not – the CA Regulations is not clear about this provision. However, major political parties opted for the provision that allows the party to call for whip whereas the minor parties did not. Women, Madhesi and Janajati CA members too were against this provision. Major political parties held the opinion that without the provision for whip, their constitutional agendas were unlikely to draw a vote of majority, whereas minor political parties held the opposite opinion. But despite party differences, several women, Madhesi and Janajati CA members shared similar views over several constitutional issues and agendas.

Most of the CA members spent their energies in toeing their party lines. Many of them were hesitant in expressing their personal views on important issues. This intensified party contestation in several CA meetings called to discuss important political and constitutional issues. Things would have become much favourable for the nation had the CA members followed and acted out their own conscience over crucial constitutional issues.

However, CA member like Pradeep Giri expressed different views over the governmental system from that his NC party had put forward. Giri opined that rather than following the “West Minister” modality, the nation must opt for direct election system for the prime minister and indirect election for the president. Narhari Acharya and over a dozen CA members belonging to the NC put forward a similar view that the “West Minister” model has failed in the political context of Nepal. Similarly, Krishna Thakur, a CA member belonging to NC, expressed her opinion that Hindi language should also be given a status of official language in the new constitution.

Jhala Nath Khanal, the Chairman of the UML, in the beginning lobbied and gave strong support for the government system led by a directly elected prime minister. However, by the time the election was called by the Committee, several CA members belonging to UML voted for the “West Minister” model of the government. As a result, UML faced serious intra-party conflict. Lila Kumari Bagale, a CA member belonging to the UCPN (M), expressed her strong opinion that the indigenous communities should have major rights over the consumption of natural resources. Angdawa Sherpa, Urmila Thapa and Ushakala Rai, CA members belonging to UCPN (M), NC and UML respectively, held different views over the citizenship rights agenda put forward by their own parties. They held a common voice that the children born of a woman holding Nepal citizenship, no matter whether their father recognises them or not, too should hold rights to get citizenship in the new constitution.

Gagan Thapa, CA member from NC, expressed his opinion that the new constitution should guarantee “free education” for everyone till secondary school level. Pasang Sherpa and Chhabilal Bishwokarma, CA members belonging to the UML, expressed their opinion different from the one their party had put forward as they called to remove “Madhes Movement” from the new constitution.
Sapana Pradhan Malla and Sarada Jha, CA members belonging to the UML; Ratna Sherchan from the NC; Kalpana Rana from the RPP; and Gayatri Shah from the Janata Party expressed their opinion that “women’s rights” along with “human rights” should remain as the fundamental rights of people in the new constitution.

urna Prasad Rajbanshi, CA member belonging to the UCPN(M), differed over the federal restructuration format recommended by the Committee as he said that districts such as Jhapa, Morang and Sunsari must belong to Kochila Pradesh rather than Bhojpura Pradesh as recommended by the Committee.

Similarly, Amar Bahadur Gurung and Sabitra Gurung of UCPN(M) held their opinion other than the one put forward by the Committee as they stated that several Village Development Committees (VDCs) from Gorkha, Lamjung, Tanahu, Syanja and Parbat must belong to the “Tamuwan Pradesh”, not the “Narayani Pradesh”.

Shantidevi Chamar (UML), UCPN(M) CA members Bishwabhakta Dulal, Santoshi Bishwokarma and Chanda Devi Ram belonging to Dalit communities expressed their opinions other than the one held by their parties as they demanded that the new constitution should make 7% reservations from the local to the federal levels of political structures for the members belonging to the Dalit communities as part of compensation for suffering and humiliation that they have gone through for millennia.

Dhruba Aangdambe of the UCPN(M) objected the way the Committee has drawn the cartography of “Limbuwan Pradesh” as it excludes some historically important Limbu communities from districts such as Morang, Sunsari and Sankhuwasabha. Similarly, Aarju Deuba (NC) objected the way the Committee had included several areas inhabited by Khas-Chhetri from Kailali and Kanchanpur district in the “Awadh-Tharu Pradesh” and strongly urged the Committee to include such areas in the “Karnali Pradesh”.

