It is a national disgrace that the Constituent Assembly (CA) has been dismissed without promulgating a constitution. Its failure is a massive setback for the country's fledgling peace process. A huge opportunity for progressive change has been lost, and now we are going through the worst political crisis since the country entered into the peace dialogue. The whole constitutional process is thrown into limbo, and the country is heading for yet more political turmoil.

The politicians have deceived the people many times in the past and have now done so again. We need to confront the terrible reality that we the people are regarded as nothing more than mere voters.  Do we not have the right to be acquainted with every aspect of public affairs? Should we not now establish a proper mechanism for identifying what went wrong? Moreover, what happens to the progress made since we entered the peace dialogue? Should we continue from where we were before 27 May, or should we start all over again? What guarantee is there that any newly elected CA will be any more capable of producing a new constitution?

I come straight to the point. The death of the CA has spawned many rumours. Some blame its death on foreign influence and domination and on the fact that some political leaders were no more than undercover agents who had not been working for the interests of our nation. Others argue that it was part of a Maoist grand design to stage a coup. The political parties play the usual game of blaming each other, and none is prepared to own up. There are many questions over the gross failure of our elected CA for which the people demand answers. Why did such an historic CA fail to deliver? Who was responsible for this and why? Who now can provide reasonable justification?

An independent, fair and non-political judicial inquiry commission must be established immediately to investigate what went wrong, why, and who was responsible. The members of the commission should be appointed from civil society - experts, academicians, and retired judges, who are totally independent of partisan politics. It should be given wide jurisdiction to investigate the failings of the CA and to question members on the role that each played in those failings. Most importantly, the inquiry commission’s mandate must be to establish the truth about the CA’s gross failure and to present its findings to the wider public.

There are five reasons why the establishment of an inquiry commission is essential. First, it will help to identify the mistakes that we have made and offer guidance in choosing the right path for the country for the future. Second, it will help to replace the culture of ‘irresponsible politics’ among our political leadership, with a new tradition of morality and accountability. Third, people have a right to know every aspect of public affairs. If the demands of the people are ignored, they resort to illegal strikes and the burning of effigies and tyres in the streets. A proper inquiry commission can avoid such ‘street politics’. Fourth, the inquiry commission will defend the democratic process and constitutionalism. Finally, politics are about talking and listening to people. Telling the truth earns respect, even when people disagree. The inquiry commission will allow leaders and politicians to offer explanations - a vital fresh beginning for clean and tidier politics in our country.

The government’s decision to call a second CA election is but a ‘bogus move’ and one that is meaningless.  International practice suggests that there is no guarantee that a second CA will be any more likely to produce a constitution than the first. If we are to enjoy full democracy, power must lie with the people, who should decide the direction of our country’s affairs. If there is to be a fresh mandate, it should be for a limited-sized parliament: that would be the more practical choice. The newly elected parliament would focus immediately on critical problems unlike the deceased CA, which had to contend with too many broad agendas at once. Â

We need not rush to hold an election just for the sake of it. First we need a broad national consensus on the agenda for reform and on the responsibilities and functions of the future elected body. Alongside the parliamentary election, a separate ballot box can be used for a referendum on the most contentious issues before us such as federalism, the structuring of states and the system of governance. As well as reducing cost and killing two birds with one stone, the election and referendum combined will enable people to have their say in a most democratic manner. The CA was too costly for a country with over sixty per cent of its people living below the poverty line. The proposed parliament must be less costly and more effective.

I am not suggesting that the four years of political process under the CA were totally worthless. We were able to identify many things that people wish to see adopted. All segments of society were able to make demands concerning identities, values and rights, and our people are more politically aware than before. We need, therefore, to compile and analyse all the material from the twelve point agreements till the present and then use it as compulsory guidance as we proceed to draft the new constitution.

Constitutions are never perfect, and the process of making them so never ends. Every constitution, even after promulgation, requires constant review and amendment because society itself is not stable – people’s sentiments and needs constantly change. Any gaps in the constitution are filled by formal amendment or constructive judicial interpretation. It will be wiser and more pragmatic now if we employ small expert groups to produce an initial draft of the constitution before tabling it for debate in parliament and for voting on any necessary changes. Then we should offer it to the wider public for debate and comment before parliament takes note of public sentiment and ratifies the final draft by a majority in the house. This process will automatically rule out the familiar closed-room ‘give and take’ of a few politicians over highly important issues, and it will produce a positive outcome with an effective result.

‘Politics as usual’ will simply no longer work in our country. Before we proceed to an election, an inclusive political dialogue is more urgent than ever before. It is the vital first step for all of us in order to end the political transition as early as possible. Citizens need to be heard, and the political process must be wrested from the monopoly of a few politicians. Very different leadership qualities are needed from a louder cadre of public intellectuals who understand the nature of politics and are able to transform them into something more than just a ‘dirty game’. Now is the time to establish a positive message that politics are a form of art that deserves the respect of us all. The proposed inquiry commission will provide a fresh beginning.

Dr Basnet, who holds a Ph.D. and an LL.M degree in International Human Rights Law at Lancaster University, U.K, is a researcher in International Human Rights Law and an Advocate in the Supreme Court Nepal. Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

(Editor’s Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal around the globe are requested to contribute their views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than 1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the article. Please send your write-ups to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it )