The constitution is a living doc­ument and, as such, it reflects the public’s spirit and aspira­tions. By no means is it meant to be interpreted as a wish list, but instead as a document which guides the everyday direction of the state, its functions and functionaries. Obvi­ously, if our leaders thought some­thing could not be implemented or handled, it should not have been written in the constitution. Bearing that in mind, constitution­ally, Nepal is a federal republic. After completing three tiers of elections, we are moving forward towards implementing federalism. Oddly, however, when political leaders are asked individually, the majority express some form of disappoint­ment over the federal structure we have recently passed. The very lead­ers who spent years mulling over the content of the Statute and were very much a part of its writing process now show little ownership over the document, and federalism in partic­ular. The uneasy answer of having signed on to the constitution under some ‘external pressures’ looms over the political class.

 

Perhaps this is why the trends we have been observing when it comes to implementing a federal constitu­tion is dubious at best. There is a real danger that Nepal’s federalism may be limited to name only.

 

We all know the Constitution of Nepal, although a commendable document, is rather vague on many issues. Some of the concepts, for example the declaration of Nepal as ‘pro-socialist’ country has no legal interpretation. Technically, only politicians can explain its spirit. Similarly, the definition of secu­larism is also beyond the under­standing of legal eyes. Even feder­alism through three tiers, which is explicit, seems to still be politically open for negotiation!

 

The irony is that for the last decade, the entire focus was on drafting the constitution, but once we got it, it is quickly being for­gotten. Still many elected lawmak­ers (federal, provincial and local) do not understand the letter and spirit of our constitution. Even those who invested in the process of constitution drafting are slowly turning a blind eye when it comes to safeguarding and implementing what’s in there. Constitutional lit­eracy is the need of the hour and neither the state nor the non-gov­ernmental sector seems to be paying much attention.

 

What’s in store for a state that deliberately undermines the value of the constitution and for a non-governmental sector busy in keeping business going is that there will be a gradual shift to centralized tendencies. Rather than focusing on implementing the constitution in letter and spirit, the government has diverted attention to stability and prosperity. The people are obediently being swept off their feet with promises of an economic revo­lution of sorts, which deep down we know is simply impossible without strengthening constitutionalism and rule of law.

 

Apart from the discrepancies in constitutional implementation I mentioned in my last column, there are a further two major upcoming constitutional deadlines by when the government must complete drafting new bills and pass them through the federal parliament. The first one is related to fundamental rights. As guided by the constitu­tion, within three years of declaring the constitution, this government must enact several bills related to fundamental rights. That is, by Sep­tember 19, 2018, these bills need to have been passed and they are more than three dozen in number.

 

The second is that within one year of the first meeting of the federal parliament, the government must enact all bills under the new con­stitution. The first meeting of the federal parliament was held on Feb 5, 2018.

 

If the government fails to replace the old bills with the new ones by Feb 4, 2019, the old bills will be automatically expelled and a situa­tion of constitutional vacuum will be created. It is already late-June and little to no work has been done on the hundreds of new bills and amendments that will be needed.

 

The Oli government and the oppo­sition parties are not serious about this potential constitutional crisis. The constitution is new but the mindset of party leaders is old and centralized, and going by the ‘old’ ways, the political class will find it easy to continue to shift and move deadlines to suit their political ends. A simple amendment here and there and this transition will be ongoing for another decade without all of us having even realized its costs. Prosperity surely cannot come in a constitutional vacuum.