Conclusion
In a multiparty democracy, a party holds greater power than the individual leader. It is natural that the party needs to develop some long-term policies on the basis of discussions with its leaders and members. Several issues that do not go along with the party line are carefully handled in party meetings. In most of the cases, the party has every right to issue whip to its members to take a particular party policy or standpoint over particular social and political issues. However, no CA member going against his or her party-whip got punished though several CA members belonging to all major parties held opinions other than their party. In many important and crucial issues, the CA members articulated their party policies. Instead of realising and analyzing the seriousness of the agendas, many of them remained glued to their party ideologies.

The CA Calendar of Events was not followed from the very beginning, and no work was carried out as a result. The political parties could not meet the expectations of the spirit of the timeline and did not really internalise the seriousness of the issues. So the timeline had to be changed for ten times in fourteen months. This was an indication that the constitution-writing process would not be completed within the stipulated timeframe.

Besides the policies and theoretical aspects, proceeding is also an important element in constitution making. And if the proceeding is not clear, constitution writing may not be completed effectively and in a managed way. Taking due account of this truth, the Constituent Assembly drafted a clear calendar of events for the CA on November 16, 2008. The timeline outlines the election of vice-chairperson in the CA, formation of CA Committees, election of the chairperson, identification of the committees’ jurisdiction and making of timeline, discussions regarding the concepts for the constitution, and collection of citizens’ opinions. Additionally, deadlines are also set for preparation of reports by the thematic committees, submission of draft reports and concept papers prepared by such committees to the CA, preparing the first draft of the new constitution by integrating and incorporating the suggestions and feedback given by the CA and drafts prepared by the thematic committees. The deadline for all these proceedings had been clearly mentioned in the calendar.

Similarly, the timeline for submitting the first draft of the constitution prepared by the Constitutional Committee to the full meeting of the CA and discussion on the draft, giving final touch to the first draft of the constitution and publishing it in the gazette for the comments and opinions from the general public, preparing working schedule by the Public Opinion Collection and Coordination Committee to collect public opinion over the first draft had been made.

The calendar had also been made to the effect of discussing on the reports regarding people’s opinions and advice, submitting the first draft of the constitution with an amendment made to it according to people’s feedback and submitting it to the bill session of the CA, distributing copies of the bills to each member in the CA, and general discussion over the bill of the constitution made as per the provision of the Constituent Assembly Regulations. It also included a provision for a deadline to suggest amendment for CA members in the bill, issue-wise discussion over the amended bill, decision to be taken along in each article and clause, passing the whole of the constitution including preamble, certification of the approved copy of the constitution and having it signed by the CA members for final approval.

Further, certification by the Chairperson, submission of the approved copy of the constitution to the President in a formal national ceremony organised by the CA and the president’s declaring of the Constitution and its implementation in the name of people from the same ceremony. All this was included in the action plan.It had been mentioned in the schedule that chairpersons of the committees will have been elected by the end of December 15, 2008. But the chairpersons could not be selected as the political parties were in disagreement as to who and from which parties to elect the chairpersons. And then the election date was deferred for December 30, 2008. But as the possibility of consensus between the parties began to thin by the December 30, 2008, a new date of Jan 9, 2009 was set for the election. Laxman Ghimire of the Nepali Congress holds that the schedule had to be changed to bring consensus among the parties. For consensus, the United Nepal Communist Party-Maoist, Nepali Congress and Nepal Communist Party (UML) held discussions. But as nothing came out from the discussion, the three-party meeting decided to postpone the election date.  The Constituent Assembly meeting of December 6, 2009 changed the schedule for the second time and set the date for election for December 13.
The schedule had that fundamental lawmaking function will be completed by summoning the fifth session of the legislature parliament in Feb/March and end the session by the end of April 13, 2009. But because of the growing contentions and mistrust between the ruling parties and the opposition party, the House session got extended. So the schedule was amended for the third time stating that the fifth session of the legislature parliament shall be held around this time.

