There was Sudden Change in the Position of Maoist Colleagues.
Ramesh Rijal
Chairperson, Committee for Determining the Structure of the Legislative Body
What was the main responsibility of the Committee?
It was to prepare a preliminary draft outlining the structure and role of parliament in the constitution after discussion with and consulting everyone.
What method did your Committee use to approve the report?
First, we decided on the bases for us to work. Then we started to work based on that. We collected the views of the Committee members. And we went prepared a questionnaire to get people’s opinion and went to the people. We held discussions again based on the opinions and suggestions of the people. In the meantime, we also consulted experts on parliamentary system, legal experts, and political scientists. And we prepared a consensus report by including all these things. From the people’s suggestions, what form of parliament was favoured?
More suggestions were in favour of bicameral parliament. In the beginning, UCPN (M) and others went to collect people’s opinion with questionnaire on bicameral parliamentary system. They were also in favour of bicameral parliament. However, two or three days before submitting the draft report, they insisted on unicameral people’s representative assembly in the centre as their party had changed its position and they wrote a note a dissent. The Committee in its report to the CA made provision for bicameral House of Representatives and National Assembly in the centre and unicameral parliament in the states and there was discussion for four days in by a full seating.
During the elections also, they had argued for bicameral parliamentary and multiparty system and stuck to this in the Committee until the end. However, after the party issued a whip, the Committee members supported by UCPN (M) influenced by this decision. After the party decided that there should be unicameral people’s representative assembly in the centre, they also supported that position.
Who else wrote note of dissent while finalising the report?
Only Maoist colleagues wrote note of dissent.
What was their main demand?
It mainly concerned the demand for unicameral people’s representative assembly at the centre, multi-member election system, and that judiciary should be under the control of the people’s representative. There was the proposal to set 16 years of age the limit for the elected assembly. Initially, there was serious discussion only focused whether to keep people’s representative assembly or House of Representatives. Non-Maoist colleagues were questioning the need to keep ‘people’s’ in every place and they were not willing to back down from the term ‘people’s’. Later on, they went for unicameral parliament rather than semantic discourse and discussion, and due to which there was no agreement. They wrote a note of dissent.
What were the proposals of the Committee in these issues?
The Committee proposed bicameral parliament in the centre and unicameral parliament in the in the states, independent judiciary, legal voting age for the house of representatives to be 18, and to be member of the national assembly, one should be at least 35 years of age.
Do you believe the CA will approve the proposals of the Committee?
If the leadership of the political parties sits down together and looks for a point of agreement, there are many possibilities for consensus. If that can be done, it is possible to include the core of the parliamentary system of the Committee report in the constitution by altering preamble of the report.
The main issue is that it all depends on whether the Maoist colleagues want a people’s constitution as under communist rule or a constitution adhering to democratic rule. If they want democratic constitution, it will not make that much of a difference by alternating a few recommendations of the Committee. Main issue is the form of the government. There are also possibilities for consensus. What we have proposed concerns the structure and role of the parliament. There is no disagreement on the parliament in the states. If democracy is also the main focus in the centre, there are no issues that cannot be agreed upon.
Please elaborate on the structures of the proposed federal and state parliaments.
We have proposed 151-member (76 directly elected and 75 from proportional representation) House of Representatives in the centre. However, colleagues who have written a note of dissent have proposed a unicameral 254-member people’s representative assembly in the centre. In addition, they have stated that while taking oath of office, it should not be in the name of god. In the beginning, Maoist colleagues were proposing 245-member House of Representatives and 75-member national assembly. For the states, state assemblies with state chiefs has been proposed. In the report, state assemblies with up to 35 members depending on the population has been proposed.
What kind of challenges did the Committee face while drafting the report?
There were no challenges as such. There were some difficulties in a few issues. Maoist CA members proposed keeping the judiciary under the control of the people’s representative assembly and recalling of the elected representatives at the recommendation of the political parties. But, other party CA members could not agree to that. In a way, periodic election is the means to recall the representatives by the people. I know of no such recalling of the representative s in the world such as the one they have proposed. The view that people’s representatives elected through secret voting should not be recalled by party whip became stronger in the Committee. There was no way of reaching an agreement on this. Similarly, Maoist colleagues had proposed taking the oath in the name of the people instead of god. However, other colleagues had proposed that those who want to take the oath in the name of god will do so and those who want to take it in the name of the people will accordingly. They also could not agree to this.
What was the influence of the parties while preparing the draft?
Except for the Maoists, all the parties were in agreement. While submitting the report, it was clear that the Maoist-supported members were under the party influence and stood for the party whip. Otherwise, we did not experience any influence as such.
By: Dhruba Simkhada
Publication date: April 25, 2011