What Is A Constituent Assembly?

Constituent Assembly
Constituent Assembly
Some Facts of Constituent Assembly Constituent Assembly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A constituent assembly is a body elected with the purpose of drafting, and in some cases, adopting a constitution.

• National Constituent Assembly - formed in 1789 during the French Revolution ..... Following attempts by King Louis XVI and the Second Estate to prevent the delegates from meeting, the new assembly was forced to relocate to a tennis court on June 20; there, it swore the Tennis Court Oath, promising to draft a new constitution for France...... The Assembly re-named itself the National Constituent Assembly on July 9, and began to function as a governing body and a constitution-drafter....... Following the storming of the Bastille on July 14, the National Constituent Assembly became the effective government of France. In the words of historian François Mignet, "The assembly had acquired the entire power; the corporations depended on it; the national guards obeyed it... The royal power, though existing of right, was in a measure suspended, since it was not obeyed, and the assembly had to supply its action by its own." .....
  
• Russian Constituent Assembly - formed in January 1918 during the Russian October Revolution ..... The Bolsheviks took the position that the workers' councils (known in Russian as soviets) were the only legitimate form of government (the Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin's slogan prior to the revolution was "All Power to the Soviets!"), and while they permitted elections to continue they did not accept the ultimate authority of the Constituent Assembly to decide on an alternative form of government....... In the election to the Constituent Assembly (the first fully democratic parliamentary election in Russian history), Lenin's Bolsheviks received between 22% and 25% of the vote in that election, while the Socialist-Revolutionary Party received 40%...... A peaceful demonstration in support of the assembly was shot at and dispersed by troops loyal to Bolsheviks. A motion by the Bolsheviks that should have made the assembly powerless was voted down. The Bolsheviks and their allies then walked out and the next day declared the Constitution Assembly dissolved.
• Constituent Assembly of India - formed on 9 December 1946 to write the Constitution, and serve as India's first Parliament, dissolving on 26 January 1950 when India became a republic. The Constituent Assembly of India was elected to write the Constitution of India, and served as its first Parliament as an independent nation. It was elected by millions of Indian adults and by universal suffrage. It first met on December 9, 1946, while India was still under British rule. At this point, the Constituent Assembly became the Provisional Parliament of India, until the first elections under the new Constitution took place in 1952.
• South Africa: Post-Apartheid

A constituent assembly is the only way out for Nepal. But what is a constituent assembly? I think the democrats need to address this issue. The assembly will be a clear departure from the 1990 constitution.

How many seats will that constituent assembly have? Will those seats be allocated based on equal population? Or what? There has to be some open discussion on this topic by the seven parties and then the Maoists. How long will that assembly take to do its work?

If the seven parties were to ditch the House revival stance and instead get wholeheartedly behind the constituent assembly idea, that would speed things up. (Political Reasons Against House Revival)

The very fact that noone has suggested the 1999 House should be revived so it can become the constituent assembly shows that is not even an idea. The fundamental flaw of the 1999 House is that its 205 seats are not marked based on equal population.

The Nepali experience of a constituent assembly is likely to be different from that of other countries in the past, be it France, Russia, India, or South Africa.

I keep coming back to an alternate proposal: 40 Reasons Why The Three Forces Should Come Ar0und To My Proposed Constitution.

The beauty of my proposal is that it can be done in three steps.

1. The seven parties engage in an open debate on it. They accept it.
2. Then they engage the Maoists in an open debate on the topic.
   
3. After those eight parties come around to it, they give the king an invitation to come around to it. If he does not come along, that would be recipe for a showdown, a non-violent revolution.
   

I think what prevents the first step from taking place is that quite a few people especially in the Nepali Congress are still too hung up on the 1990 constitution. They like the status quo of the 1990s.

On the other hand, you are looking at an interim constitution and an interim government, and then elections to a constituent assembly, likely a body of perhaps 300 individuals, representing seats that are roughly equal in population.

One pitfall I see from the 12 point agreement is that the Maoists might try to pull a Lenin on the idea. They can't. They will not be able to. That is another story. But we have to watch out.

The 12 Point Agreement Succeeds The 4 Point Program

Especially since there are so many different variables that will come into play, and bringing the king to the idea of an interim government is no small task, it is important for the seven parties to achieve as much clarity as possible now. But there does not seem to be a mechanism in place.

