Constitution amendment and concerns of Madhes

On June 7, the CPN-UML and Nepali Congress reached a seven-point consensus to form a coalition government. Days later, KP Sharma Oli cited these points from the rostrum of the Federal Parliament. While most of the agreement focuses on equitable power-sharing, it also solidifies that parties with different political ideologies will govern together for the foreseeable future. Notably, the second point of the agreement emphasizes that the national consensus government will prioritize amending the Constitution and enacting laws to ensure political stability, rather than merely reviewing the strengths, weaknesses, and complexities that have emerged since its enactment.

Given Madhes' significant political influence from the first Constituent Assembly until the Constitution's promulgation, it is crucial to gauge the political sentiments of the region. Politically, some Madhes-centric parties have already backed the Congress-UML coalition, some have stakes in the federal government, one party leads the Madhes Province, and others are still vying for federal government participation. This article aims to address two key questions: How will the Madhes Province handle the constitutional amendment issue presented by the two parties? And what kind of constitutional amendments does Madhes seek?

Madhes’ cautious approach

To understand the political pulse of Madhes Province, I spoke with Dr Vijay Singh, Vice-president of the Tarai Madhes Democratic Party and a former member of the Constituent Assembly. When asked about his party’s stance on the UML-Congress coalition’s agreement to amend the Constitution, Dr Singh welcomed the initiative but stressed the need for a thorough review of what needs to be amended. He criticized the leaders of major parties who blame the mixed electoral system for the existing electoral issues, arguing that the current system has no inherent flaws. Dr Singh pointed out that since 1991, all elections before the Constituent Assembly used the first-past-the-post (FPTP) method, which led to imbalanced, unstable, and weak government structures, underrepresentation of marginalized communities, and greater dominance of the ‘Khas-Arya’ community. In contrast, proportional representation ensures that diverse societal groups, including marginalized communities, are adequately represented.

Dr Singh also highlighted an inconsistency in the Constitution: the upper house of parliament allows for 59 members, with three appointed by the cabinet in addition to an equal number of MPs elected by each province. This setup does not align with the principles of inclusivity, as provinces with vastly different populations elect the same number of representatives. He suggested that the Indian model, where each state is guaranteed one seat in the upper house and the remaining seats are allocated based on population, could be more appropriate. Additionally, Dr. Singh called for a review of the gerrymandered electoral constituencies in the southern plains, which have been manipulated by major political parties.

Ram Saroj Yadav, a Constituent Assembly member and Nepali Congress representative in the Provincial Assembly, echoed similar concerns. He and other party members oppose any alterations to the proportional representation provision, which guarantees inclusive representation from the provincial to the federal level. Yadav stressed that Nepal’s diverse society gives regional parties a unique role in the nation, and any attempt to undermine federalism could trigger a major revolt.

Recently, Satish Singh, the Chief Minister of Madhes Province, submitted a 22-point demand to Prime Minister Oli for the development of Madhes. This highlights the province’s lack of sufficient resources and authority for its development. According to Deepak Sah, Vice-president of the Janmat Party, while Janmat supports the current coalition, they will fiercely resist any attempt by the government to backtrack on the achievements enshrined in the Constitution.

Meanwhile, UML and other national party leaders are optimistic about constitutional revisions to promote political stability, though they acknowledge the challenges of fostering development under the current framework. Historically, Nepal’s national parties have struggled to address regional identity issues, and Madhes remains particularly sensitive to any curtailment of regional party rights.

The road ahead

Electorally, the influence of Madhes-centric parties has diminished since 2017. The CPN-UML and Nepali Congress have overtaken the Janata Samajbadi Party and Loktantrik Samajbadi Party, the two major Madhes-based parties, to become the largest and second-largest parties in the province, respectively. This shift reflects growing discontent with political figures and representatives rather than with the system itself. Within Madhes-centric parties, formal and informal debates are ongoing about whether the larger national parties are attempting to sideline smaller, regional parties under the pretext of constitutional revision.

The Constitution of Nepal envisions a framework based on federalism, republicanism, secularism, and inclusivity, with fundamental rights, proportional representation, and inclusivity at its core. While there are voices in Madhes Province arguing against secularism, their political influence is minimal, and Madhes-centric parties, along with other parties, have generally supported secularism.

A constitution’s strength lies in its ability to reflect the values of the people it governs. Madhes has a significant stake in the Constitution of Nepal, having revolted in 2007 after the interim constitution was issued without mentioning federalism—an omission that cost 57 protesters their lives. The devastating 2015 earthquake prompted major political parties to sign a 16-point agreement to promulgate the Constitution, but this agreement was seen by some as a calculated move to undermine federalism. The Supreme Court ultimately mandated the promulgation of a new Constitution, which included provisions for provincial power-sharing and federal boundaries. Advocate Dipendra Jha noted that Nepal’s Constitution was created as a “constitution of winners and losers,” rather than one reflecting everyone’s sentiments.

Now, the same parties that dominated the Constituent Assembly and shaped the Constitution are attempting to amend it. It is crucial to eliminate the mindset of "winners and losers" and address past injustices. For Madhes, the amendment process represents an opportunity to ensure that the Constitution truly reflects the needs and aspirations of all Nepalis.

The author is associated with Peace Development Research Center [PDRC]