Amendment of CA Calendar of Events
First    February 29, 2008

Second    March 6, 2008

Third    April 13, 2009

Fourth    April 29, 2009

Fifth    July 27, 2009

Sixth    September 9, 2009

Seventh    November 18, 2009

Eighth    December 25, 2009

Ninth    January 24, 2010

Tenth    March 9, 2010

On September 9, the Calendar was amended for the sixth time because discussion on the committee reports had not yet started with consensus among the parties. So the deadline for the committees to submit their reports in the Constituent Assembly for discussion, sending them to the Constitutional Committee after the necessary comments and feedback directives by the Constitutional Committee was extended to the end of November 15. The schedule of the Constitutional Committee to integrate and incorporate the feedback and comments by the constituent assembly and thus make the first draft of the new constitution also changed.

And it was extended throughout the mid-December 2009, according to the schedule it had to be done by August 9, 2009. The time for drafting reports was reduced to 4 weeks from 8 weeks arranged earlier. The time to submit the first draft prepared by the Committee and putting it for discussion in the Constituent Assembly full meeting was also reduced to one week from 4 weeks. Organising seminars, interactions, and hearing on the first drafts of the constitution and sending off the CA members to the respective constituencies and villages across the nation for collecting people’s suggestion got reduced to 4 weeks from 12 weeks.

The time of preparing reports with feedback and opinion of people and then submitting them to the Assembly, discussing the reports with feedback and opinion, and distributing the copies of the bills to the CA members changed. And to that effect the calendar was amended for the sixth time. Seventh amendment was made to the calendar on November 18, 2009. As the reports had not come in from all the parties even by Nov 15, new date of December 15 was set for the discussion on reports in the CA and passing them. The schedule to prepare the first draft of the constitution that as set for the last of December got extended for the whole month until January 15. Besides these, the timeline for discussion on draft reports, and collecting the opinion and feedback also changed.

The calendar was amended for the eighth time on December 25, 2009. Passing of all the Committee reports with recommendation and directives by the by the CA and sending it to the Constitutional Committee got extended from end of November to February 2010. And the deadline of the Constitutional Committee of preparing the first draft of the constitution was set for February 19. As the calendar thus kept changing, it was amended for the tenth time on March 9, 2010. And then all the remaining works of constitution making were put to be completed by May 28, 2010. “We have made the calendar flexible so as not to get it amended again,” CA Chairperson Subhash Chandra Nemwang said with regard to the tenth amendment of the calendar. But the constitution-making process could not be completed within the stipulated time because of the contentions of the parties over the key issues and as a result the tenure of the CA was extended for one more year after making necessary amendments in the Interim Constitution 2007.

November 16 to 30, 2008
Election of the vice-chairperson
Constitution of the committees of the Constituent Assembly and selection of the chairperson by mid-December 2008
December 16 to 30, 2008
The committees to prepare the timeline, the issues and subjects of their jurisdiction and giving final touch to the action plan of all committees
December 30 2008 to February 26, 2009
Discussion on the concepts of the constitution, interaction, collection of opinions from civil society, experts and general public and beginning of the citizen’s education, training and orientation program

The CA Calendar of Events:

February 26, 2009 to April 22, 2009
Thematic committees to prepare preliminary draft reports of the constitution based on the concept papers

April 23, 2009 to Mid June 2009
Submission of the concept papers and preliminary draft reports prepared by the thematic committees to the CA and commencement of discussion on them The Constitutional Committee to prepare the draft of the constitution by integrating the suggestion of the CA and drafts submitted by the thematic committees
Submission of the first draft prepared by the Constitutional Committee to the full meeting of the CA and beginning of discussion by September 10, 2009

September 11, 2009 to September 16
Giving final touch to the draft of the constitution and publishing it in the gazette to collect feedback and opinion of the people. The Public Opinion Collection and Coordination Committee to prepare the calendar to collect people’s feedback and opinion over the first draft of the constitution

September 17, 2009 to December 10, 2009
Extensive hearing over the first draft of the constitution, interaction, seminars, accepting all advice coming from all corners; CA members going to their respective districts and collecting people’s opinions.