There is need of a permanent committee of seven members. I can see why the three large parties might not be too excited about the idea, but they could devise a voting mechanism. You could have a seven strong permanent committee where the voting powers are as follows.

UML: 35, NC: 25, NC (D): 20, NSP (A): 5, NMKP: 5, Jana Morcha: 5, Left Front: 5. For a total of 100.

That committee would keep banging heads until they achieved as much clarity as possible for the roadmap to a new constitution for the country. Is that an idea?

The first order of business would be to have an open discussion on the House revival idea.

The idea of achieving clarity is not that you are already there, but it is that it helps you get there. There is no one catch slogan right now.

A lack of clarity strengthens the king. He has a roadmap for the next two years. Do we? We can not be moving one week at a time. If we do, he wins. As February 8 approaches, the first thing that will happen is the NC will undergo yet another vertical split. That faction might try to validate the king's move.

Achieving clarity within the seven party coalition now will also show the same group will also be capable of handling the more arduous task of a constituent assembly. The will to engage in political dialogue is the will to peace.

In The News

Royalists party activists clash in Baneshwore NepalNews
Radio Sagarmatha moves to court for the second time
Bista flays foreign intervention
Upon return to the country, King insists on his own `roadmap’
Parties, NHRC hail extension of ceasefire
Tens of thousands of people take part in UML’s rally; minor scuffle reported
Maoists extend ceasefire for one more month
To counter the King, India engineered party-Maoist deal: Minister Koirala
Maoist rebels extend ceasefire in Nepal CBC News, Canada
Nepal rebels extend truce as anti-king rally starts Daily Times
Relief in Nepal after Maoists extend truce Deccan Herald
NEPAL: Maoists ceasefire extension welcomed Reuters AlertNet
UN chief welcomes extension of ceasefire by Nepal's leftist rebels Xinhua, China
Annan welcomes Communist rebels' extension of ceasefire in Nepal UN News Centre
Nepal determined to hold elections: King Xinhua
Nelson Mandela refuses to meet Nepal king Hindustan Times
A Bountiful Diplomatic Harvest Gorkhapatra
Nepal Opposition Extends Truce Prensa Latina, Cuba
Nepal Communist Party (UML) shows its strength in Kathmandu. ... United We Blog, Nepal
Thousands turn out for UML mass meet Kantipur Online
Tens of thousands of people take part in UML’s rally Nepali Times
Thousands Take Part in UML Rally Himalayan Times
Nation needs lasting peace, democratic exercise: HM Gorkhapatra
Nepal's business houses welcome truce extension NewKerala.com, India
Nepal police arrest 18 Tibetan refugees Press Trust of India, India
Guff Gaff with Kishore Nepal Kathmandu Post, Nepal
Riots grip Kathmandu before King Gyanendra's arrival Asian Tribune, Thailand
Scientists to check Nepal Buddha boy BBC News
Truce Extension Injects New Hope Among People Himalayan Times, Nepal
NC Leader Flouts Party Line to Break New Ground Himalayan Times
India’s royal pain HardNews Magazine, India
Dispute within People’s Front PeaceJournalism.com, Nepal
Further debate essential in 12-point agreement: Bijukchhe Nepalnews.com
Court gives Nepal radios victory over king NewKerala.com, India

Political Reasons Against House Revival

I have been making a case that House revival is not possible. And it is not desirable in the first place. The argument being put forth by some in the seven party coalition is that the House is not to be revived by the king or the Supreme Court, and so it is not a matter of legality. Instead a people's movement will revive the House through a political decision.

Lilamani Pokharel For Continuous Movement
Phone Talk With Madhav Nepal, Hridayesh Tripathy
Logistics To Bring Down The Regime
Ways To Cut The Gordian Knot

Now I intend to argue that the political reasons for reviving the House are even flimsier than the legal ones.

(1) Either the 1990 constitution is dead or it is alive. I think it died the day the king appointed Chand as Prime Minister. Almost all democrats think it died on 2/1. If it is dead, it is not possible the 1999 House is still alive, hibernating somewhere, because that House can only exist within the framework of the 1990 constitution. And if you argue the 1990 constitution is still alive, then you are saying 2/1 was not an anti-constitutional move. And if 2/1 was a constitutional move, then the constitution that made it possible is in an obvious clash with the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights and hence is an undemocratic constitution that deserves to die if it is not dead already.

