Political parties are still reluctant and inefficient to give a clear model for state restructuring though the election for the second Constituent Assembly (CA) is slated to be held next month. It is for sure that their dillydally in figuring out the clear model of state restructuring will cost the country dearly. 

 

As the fever of the second Constituent Assembly (CA) election has gone up, political parties are busy drafting and finalizing their election manifestos. Political parties, however, seem to be dubious in identifying what the new structure of the Nepali state should be. 

 

The common fear existing in the country is that political parties may push the country into further uncertainty in the name of adopting ‘our own model’ of federalism and democracy. There are lots of controversies among political parties, and within a single political party too, related to state restructuring. Political parties, which are supposed to raise class issue, have been raising ethnic agenda for the sake of their own benefit. On the other hand, the so-called democratic forces have been visionless and indecisive on various crucial issues including appropriate model to run the country. 

 

It is well-known fact that the first Constituent Assembly got dissolved without delivering a statute four years after the election. And it was because of lack of clarity among political parties whose last-hour consultations ended without an agreement on model of federalism. 

 

While ethnic-based federal units were seen by some as the only way to address the identity of marginalised communities, there were also fears that given Nepal’s complex ethnic, racial, linguistic and caste mosaic this would lead to fragmentation and conflict.

 

There are differences among political forces in many crucial issues including federalism, number of province, model of the government, i.e., presidential vs parliamentarian. 

 

Political parties should not try to make the country a testing ground. It would be better to adopt any of established models of democracy instead of creating catchy phrases and ambiguous words in the name of ‘originality’.

 

Political system may vary country to country. For instance, there are various political systems in various countries including US Presidential system, UK – Westminster parliamentary, German semi-parliamentary and French hybrid.

 

But political parties in Nepal have been trying to mix up various practices from different political system. Mixing British Westminster parliamentary system with US presidential system or French model of political system may create confusion when it comes time to implement the model in practice. 

 

So, political parties should dare to speak out openly that adopting already tested political system will be more suitable in the country rather than opting for new test. The differences should be harnessed because all political parties, in principle, want prosperity and development of the country.  All we need is sincere effort and genuine commitment from political parties. The bottom-line should be democracy and liberal economy; rest of the issues can be discussed and amended in the process of practicing democracy.