December 11, 2009 to January 6, 2010
Submission of the detailed report of the people’s advice and opinion to the CA

January 7, 2010 to January 21, 2010
Discussion of the reports on people’s feedback and opinion in the full meeting of the CA

January 22, 2010 to February 22, 2010
Submission of the first draft of the constitution with amendments according to the people’s opinion and suggestions to the legislative meeting of the Constituent Assembly and distributing copies of the constitution bills to the CA members

February 23, 2010 to March 1, 2010
General discussion on the constitution bills in the CA as per Interim Constitution and Constituent Assembly Regulations

March 2, 2010 to March 8, 2010
Time for the CA members to offer amendments over the constitution bills

February 9, 2010 to April 28, 2010
Issue-wise discussion in the CA of the amended bills. Decisions to be finalised in each article and clause. All parts of the constitution including preamble to be passed by the CA

April 29, 2010 to May 28, 2010
Certification of the approved copy of the constitution and having it signed by the CA members for final approval. Then, certification by the Chairperson, submission of the approved copy of the constitution to the President in a formal national ceremony organised by the CA and President’s declaring of the constitution and its implementation in the name of people from the same ceremony.

The Chairperson could have called the top leaders of the political parties that were unable to prepare the draft reports owing to differences that surfaced every day on meetings to the committees. That would have contributed towards leading the discussion to logical conclusion. The Constituent Assembly Regulations 2007 has bestowed this privilege on him. But the Chairperson played very insignificant role in this regard.

Subash Nemwang was elected Chairperson of the Constituent Assembly and the Speaker of the legislature-parliament unopposed on July 24, 2008. He has been assuming the role of the Chairperson of the CA and the Speaker of the legislature-parliament ever since.

The CA meeting that Nemwang himself had chaired had approved the 82-week-long CA calendar of events to finish the constitution-writing process by May 28, 2010. But even after the tenth amendment to the timeline, when the draft of the constitution could not be prepared within the stipulated time, the CA ceased to amend the calendar itself. Though Nemwang could posit himself as the candidate of consensus, his role was not effective as the deadline of the constitution-writing process was nearing.

After July 24, 2008, Nemwang spent most of his time in entourage towards districts, inauguration of programmes, foreign visits, and interaction with journalists. As a result the main CA calendar began to be affected from the very beginning. And in the end it became dysfunctional. Even after that the Chairperson took no initiative to go to the committee meetings himself and settle the differences between the parties over the contentious issues because of which the draft reports had not been prepared. Yes, he had summoned the chairpersons and other officials of the respective committees to his office and pressurised them to prepare the draft reports. But this effort of the Chairperson was not effectual either.

No thematic committee could prepare and submit their draft reports to the CA though the deadline set was April 22, 2009. The Committee for Determining the Form of the Government and the Committee on State Restructuring and Distribution of State Power submitted their reports much later than the set deadline. The Committee on State Restructuring and Distribution of State Power was the last committee to prepare the draft report on January 20, 2010.

Despite all this, the Chairperson did not care to think of the measures to end the deadlock except for saying “please finish your work soon”. He did not give adequate time for this. He could have called the political party leaders to the committee meetings that had been unable to prepare the draft reports and thus contributing to taking the discussion to a desired end. The Constituent Assembly Regulations 2008 had granted the right to him to call the party leaders to these meetings. He seemed more guided by the psychology of “don’t anger anyone, be pleasant to everyone”, and thus carried out his responsibility. This sacred philosophy of his was not enough to bring the parties together that were facing ten different directions.

As a result of this, the (dis)credit for inability to frame the constitution within the stipulated time also goes to Nemwang. He himself partly agrees to this. To a question asked to him in an interview with the Kantipur daily on Jestha 9, 2066 BS, “You have been criticised for not being able to carry out the coordinating role in the capacity of the Chairperson of the CA”, he said, “When any work is not finished within the stipulated time, the question arises naturally. I have understood it accordingly. I have taken the criticism positively.” In the capacity of the Chairperson, he could have directed the party leaders to settle the contentious issues by setting them a deadline. He did not seem to have felt the urgency towards that end and worked accordingly.

Two-year term of the Constituent Assembly ran out in chanting the mantra of consensus and nothing more. Still the political parties could not come together on the fundamental issues of the constitution. After the heaps of contentions found their way in the reports of the thematic committees and finally reached the CA, a committee to study those reports, namely the Committee for Studying Reports and Recommendations, was formed. But as the parties could not reach a consensus, this new committee will not be able to do anything over the fundamental issues.

