People should decide on vital issues

Kamal Raj Thapa

The government is neither sensitive nor responsive to public opinion. Although the political parties claim the sovereign right of the people, their working style is not democratic at all. To institutionalise democracy, the government must ensure public participation. Politicians in power are mere public servants and should work as dignified representatives of the people. In a democratic system, people hold the sovereign power that comprises the political, economic and social authority. The representatives are chosen through ballots and by transfer of collective will to decide on matters of state, but polls do not transfer all deciding authority or entire sovereignty to the leaders. It is the masses that formulate a constitution by insuring separation of power, constitutionalism, rule of law, fundamental rights, independent and accountable judiciary and good governance.

Sovereignty thus limits the authority of a government, including legislative and judiciary, to decide or finalise fundamental issues. The people should, therefore, be given the opportunity to decide on important issues like monarchy v republic or unitary v federal structure of the state. At present, many party leaders, particularly the Maoists, are calling for a proclamation of a republic through the interim parliament (IP). Such a move will subvert the right of the people to frame their own constitution. This directly hinders and minimises the role of the people to participate and choose a political system. Parties cannot decide on matters which lie within the scope of the popular vote.

Even the IP and interim constitution (IC) have declared the right of the people to frame the constitution by participation in constituent assembly (CA) polls. Thus the CA polls alone can determine the political system of the country. Again, IP is a political institution agreed upon by the eight-party alliance, but in a true sense, there is no public participation in it. The people recognised it to maintain peace and order and to institutionalise the derailed democratic process.The IP can only prepare laws relating to the CA elections and for maintaining order in the country. But it cannot frame a new constitution altogether.

Article 159 (3) of IC states that only the CA shall determine the question of political system. Moreover, the role of IP is limited by its very nature. In principle, it cannot exercise the constituent power because it is only a legislative body. Nor does it have a special mandate to decide on vital national issues. The proclamation of republicanism should be contingent on people’s choice and not merely a matter of party politics because the people are sovereign not the parties.Therefore, all claims by the IP to determine the constitutional issues are unconstitutional. The parties are free to carry forward their own agenda and try and influence the people to vote for them, but they cannot settle the issues or make important declarations without elections. It will be illegitimate and may create conflicts between the parties and the general public.

Source: The Himalayan Times, April 27, 2007