(2) It took a 2/1 and 12,000 deaths for the Nepali Congress and the UML to come around to the idea of a constituent assembly. The Nepali Congress has been dragging its feet on the issue forever. As recently as last week Sushil Koirala gave an interview saying the House is to be revived, and then if the need be felt, the country might also go to a constituent assembly. That shows all those who are for House revival secretly hope they can kill the idea of a constituent assembly down the line. How could they kill the idea? Say the House is revived. As soon as the House is revived, the international community will no longer feel an absence of democracy in the country. They evaporate off the political scene. And if the NC and the UML manage to amend the constitution, which they can, they could bring the army under the parliament. After that happens, the king gets reduced to being a figurehead. At that point if the Maoists resume the civil war, the global community will fully support the government and the army. And thus the Bahuns get to kill the idea of a constituent assembly. And all this could happen within a month of House revival. I smell fish.

(3) If you are in Janakpur, and you intend to go to Birgunj, why do you insist on first going 50 miles in the direction of Biratnagar? The constituent assembly idea is Birgunj. The House revival idea is Biratnagar. If you are so insistent on first going 50 miles towards Biratnagar, it is so obvious you want to increase the distance between yourself and Birgunj as much as possible. To me it looks like that is so because you dislike Birgunj.

(4) After the vertical split of the Nepali Congress, the UML is the largest party in the country. So if the NC is on one side, and the other six parties are on the other side, then the NC is maybe 25% of the weight of the coalition, if that. On their own all six parties are against the House revival idea. They have come around to it for the sake of Girija and the Congress only. But if there were to be a vote on the issue, the NC clearly loses. To not allow such a vote is undemocratic. This fight is not just for democracy in the country but also a fight for democracy inside the parties. A struggle for democracy itself has to be democratic. So if Girija will not let the seven party coalition to vote on the issue, this is an autocrat. An autocrat can not lead a democracy movement.

(5) But first the Nepali Congress central committee has to meet and discuss and decide on this issue. That is the democratic way. If Girija does not allow such a debate, he is an autocrat.

(6) The constituent assembly has been the only real meeting ground for the Maoists and the seven parties. If the seven parties were to abandon that plank, civil war will restart tomorrow. On the other hand, if the king were to honestly come around to it, peace and democracy get established. So this NC dishonesty on the assembly question is to play with fire.

(7) If the honest goal of the seven party coalition is a constituent assembly, that honesty would ask that the coalition seek the shortest route to that assembly. The shortest route is not a House. The shortest route is an interim constitution and an interim government with both legislative and executive powers, and an interim prime minister who is Commander In Chief of the army.

(8) There is nothing a revived House can achieve that an interim constitution and an interim government can not better achieve.

(9) Girija Koirala has never stopped mistreating the Deuba Congress. First it kept it at bay, and that made it possible for the king to align with Deuba before 2/1. Now Koirala makes sure the NC(D) gets treated like a lesser member within the seven party coalition. That is wrong. That also shows the biggest reason Girija wants the House revived is so he can sqeeze the NC(D) to the max. The whole country wants democracy, Girija's concern is vendetta. Such are misplaced priorities.

(10) The king came out for a constituent assembly idea right after 2/1. He came out for an all party government right after October 2, 2002. The Maoists are for both those ideas. So why will the seven party coalition also not come around to those two ideas? Because as soon as it does, things speed up, and the country gets a constituent assembly sooner rather than later.

(11) Instead of focusing on the all party government and a constituent assembly on which we do have common ground with the king and the Maoists, why would we insist on House revival on which we have common ground with neither?

(12) Most important, it is the Nepali people who are dead against the idea of a House revival. Less than 5% support the idea. That is the biggest political reason why the idea has to be dropped.

(13) After October 2, 2002 when a democratic Prime Minister legitimately dissolved the House, an all party government had to be formed, and that all party government had to take the country through a constituent assembly. But at that point neither the NC nor the UML were for a constituent assembly yet. That is the real story. Instead Girija put forth his idiotic House revival stance. And that is what made all the horror afterwards possible.

(14) Seeking common ground with the king on the all party government and a constituent assembly is also the best way to ensure a smooth transfer of authority over the state army from the king to the people.

