in the constituent …himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/mcpb/pdf/...parties from mid...

1

Policy Paper, No. 4, September 2010

Attendance and Participation in the Constituent Assembly

Martin Chautari

Martin Chautari

Policy PaperNo. 4 September 2010

www.martinchautari.org.np

Recommendations

1. Political party leaders and Constituent Assembly (CA) members should

make firm political commitments against the practice of absenteeism.

2. CA members should prioritize attending the CA and its proceedings over

all other commitments.

3. Mandatory attendance at all CA meetings should be enforced with CA

members excused only upon good cause. The specific reasons given should

be recorded and maintained as public record.

4. Attendance records should be maintained as public record.

5. The Conduct Monitoring Committee of the CA should be immediately

appointed and should undertake investigations into absences and other

violations of the CA Rules and Regulations. Strict penalties should be

stipulated and enforced including fines and expulsion.

6. All meetings of the Conduct Monitoring Committee of the CA should be

recorded and transcripts of said meetings should be available as public

record.

7. The CA Rules and Regulations should be revised to allow for more equitable

distribution of talk/discussion time among political parties during the CA

plenary.

8. Political parties should make a commitment to allocate speaking periods

in the CA plenary in an inclusive manner.

Attendance and Participation

in the Constituent Assembly

2



Martin Chautari

Introduction

Since the last minute extension of the ConstituentAssembly (CA) on 28 May, 2010 for an additionalyear, the CA has remained inactive. The extensionfollowed intensive negotiations and an agreementbetween the three major parties of the NepaliCongress (NC), Unified Communist Party of Nepal– Maoist (UCPN-M) and the Communist Party ofNepal – Unified Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML) onthree issues, including the resignation of PrimeMinister (PM) Madhav Kumar Nepal. While debatesover the implementation of the agreement initiallydelayed progress, the abrupt resignation of PM Nepalon 30 June, 2010 has since led to a prolonged politicaldeadlock over the selection of a new PM. The July18, 2010 official announcement of the new CAschedule1 (eleventh amendment) initially held promisethat the CA would again become functional.However, as epitomized by the on-going politicalimpasse, with little investment in trust-buildingmechanisms and a climate of confrontational politics,it is unclear how the remaining serious issues ofcontention within the draft concept papers producedby the CA will be resolved.2

With neither progress in the writing of theConstitution nor visible interest of the political leadersin the large and looming governing issues of thecountry – including increasing law and order problems,corruption and a lack of basic goods and services –issues of accountability have unsurprisingly come tothe fore. The euphoria of the CA elections in 2008 andthe promise of a new political beginning has given wayto the return of political apathy and cynicism. Nepal’spost-1990 history has amply demonstrated that politicalcorruption and administrative inefficiency

fundamentally defeat the purpose of representativedemocracy. Furthermore as in other countries, it isclear that the focus on elections as the source ofdemocratic accountability has served to both reducethe role of citizens to a series of discrete choice pointsand to encourage representatives to treat their officesas their “representational property” – seeing themselvesnot as temporary caretakers but as long-term titleholders.3

While much has been made of the fact that theCA is the most representative elected body in thehistory of Nepal, little is known about the role ofelected representatives within the institution.Contrary to the democratic practices of many othercountries,4 and as in the Nepali parliaments of thepast, the internal functioning of the CA in the presentis opaque.5 This has meant that voters – that is Nepalicitizens – do not possess the information that wouldenable them to hold their elected representativesaccountable either for specific legislative outcomes orprocesses. The focus on process is important as thiswill allow voters to advocate systemic reform of rulesthat would improve the legislature’s ability torepresent voters’ interest.