Why did the Chairperson become so weak and passive? Firstly, he did not want to hurt and anger anybody. Experts say he must have envisioned himself as a consensus candidate for the future president of Nepal. He must have hoped to be one. The same expectation must have delimited his role and made it insignificant. Second, he could not raise himself above the party politics. He even presented himself in the eighth general convention of UML in Butwal. He can be considered to have made his prospect of becoming the “Ambedkar of Nepal” even thinner. Really, he would have become the Ambedkar of Nepal.

The role and responsibility that has come his way now is unlikely to be received by another person. So if, by realising the weight of his position and the bigger duty it entails, he had taken initiative in expediting the constitution-writing process, he would raise his height even higher. Personally he is an endearing person to all and all love him too. But time will judge him for what he did during his crucial years in the CA and the decisions (he took almost none) he took during the difficult times, not how likeable he had been and what relation he had been able to establish as the Chairperson. Transitional Nepal is waiting for him to be judged again. And thirdly, he could not execute and enforce the Constituent Assembly Regulations that had been passed under his own chairmanship. The person in a decisive role should sometimes take the risk in making decisions. He should not care much about the criticism and praise that his moves beget. The ability of a man is tested in such a critical time period. Chairperson Nemwang must learn to face both criticisms and praises and must not forget this responsibility.

Contentions in Constitution Making

The leaders who publicly expressed their commitment to constitution making were themselves, in fact, not serious about what they proclaimed. They were not seriously concentrating on the key issues of constitution on practical ground. As the parties sidelined the main duty of constitution writing and engaged more in lust for state power, constituent assembly, CA members, political parties and the government were criticized from all corners.

Political parties were divided over dozens of issues in the process of constitution making. Their differences still exist. Though they could strike consensus on many of the issues, they could not come together on key political issues concerning  in principles and policies. As interparty discussions and discussions in constituent assembly for attempting consensus could gain no significant achievements, constitution writing process was obstructed time and again. And the CA Calendar was amended for the tenth time. As it became apparent that things would not go according to the set timeline, all the timeline set earlier was changed.   And May 28, 2010 was set for the deadline to finish all of constitution writing process.

The meeting of Constitutional Committee, the main committee of CA, was put off for an indefinite period as it received no functions to carry out. The party leaders that expressed their commitment publicly to constitution making did not seem serious themselves. They were not seriously concentrating on the key issues of constitution on practical ground. As the parties sidelined the main duty of constitution writing and engaged more in lust for state power, Constituent Assembly, CA members, political parties and the government  were criticized from all corners.

For the moves of the government and the political parties, constitution could not be declared within the stipulated time and the timeline had to be extended. Though there are twenty four parties in the Constituent Assembly, most of the contentions in the committee discussions were specific to UML, NC and Maoists. As these three parties did not budge from their respective stands, committee discussions ended inconclusively. Other parties also expressed their different opinions in the course of discussions, but they waited for the big parties to come to agreement and took their consensus for the solution to many key contentious issues. They seemed to have succumbed themselves to the notion that the big parties’ decisions would finally overpower and dominate the political setting.

Form of the government has remained the bone of contention among the political parties. Discussion on committee on form of the government and other discussions did not become fruitful. The high level mechanism that was formed to assist the government did not give due importance to issues of form of government. Though the Nepali Congress, United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) and  Communist Party of Nepal (UML) held series of discussions  intended to seek solutions of the political deadlock in a package, they were not  clear  about which point of discussion was to be prioritized. NC and UML sough to address the complications  of peace process and constitution making while  wished to began from the leadership of the government. As  the interests of these two parties  contradicted with each  other the meeting of the high level mechanism could not go smoothly.  Finally, high level mechanism could not play significantly constructive role in constitution writing process.

In the committee on form of government Maoists proposed the presidential system with the executive power. Though other political parties can come to this scheme on consensus, Maoists advocated the powerful president directly elected by people. NC and UML are in favor of Westminster model parliamentary system. NC and UML view that if the president is directly elected from the people there is danger for him not only “ to be powerful but also authoritarian.” They further hold that in a country that holds the diversity in culture, language, race and other areas, president with executive power directly elected by the people will not be appropriate person to symbolize national unity. So they are against this system.

