Agreeing to agree

Interview with Baburam Bhattarai, Chairman of the Political Consultation Committee on the Constitution in Annapurna Post, 4 August

Annapurna Post: There is only one month left for an agreement on the contentious issues in the constitution. In the current scenario, can that deadline be met?

Baburam Bhattarai: They say leave the difficult issues till the last, but before that we have to build trust between the various groups, understand their positions, find compromises. So, we are concentrating on areas in which an agreement had eluded us in the previous CA. We have agreed to find points of agreement.

How can there be an agreement when the parties haven’t even started discussing state restructuring and form of government?

I have spoken to the top leaders. Now, we have agreed to use Track Two channels to explore points of compromise on state restructuring, forms of governance and modalities for elections.

Have you seen any of the differences being narrowed?

We can’t just hope, we have to find a meeting point. All sides have to back down a bit, that is the only way we find a solution. We also have to realise what will happen if we don’t find an agreement. If no one gives an inch, the constitution will not be written, and if that happens everything we struggled for and attained will be lost.

Does this mean you are near agreeing to a mixed system as the middle points between parliamentary and presidential systems?

Difficult for me to say, but try to understand that an agreement will be different from everyone’s present stand.

Who will have executive power, the president or prime minister?

I won’t be able to answer that either because that may affect an agreement. All I can say is that we will try to find a formula acceptable to all, and we can’t go back to before the 12-point agreement to find that meeting point. Because if that happens there is a danger of another rebellion.

And what kind of federalism would be the most suitable?

This is the most crucial issue. In fact, a republic is just a political format, but political and economic transformation will happen through state restructuring. It was this issue on which the last CA had to be dissolved. I feel the parties have learnt their lessons from that and will try to find a compromise.

Which model is the committee closest to: the 7, 11 or 14-province formula?

The most suitable would be to use the recommendations of the previous State Restructuring and Sharing of State Power Committee and the State Restructuring High-level Commission as a starting point.

Will there be more or fewer provinces, then?

More than the number of provinces, the important point is on what basis we should form them. So far the consensus is to use the five criteria of identity (ethnic, community, linguistic, historic and geographic) and the four criteria of capacity (geographical continuity, administrative efficiency, natural resource base, and potential for economic growth) to demarcate provinces. The federal system will be based on these criteria, and the number of provinces will also be decided on that basis.

But the parties don’t seem t be serious about meeting the deadline?

I have said we should work day and night to finish it. The Modi visit distracted the government for one-two weeks, hence the delay. Now, we will intensify our discussions.

Is there now a realisation among the three main parties that an agreement is necessary?

Everyone has his own stand, but everyone also knows that a there is no alternative to an agreement this time. If the constitution is not finished, all our efforts and sacrifices will be in vain. We will lose everything we fought for. Deep inside, the top leaders have the realisation.

It is said the last CA was dissolved because we didn’t factor in the sensitivities of our neighbours. This time, some parties have done a U-turn, right?

I don’t think the neighbours had a decisive role last time. State restructuring is our internal matter, and the neighbours will naturally be interested in how that will affect their national interest.

But isn’t China worried about ethnic provinces along the north, and India in how many provinces there will be along the south?

Not at all. That’s wrong. Both want stability in Nepal, and they will go along with whatever ensures stability. They haven’t told us do this, or don’t do that.