This Martin Chautari (MC) CA report focuses onthe attendance records of CA members as a means tohighlight issues of accountability and transparency.The report focuses on the role of CA solely as aconstitution drafting body, and not in itsparliamentary role. It also seeks to place the “mostrepresentative elected political body” in context byanalysing participation – as reflected in speakingrecords – of CA members. Both attendance and

1 The Kathmandu Post. 2010. CA okays new calendar of events.19 July, p. 3.

2 For more details, see the following Martin Chautari (MC)policy briefs: MC Policy Brief No. 1 “The Constituent AssemblyProcess” May 2009; MC Policy Brief No. 2 “Update on theConstituent Assembly” October 2009; and MC Policy Brief No. 3“Constitutional Complexities and Transitional Planning” April2010. All the briefs are available at www.martinchautari.org.np.

3 Guinier, Lani. 2008. Beyond electocracy: Rethinking thepolitical representative as powerful stranger. Modern Law Review71(1): 1-35.

4 The attendance records of members of the EuropeanParliament is well maintained and is publicly available. Likewise,in the US, every activity of the peoples’ representatives in thelegislature is publicly available and carefully scrutinized.

5 Illustrative of the lack of transparency and barriers toaccountability, access to attendance records was only granted withthe invocation of the “right to information.” Limited and supervisedaccess to data was then granted.

3



Martin Chautari

speaking records are analyzed according to gender,caste and ethnicity. The report begins with a shortmethodology section highlighting basic data issues.It is followed by analyses of attendance trends bypolitical parties, political leaders, and social groups.A section on speaking trends according to gender,caste, ethnicity and elected method (directly electedor via proportional representation) follows.Rationales given for absences and speaking trends arecovered in the last section before the concludingsegment of the report.

Research methodology

In the original two year mandated period of the CA,the full CA met 101 times. The study analyzes theparticipation of CA members in the constitutionmaking process based largely on their attendancerecord and frequency of speaking during thedeliberations of the full CA meetings.

At the outset, some methodological issues need tobe noted. As per the CA Rules and Regulations, 2008(chapter 2, article 4), a CA member is required to signin the attendance register maintained outside of theChamber before taking a seat in the CA sitting.However, while the attendance record provides cluesabout a member’s participation in the CA, it isnecessarily limited. For example, there is no way tocheck whether a member skipped the session aftersigning in the attendance register, a reportedly commonphenomenon.6 On the other side of the spectrum,reports state that while the late Girija Prasad Koiralaattended CA sessions three times, he never signed theattendance records.7 Furthermore, signing in andattending CA sessions does not say anything about thedegree of substantive involvement or contribution.

It is also important to note that not all the memberswere elected at the same time and that the compositionof the CA has been changing. After the by-election

in six constituencies on 10 April, 2009,8 theconfiguration of the CA was slightly changed. Inaddition, in the past two years political partiesrepresented in the CA have split and merged; someCA members have died while others have beenexpelled or have resigned from the CA after havingleft the parties from which they were elected.

Further complications to analyses have emergedfrom the identity categories utilized by the CA. CAmembers have been categorized into the followinggroups: Madhesis, Dalits, Janjatis and Others(Brahmin-Chhetri-Thakuri). Reflecting the largerdebates on these identity categories in the generalpublic sphere, there are overlaps and confusions. Forexample, Kumals have been put in the Madhesicategory although they consider themselves Janajatiand have raised this issue in the CA, the parliamentand given an official note to the government.9 To giveanother example, Uma Gothe Kapali of UCPN-Mparty has been put in the Hill (Newar) Dalit category,whereas she considers herself a Janajati.10 The CA hasincluded Newars and Tharus as Janajatis and MadhesiDalits, Muslims, and Marwaris as Madhesis.However, for the purposes of this study, the lattergroup has been disaggregated.11 Overall, analyses onthe bases of last names were undertaken and concernedCA members consulted where confusions have arisen.It is for these various reasons that the data base usedhere may differ from those previously cited, especiallythose directly following the 10 April, 2008 CAelections.

As noted above, the attendance record of 101sittings of the full house of the CA are covered.“Speaker-data” – that is data of those who spoke – isderived from the 55 meetings/discussions held on all

6 MC interview with a CA member; 21 February, 2010. See also,Rawal, Ram Bahadur. 2010. Ghumfirmai sabhasad. Nepal 10(36):34-36.