NC and UML believe that if the prime minister is elected from the parliament and is vested executive power in him and if president is elected from the parliament and is given constitutional status, president can represent the diversity of the country, and also president can be elected even from the minority and marginalized and other communities. In the scheme of NC and UML, no-confidence motion cannot be registered against the prime minister within one year of his induction and in case of doing so the opposition has to suggest the name of future prime ministerial candidate. NC and UML believe that this provision will contribute to minimizing political instability and the frequent change of the government. Terai Madhesh Loktantrik Party wants president elected from the lower house of parliament as the head of the sate and head of the government. For TMLP if head of the state and head of the government is the same person it can contribute to ending political instability.

Political parties are divided over the issues of electoral system too. NC and UML have stood in favor of mixed electoral system with compensation. Maoists favor multimember Direct Full Proportional Election system. Parties strongly dispute over whether to call the ten year old Maoist armed struggle Peoples’ War or armed conflict. Maoists argue that it should be called People’s war and NC and UML and other parties have proposed armed conflict. Though both sides put their opinions in the discussion of Committees of CA and other meetings, they could not reach conclusion.

The preconditions set by the constitutional committee for preparing constitution draft

 

• Whether or not to follow the principle of constitutionalism?
• Whether or not to accept the principle of pluralism?
• Whether or not to practice the theory of power separation, and check and balance?
• Whether or not to accept the principle of fundamental structure in expressive way?
• What will be the form of the government?
• How will the council of ministers be formed?
• Who will be the chairman of the council of ministers? President or prime minister?
• Will the head of the state be executive or constitutional and symbolic?
• Whether or not there will be both prime minister and the president?
• What will vacate the position of president and prime minister?
• What will be the form of federal legislative? Unicameral or bicameral? What names to be given to them? What will be the number of the members in each house?
• What will be the form of election for federal legislative? Whether to make the base of representation and population and geography or only population?
• Who hold the right to interpreting constitution? Whether to form mechanism to appoint and dismiss judges from the legislative or to make a separate mechanism for the purpose? Provision of appointment of chief justice of the Supreme Court; should he be appointed from within the court network or should he be appointed from outside?
• How many provinces to be fixed restructuring the state?
• How to settle the demarcation of borders between the provinces?

 

Source: Issues presented to the CA for discussion by Constitutional Committee on March 9, 2010

Also in the controversy is the issue of military training for the defense of the country for the citizens who have attained 18 years of age and the proposal “ it will be their duty to serve the nation when called upon.” UML and NC hold that such a provision will lead country toward war and violence rather than to peace and stability. Maoists hold just the opposite view. They hold that “the provision of recruiting in the army will contribute to sustainable national integrity and national self dependence.”

Political parties could not forge a ground of consensus over the question of whether the Maoist soldiers in the cantonments are to be called “people’s liberation army” or by other name. The parties had huge differences over whether to call Maoist combatants People’s Liberation Army(PLA). NC, UML and other parties refused to call the combatants PLA. They opted for “Maoist combatants” while Maoist remained adamant to their choice of phrase “people’s liberation army.” Though opinions varied, the committee report called it “Maoists Army.”

There is controversy about language. Whether to make Nepali language language of official use in government offices or whether to recognize other languages for that purpose has remained the bone of contention among the political parties. NC and UML stand in favor of making Nepali the language of official use. Maoists are in favor of multiple language policy. Madhesi Jana Adhikar Forum (MJAF), Terai Madhseh Loktantrik Party (TMLP), Sadvhanna party and other teraibased parties are against the principle of making only Nepali the language of official use. Following the principle of multiple language policy, Madhesh based parties argue that Hindi should also be the language of official use.

Parties differ over the conditions for opening up political parties. Maoists have brought new condition in this regard. “ It will not be considered prohibited to formulate law on banning political parties that encourage formation of mechanism or structure working toward  treason and betrayal of the nation, working as stooges of the foreign powers, plotting against the nation, and regressive work.” NC and UML have expressed doubt over this in new constitution. They are of the opinion that this provision is a ploy of the Maoists to ban the political parties that hold different philosophy and ideas in the name of the “parties plotting treason.”

