Shambhu Hajara Dusadh
Chairperson, Committee for Determining the Form of Government

How did you start the work after formation of the Committee for Determining the Form of Government?
We proceeded as per the CA Regulations. The Regulations has outlined the working procedures of the Committee. The main issues are what should be the form of the government? What should be the election system? What should be the form of government in the centre, federal, and at local levels? We discussed and consulted about these issues with experts on government, election, and governance systems by inviting them to the Committee. During the consultations, many experts related the international experience on the form of government. Many felt the present parliamentary system was best for Nepal. ‘We do not have experience to go for a new one. Difficulties might arise. Might not be successful as well,’ was their suggestions. There were different opinions like instability of government, trading of parliamentarians, and other weaknesses in the parliamentary system, which has left the country in critical situation. However, the experts suggested it was best to remove the weaknesses from the parliamentary system and move forward by improving upon it.

How did you select the experts? Was there any particular criterion?

The committee members were from UCPN (M), Nepali Congress, UML, and Forum and other parties. While discussing among ourselves, the members proposed to call certain experts. Then we called the experts.

Did you discuss first form of government or election system?

In fact, we had two issues: governance and election system. We formed subcommittees for both issues. They submitted their reports. Initially, Nepali Congress, UML and other parties had an agreement on the form of government. Only UCPN (M) had stressed on directly elected presidential system of governance.
Election system was to be mixed proportional and inclusive just like the CA elections. UCPN (M) also agreed on this initially. The coordinator of the sub-committee was also a UCPN (M) CA member. Later on, they changed their position and stressed on multi-member election system. Differences remained on this. The position of UML and Congress is only for mixed proportional election system.
UCPN (M) maintained their position on directly elected presidential system of governance. Their position was that the president should have authority. On the issues of form of government, Congress and UML wanted to keep the present parliamentary system.
 

UML had talked of directly elected prime minister?
In the beginning, UML had proposed directly elected prime ministers. However, in the voting in the Committee, UML CA members voted jointly with Congress. During discussion in the CA, some Ca members were seen in favour of directly elected prime minister.
 

UCPN (M) had also talked of presidential system with prime minister?
The position of UCPN (M) is mainly presidential system. Tarai Madhes Loktantrik Party (TMLP) had a different proposal, which called for election of the president from the parliament; its main thrust is that there should be no prime minister. In the voting that followed, some votes were also cast in favour TMLP proposal.

How did you find the roles of the CA members from smaller and larger parties?
There are only two or three representatives from the smaller parties. They do not have majority. Members are mainly from Congress, UML, and UCPN (M). The main contention is between leftists and democratic powers. The leftists insist on a form of government of their choosing and democratic powers stress on the present parliamentary form of government.

Were there separate proposals from the smaller parties?
There was a proposal from TMLP. There were no proposals from the other parties. Nepali Congress CA member Pradeep Giri proposed directly elected prime minister.

How did you find the role of the CA members in the Committee?
During discussions in the Committee, an agreement seemed to be close. There was a feeling that we could take a middle path without following either the UCPN (M) or Congress proposal. There was a possibility during the discussions that there would be an agreement on directly elected prime minister. The gist was the same whether it was directly elected president or directly elected prime minister. However, the CA chairperson warned us of the little time we had and put pressure on us to come to a conclusion soon. There was talk of reaching a conclusion even through voting. In the meantime, we decided to hold talks with senior leaders. They did not come to the Committee. Baburam Bhattarai from UCPN (M), Ram Chandra Paudel from Nepali Congress, and Bharat Mohan Adhikari from UML came to the Committee. They stressed more on party position and ‘line’. The possibility of an agreement among the members in the Committee ended after the leaders came and stated their party position. Then we went for voting but none of the proposal got a clear majority. Then we prepared our report by including all the three proposals.

How active were the members?
Most of the members used to come to the Committee meetings; there were not any abstentions as such. Some members being absent for other works is a different case. There was active participation in Committee from the members.

Did the disputes in the government have any effect on the Committee?
There was no effect on the committee as per se but it had during preparing the agenda. It also affected the whole CA. the absence of government and failure to agree about government obviously delayed the work of the CA. the leaders were more focused on getting the seat of the government, getting consensus in their favour rather than on attending meetings and discussions. This delayed the conflict-drafting process.

Was there any effect in setting agenda while the parties in power, out of power, and when there was possibility of joining the government?
Nothing as such. The CA was extended for one year. We worked in haste before the CA extension. This was not easy because there could have been a unanimous decision through consensus reached through various discussions among the members. But, there was not sufficient time.

Would there be consensus if there had been additional time when there was dispute on the main issue?
There could have been. There could have been a unanimous decision.

The CA members conduct themselves from the party position or did they use their personal discretion?
There was participation of different regions and various class in the CA. for the first time, there was participation of Dalit, Janajati, Madhesi, and women in the CA. all these four had said that the constitution should be only for them. There was attempt to guarantee their rights at any cost in the constitution. However, the senior party leaders had put pressure to toe the party position.

Then, there was pressure from the senior levels on the constitution-drafting process?
The instruction from the senior levels had a serious effect. Ram Chandra Paudel, Baburam Bhattarai, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Madhav Kumar Nepal, Jhala Nath Khanal were in power yesterday, they ruled. Some of them are still in power at the moment. They will be in power tomorrow and rule again. Their rights has not been taken away, has not eroded. Now there are demands from various ethnicities and communities. In the beginning, they had not raised the raised demands for their rights and had kept quiet. But when they started demanding their rights, other groups were in trouble. The group wielding more rights and resources should give up because when others start demanding it, there is no way out but to give them. The delay in the constitution-drafting process was due to this. Perhaps, it is their inner wish that the constitution is not drafted and they do not have to give up theirs, and our share will not be taken away.

What level of attempts by the senior leadership did you find to resolve the dispute on the form of government?
When we look at it, we that the leaders are more focused on government leadership than on drafting the constitution. Who joins the government? Who becomes the prime minister? Who becomes ministers? Senior leaders exhibited more focus on the government power. This has resulted in the overall delay. Instead of taking responsibility for the primary task of drafting the constitution, leaders focused on government power. Therefore, the issues of constitution drafting got overshadowed.

Where was the main complication?
It was more in the form of government. The President overturned the decision of the UCPN (M) government to sack the Chief of the army Staff at the request of the parties, which is called the army chief scandal. UCPN (M) say the ceremonial president interfered. What he would do if he had all the authority? UCPN (M) say that was interference and demand president with full powers. How can this be reconciled? If the president is made all powerful, it could be like tyrannical king. I do not think UCPN (M) action and position are in agreement.

What were the challenges for the Committee?
There were not major challenges. The committee discussions focused on good and bad. The experts gave their opinions. It was when the party position came in the discussions that the challenge started. We are not drafting the constitution for a party. The constitution cannot be only for Congress and UCPN (M). What do the people want? What is needed for the country? There was less attention on these points. I do no think the political party leaders gave much thought to the holistic development of the people, guarantee of their rights, and recognition of their identity. It is not because of others in the Committee but the polarisation and position of the leftists and democrats that there was no agreement. What is there if both shifted from their positions to institutionalise democratic republic for the people and country? We should move on that direction.

By: Bhuwan KC
Publication date: May 9, 2011