7 Pant, Khagendra, 2009. Sabai neta gayal. Naya Patrika,30 August, p. 2.

8 CA by-elections conducted in six constituencies. www.nepalnews.com/archive/2009/apr/apr10/news15.php (Accessedon 1 September, 2010).

9 MC interview; 17 May, 2010.10 MC interview; 19 May, 2010.11 According to one Marwari CA member, the Nepal Marwari

Parishad had protested the inclusion of Marwaris within theMadhesi category. MC interview; 19 May, 2010.

4



Martin Chautari

eleven of the different draft concept papers.12 The totaltime allocated for the discussion on any concept paperis 30 hours in five days (6 hours a day). Each speakeris allowed to speak for only three minutes. However,CA members can and do request to take the time ofothers within their own parties.13 Importantly, notall members can speak in the full house. Discussiontime is allocated according to the member strengthof the political parties in the CA. For example, theUCPN-M with 238 members gets 712 minutes in totalwhereas the NC with 114 members gets 341 minutesto speak on a concept paper. Citing three minutes asinsufficient time in which to put across one’s opinionon a report, smaller parties had requested the timeallocated to them be extended to 20 minutes, but tono avail.14 Thus members of six parties and twoindependent candidates are only allocated threeminutes in total to speak over the five days in whichdiscussions of the concept paper are to be held. Exactlywho gets to speak within the time allocated for partiesis decided by the chief whip of the party at the CA.

Lastly, it is important to note that while analyzingthe data, percentage figures and not absolute numbershave been used as not all the members were elected atthe same time. CA members from different politicalparties and social groups have also been interviewedfor their own views and analyses of attendance andspeaking rates within the CA. The next section dealswith various attendance issues.

Attendance trends

On average, the CA members have an attendance rateof 63 percent. In other words, on average over a thirdof the CA members were always absent. For purposesof comparison, in the European Parliamentattendance record was 84 percent or more for allparties from mid July 2009 to present,15 while in Indiafor the Budget Session (22 February to 7 May, 2010),attendance for the lower house (Lok Sabha) was 82percent and 78 percent for the upper house (RajyaSabha).16 That is, attendance records of people electedto a body specifically to write a new Constitution ofNepal – arguably a historically more important bodythan parliament – is much lower than theparliamentary attendance records of other countries.Important to note is that from 14 May, 2008 to 13April, 2010 (the period that covers the 101 full CAmeetings), NRs. 1,39,25,32,896 from the State treasurywas spent on CA members’ salary and allowances,cost of conducting committee meetings, CA andparliament.17 This does not include the expenditurefor a month and a half before the 28 May, 2010deadline, or the money donors have spent separately.For all the money spent and the importance of writinga new Constitution after much struggle andbloodshed, 63 percent attendance is poor showing.

Political parties’ participation in the CA

The CA currently has at least one representative from24 political parties. The UCPN-M is the biggest partyin the CA with a member strength a little less than 40

12 The full house of the CA holds discussions on draft conceptpapers prepared and submitted by each committee. The elevencommittees are: Committee on Preservation of National Interest;Committee on Protection of Rights of Minorities and MarginalizedCommunities; Committee on Determination of Structure ofConstitutional Bodies; Committee on Distribution of NaturalResources, Financial Rights and Public Revenue; Committee onDetermination of Cultural and Social Solidarity; Committee onDetermination of Nature of Legislative Bodies; Committee onJudicial System; Committee on Fundamental Rights and DirectivePrinciples; the Constitutional Committee; Committee onRestructuring of the State and Distribution of Power; and theCommittee on Determination of Forms of Governance of the State.

13 MC interview with CA secretariat official; 17 May, 2010.This has resulted in variations in the number of speakers on anyone day.

14 MC interview; 17 May, 2010.

15 See, www.votewatch.eu/cx_epg_attendance.php (Accessed on20 July, 2010).

16 These figures are higher than those for the Winter Session2009 in which attendance figures for the lower and upper housewere 66 percent and 68 percent respectively. PRS LegislativeResearch. Parliament in Budget Session 2010. www.prsindia.org/index.php?name=Sections&action=bill_details&id=5&bill_id=1152&category=60&parent_category=0 (Accessed on 31 August,2010).

