I tried to initiate dialogue among some members of the visiting Nepali delegation around the Proposed Constitution and made no headway. I think the attitude is this is too early. There is no participation from the king's side or the Maoist side. There is major reluctance to give room on the issue of federalism. A lot of the status quoists in the larger parties would like to postpone federalism for as long as they can. My document looks like a can of worms to them: it touches upon all issues political, social and economic, and it can feel like too much homework. I have also put the republican version of the same constitution at the table, but the reluctance does not go away. Partly it is also the anti-Madhesi prejudice that questions the very legitimacy of the idea that it is me taking the initiative. Partly it is the inherent reluctance to go for the new, groundbreaking ideas. It is also a lack of political skill and foresight on the part of the team members. Some of them also feel preached. Even when I have made it very clear I am not trying to convince them to any agenda. They have the option to disagree with every element in the document and say why.
Forget the visiting dignitaries. The Nepalis in town carry a similar reluctance. I think the bold proposal for federalism really irks a whole lot of people. And there is also the feeling if they will work through the framework of my document, they are going to have to give me credit.
Peace and progress end up the casualty.
As I have said before, the logical aspect of peace making is quite simple. It is the emotional aspect that is all tied up in knots. Peace making is more hand holding than anything else, looks like.
The outright refusal to even take a look at the document I find flabbergasting. But then it is not just the democrats. Sharad Chandra Shaha was as or even more reluctant. (Sharad Chandra Shaha Is A Dazzling Person)
Some strengths of my proposed document:
- No element is binding: the document is but a framework for a dialogue. (Wish Me Luck)
- First the seven parties could come together and make a list of all things they agree on. Then they could invite the Monarchists and the Maoists to come along or be done with. Or not. The points they disagree on they settle through a constituent assembly.
- This document is not a trick to retain the monarchy. Ever since I met Sharad Chandra Shaha some democrats have been casting suspicions my way. There is a republican version of the exact same document. All you have to do is express your preference for the republican version if that's what you want.
- The idea of a total, transparent democracy is really cutting edge. If it were to be introduced in Nepal, American progressives will demand it in America. It also is the best anti-corruption proposal any democracy has. It also addresses the issue of internal reform of the parties.
- It co-opts the Maoists politically. The document's emphasis on classlessness is cutting edge and pragmatic. The Maoists are pie in the sky and vague.
- The suggested structure for federalism is scientific. It is mathematical. The proposed structure will make people from all backgrounds feel included in the state structure. And it does so without identifying any of the groups. That is no small achievement, and possibly of a wider use. Between the state (30%), the district (10%) and the village/town (10%), the non-federal elements get half the state revenue. That four tier structure is a great way to decentralize power without having to draw boundaries along ethnic lines. There is a lot of room for the three states to go different ways. The three states also get to compete with each other and compare notes. There are many proposals for federalism. Two that I have seen are the Sadbhavana version and the Maoist version. I feel my proposal is better than either. And considering 20% of the income taxes stay at the district level or below, that is like having 75 mini states in a way. People from all ethnic groups can hope to attain leadership positions.
- Where the state intervenes or makes preferences to help out groups and individuals, it does so only based on income brackets. Considering the marginalized groups also tend to be the poorest, that might be the better way.
- My document gives a framework that will really save a lot time. Otherwise the constituent assembly can take years to conclude as happened in South Africa.
- The document and the suggested dialogue around it are not being presented as a substitute to a constituent assembly.
- Not only does the document co-opt the Maoists politically, but it also steals their economic messages, and in the process gets rid of their failed jargon on the topic. Baburam Bhattarai needs a serious dose of Economics 101.
I think the biggest reason for the refusal to take a look at the document is the prevalent Bahun prejudice against all other groups in the country. In my proposal the Bahuns also end up better off. But I think they are not too worried about their absolute welfare, but rather their relative welfare. That is primitive.
But considering these visiting dignitaries are out on the ground taking the risks, they stay in the lead, and they decide, and someone like me helps any way he can.
One way to help is by keep nudging the parties to internal reforms.
But the number one issue is to held the democrats in the major bipolarization exercise that is taking place in the country. Vigilance has to be maintained. The movement is to be extended all possible support. That is key. My proposal will still be there after the interim government is formed. So I am patient.
In The News