Though NC UML and other parties are seen to stand in favor of the rights and identities of oppressed community, janajatis, indigenous people and Madheshis, they are not in position to consent to the right to self decision. Maoists hold that oppressed community, janajatis, indigenous people and Madheshis should be given right to self decision, autonomy and self governance.

There are intense differences among the parties about the structure of the legislative body. They differ not only in principles but in the choice of names. They have expressed discontent in the name of the parliament. While NC, UML and other proposed to call it ‘legislature’ Maoists insisted that it should be named Federal People’s Representative. They differ over the structure of the house. NC and UML are in favor of house of Representative and National Assembly. Maoists stood for the unicameral legislature system. Maoists have that there will be from 152, in the least, and 250, at most, of uneven number, members in the Federal People’s Representative. NC, UML and many other parties have, in unison, proposed the 151 members in the house of representative and 51 members in the national assembly.

Parties have not come together regarding issues of judicial system. Maoists propose that chief justice of the Supreme Court can also be appointed from outside. NC and UML have objected to this provision. For them, the system of appointing judges from out of the courts can lead to the politicization of the courts. They also do not agree to the appointment of judges. For Maoists, special judicial committee of federal legislature should appoint the judges. NC, UML and other parties are in favor of appointing judges from the judicial council.

Parties are divided over the issue of whether the constitution is interpreted by the federal supreme court or the parliament. Maoists stand for the system of interpreting constitutional issues  by the parliament. On the other hand, UML, NC and Other parties argue that the right to interpret constitution should go to the Supreme Court on the principle of check and balance of power. Madheshi Jana Adhikar Forum (MJAF) have proposed constitution of Constitutional Court for dealing with the issues of  interpretation of constitution, issue of national concerns and importance, human rights and citizens’ concerns, and issues related to policies of the country.

There is no uniformity in the restructuring of state.  The names proposed by Maoist on the basis of caste and ethnicity have not pleased the other parties. Not only between the parties, there is no single voice within a party in matter of state restructuring. NC and UML leaders have put forward their idea of state restructuring individually too. NC has not officially submitted its outline for state restructuring in the CA. Though UML has submitted its copy, it is hard to tell which one is the officially approved by the party. The parties are uncertain as to the proceedings of state restructuring. NC and UML are against making caste and ethnicity the basis of state restructuring. They hold that promoting caste gives rise to the communalism and finally lead to communal violence. Maoists hold that caste increase sense of identity and belongingness in them. Interim Constitution has proposed the formation of State Restructuring Commission. But the debates among the parties have overshadowed the role of the commission.

Parties are equally divided over the issues of whether to retain the words such as federalism, secularism, national flag, multiple-province nation state, madhesh movement etc. Though Federalism is documented in the interim constitution itself and the country has endorsed it through the CA, National People’s Front is opposed to the system. Front views that federalism brings about division and disintegration in the country. RPP, Nepal had advocated deciding on issues like Hindu state, monarchy, and federalism through referendum before the constitution is drafted. Parties do not meet at one place even in the name of the constitution.

Constitutional Committee of CA has proposed the name Constitution of Nepal 2010, Federal Democratic National Front, Dalit Janajati Party, Nepa: National Party, Janamukti Party, Democratic Socialist Party and independent lawmaker Sadrul Miya Hak proposed the name Constitution of Federal Democratic Nepal 2067 (1130 Ne Sa). Nepal Workers and Peasants party has suggested Constitution of Socialism-Oriented Federal Democratic Nepal 2010. UCPN Maoists have given the name Constituion of People’s Federal Republic Nepal 2010, Nepal Sadbhabna Party ( Anandadevi) has proposed the name Constitution of Federal Republic Nepal 2010. Terai Madhesh Loktantrik Party says that it is not necessary to put date after the name of the constitution.

Maoists have proposed to obliterate “pluralism” from the preamble of the constitution. They argue that after having followed the competitive multiparty system, it is unscientific to use the provision of pluralism in the constitution.  Taking this stand of the Maoists, NC and UML have expressed doubt over the intention of Maoists. They hold that Maoist have not yet accepted democracy from heart. Pluralism and plural thoughts are the important foundation of democracy. Other parties have accused Maoists of nurturing authoritarian thought and character by denying pluralism but by forwarding competitive multiparty system.