17 Dahal, Phanindra. 2010. Million dollar CA at death’s door.The Kathmandu Post, 28 May, p. 3.

5



Martin Chautari

percent (39.6% or 238).18 NC comes second and CPN-UML comes third with member strengths of18.97 percent (114) and 18.14 percent (109)respectively. The Madhesi Peoples’ RightsForum (MPRF) is the fourth biggest party with8.82 percent (53) member strength.19 AnotherMadhes-centric party Tarai Madhes DemocraticParty (TMDP) accounts for 3.66 percent (22)whereas the Communist Party of Nepal –Marxist-Leninist (CPN-ML) and NepalSadbhawana Party both have around 1.5 percent(9) of the representatives in the 601-memberCA. The Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) has atotal of 8 members which accounts for 1.33percent. The small 16 parties have less than onepercent of the representatives in the CA. Theattendance rates of the political parties are notedin Figure 1.

The attendance average of the three big parties– UCPN-M, NC, and CPN-UML – is near theoverall average. More specifically, even thoughthe UCPN-M has more than double themembers of NC and CPN-UML each, thepresence of the Maoist CA members in the CAproceedings is just below the average (62.17%).This is less than the average for NC members(63.51%) and CPN-UML members (66.01%).

Among the bigger parties, MPRF fares worstof all when it comes to presence in the CAsittings. More than half of the MPRF CAmembers are absent in the CA sittings at any giventime – their average attendance rate is 47.23 percent.Two other Madhes based parties Nepal SadbhawanaParty and Nepal Sadbhawana Party-Anandi Devi alsohave poor attendance records (40.59% and 39.93%respectively). Nepa Rastriya Party – which has just asingle representative in the CA via the Proportional

Representative (PR) system, and hails fromKathmandu valley – has the highest average attendancerate of all the political parties in the CA (88.12%).Samajbadi Prajantantrik Janta Party has the secondhighest attendance rate (87.13%).

Leading by example

If on average more than a third of the CA memberswere absent on any given business day, the attendancerate of the top leadership is even worse. Table 1provides a glimpse of the attendance records of someof the top political and well-known figures of the CA.

18 Two parties Jana Morcha Nepal and CPN-Unified were mergedinto the CPN-M to form the UCPN-M.

19 MPRF is now split into two parties: the Upendra Yadav, JayaPrakash Gupta led faction retains the old party name whereas thefaction led by Bijaya Gachchedar is called MPRF (democratic).For the ease of analysis we have treated them as one single entity.

Figure 1: Average attendance rate of various parties

6



Martin Chautari

Table 1. Attendance rate of some familiar and

influential political figures in the CAName Attendance rate

(percentage)Sher Bahadur Deuba (NC) 1.98Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ (UCPN-M) 6.93Bijaya Kumar Gachchedar (MPRF) 9.90Rajendra Mahato (NSP) 11.88Sharatsingh Bhandari (MPRF) 14.74Krishna Bahadur Mahara (UCPN-M) 14.85Upendra Yadav (MPRF) 19.80Madhav Kumar Nepal (CPN-UML) 20.25Ram Bahadur Thapa ‘Badal’ (UCPN-M) 20.79Arju Rana Deuba (NC) 22.77Renukumari Yadav (MPRF) 24.75Baburam Bhattarai (UCPN-M), Jhalanath 27.72

Khanal (CPN-UML), Pradeep Giri (NC)Jaya Prakash Gupta (MPRF) 29.27Diwakar Golchha (NC) 29.70Narayanman Bijukchche (NWPP), 30.69