(15) The House revival stance is the biggest reason the movement has not taken off like it should have. The 1999 House reminds people of many things that were wrong in the 1990s.

(16) In the entire world history there is not one example of a mass movement, a revolution that got organized to revive a House. And there is a good reason why not. The House revival stance is bizarre.

(17) Dropping the House revival makes the endgame simpler and clearer. Then we are less dependent on the king's goodwill. A revolution can establish an interim government, but not a House.

So drop it, folks. Allow the movement to take off.

Nelson Mandela Can Smell Fish

Dick Cheney, Nelson Mandela, Howard Dean

Nelson Mandela can smell fish. This is a guy who spent the best decades of his life behind bars because he believed in freedom so much. And then came along a king who has snatched away his people's freedom.

There is noone in the world of Mandela's stature today. That is his political standing. He has attained something akin to a political sainthood.

What was the king thinking?

The king visited several undemocratic countries along the way, like Egypt, as if to suggest the west seems to have double standards. His arguments work the other way round. It is not that the autocracy in Nepal needs to be tolerated, but that the autocracy in those countries should also not be tolerated. Those countries don't have a vibrant democratic community like Nepal does. That is their misfortune.

But freedom is a sound concept for every land.

Ask Mandela. He knows.


Nelson Mandela refuses to meet Nepal king
Hindustan Times, India Nov 29, 2005

Legendary South African freedom fighter Nelson Mandela has snubbed Nepal's King Gyanendra by refusing to give him an appointment despite hectic lobbying, media reports said on Wednesday.

Last week, the king, accompanied by Queen Komal, visited South Africa where he met with South African President Thabo Mbeki. However, former president and Nobel Laureate Nelson Mandela politely declined to meet him on the ground he had no time, the popular Jana Astha weekly reported.

This was despite hectic lobbying by Nepal's foreign ministry.

The king chose to embark on a three-week foreign tour earlier in November, visiting several African countries that have virtually no diplomatic ties with Nepal, in the midst of the political crisis engulfing Nepal and regular mass protests.

The daily said the rejection by Mandela showed a diplomatic failure by the royalist government as it had been trying to get an appointment with Mandela even before the king had embarked on his tour.

While people in the country and the international community have condemned the February 1 royal coup and urged Gyanendra to restore democracy, the king has been imposing fresh curbs on the media, political parties and civil society. He has defended his takeover at international forums on the ground it was needed to combat the escalating Maoist insurgency and address corruption in politics.

The king, who ascended the throne after a shootout in the palace that wiped out the then reigning king and his entire family, is portrayed by his followers as the reincarnation of a Hindu deity and therefore entitled to unquestioning obedience.

In The News

FNJ announces two month long protest program for press freedom NepalNews
EU calls upon Maoists to renounce violence
UN rights chief calls on Maoists to extend ceasefire, 'govt should reciprocate'
King responsible for current problems: Ranabhat
India unable to tame Maoists: Patil
Bhutan accuses China of border encroachment
DAO denies ban on rallies
Further debate essential on 12-point agreement: Bijukchhe
November agreement has dramatically changed political realities: ICG
Australia ‘hails’ polls announcement
Two Maoist commanders killed: Prachanda, It was a retaliatory attack: RNA
Embattled Nepal king to return to face new challenge Reuters AlertNet, UK
UN warns of ‘full-scale conflict’ in Nepal Daily Times
UN urges Nepal king to join truce BBC News
Parties-Maoist Accord Gives Space for King: Nepal Leaders NewsLine Nepal
UN asks for mutual ceasefire in Nepal Asian Tribune, Thailand
Nepal asks Maoists to extend unilateral ceasefire Kantipur Online
Nepal: High Commissioner for Human Rights urges ceasefire and ... ReliefWeb (press release)
UN Rights Body Urges Two-Way Truce in Nepal NewsLine Nepal
Nepal Needs Army-Rebel Truce to Protect Human Rights, UN Says Bloomberg
Nepal rebel leader hints at extending cease-fire Khaleej Times
Nepalese Army Kills Two Rebel Leaders as Truce Deadline Nears Bloomberg
Nepal rebel leader hints at cease-fire Pravda
Civic society leaders against constituent assembly Gorkhapatra