Top Bahadur Rayamajhi (UCPN-M)Binod Kumar Chaudhary (CPN-UML) 31.68Amik Sherchan (UCPN-M) 33.66Hitman Shakya (UCPN-M) 35.64Prakash Sharan Mahat (NC) 36.63Mahanth Thakur (TMDP) 38.14Hisila Yami (UCPN-M) 39.60Shankar Pokhrel (CPN-UML) 40.59Lucky Sherpa (CPN-UML) 42.57Gagan Thapa (NC) 44.55Pasang Sherpa (CPN-UML) 46.39Pampha Bhusal (UCPN-M) 47.52Ram Sharan Mahat (NC), 48.51

Pari Thapa (CPN-Unified)Ram Chandra Paudel (NC) 49.50Jayapuri Gharti (UCPN-M) 52.48Sapana Pradhan Malla (CPN- UML) 68.32Rajendra Kumar Khetan (CPN-ML) 93.81

Across party lines, top leaders are not attendingthe CA in any meaningful sense. Senior NC leaderSher Bahadur Deuba has the worst record when itcomes to attending the CA sittings.20 According tothe records maintained by the CA, Deuba attendedthe CA plenary only twice during the whole twoyears of the CA. Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda,’leader of the largest party in the CA, UCPN-M, has

an attendance rate of just under seven percent(attendance of seven meetings in total), the secondlowest, with Bijaya Gachchedar (MPRF) coming inthird lowest with just under a ten percent attendancerate (ten meetings).

Maoist leaders Baburam Bhattarai, Ram BahadurThapa, Krishna Bahadur Mahara, NC leadersMohammad Aftab Alam, Pradeep Giri, CPN-UMLleaders Madhav Kumar Nepal, Jhalanath Khanal andMPRF leaders Upendra Yadav, Sharatsingh Bhandariand Jaya Prakash Gupta, all fare badly; theirattendance rate is below 30 percent. NC’sparliamentary party leader at the CA Ram ChandraPoudel’s record is relatively better among the topleadership, with an attendance rate of just less than50 percent.

Other influential and popular figures such as BhimRawal, Shalikram Jamakattel, Arju Rana Deuba, AmikSherchan, Mahanth Thakur, Ram Sharan Mahat,Gagan Thapa, Lucky Sherpa, Pampha Bhusal, HisilaYami, Prakash Sharan Mahat, Shankar Pokhrel,Shekhar Koirala etc. have been absent in the CAdeliberations more than fifty percent of the time.

In terms of the other spectrum of attendance, AgniKharel of CPN-UML with 97 percent has the highestattendance record. The following members hold thetop five attendance rates: Agni Kharel, Man BahadurMahato (NC) and Lakshman Prasad Ghimire (NC)both 96 percent, Rajendra Kumar Khetan (CPN-ML)and Nilamber Acharya (NC) both 94 percent.

The absence of the top leaders from the CA isimportant beyond the obvious fact that they, alongwith the other CA members, were given the task ofwriting the Constitution by citizens. Contrary to CARules and Regulations, these leaders had been absentfor more than ten consecutive meetings without priornotice. As per the Constituent Assembly Rules, 2008(chapter 16, article 132), it is mandatory that:

(1) Members shall give prior notice to the Chairperson if

they are going to be absent for ten or more consecutive

Sittings. (2) Members shall give prior notice to the

Chairperson if they are to remain absent for less than ten

consecutive Sittings. In case they are unable to inform the

20 The late Girija Prasad Koirala also rarely attended. However,apart from not signing in when he did attend as mentioned above,he was also of frail health. Signing in is, however, mandatoryaccording to CA Rules and Regulations.

7



Martin Chautari

Chairperson beforehand for any valid reason, members

shall give notification of the same within three days of

when they return to the Assembly. (3) In the notification

pursuant to Sub-rule 1 or 2, the member shall clearly state

the duration of the absence and the reason for being absent.

In the case the notification is made according to Sub-rule 1,

the Chairperson shall inform the Assembly and in the case

of Sub-rule 2, the Chairperson shall approve him/herself.

The CA Rules and Regulations themselves aresilent on what happens if the rule is violated by themembers, but the above clearly puts the onus of actionon the CA Chair.21 But, in terms of their participationin the Committee meetings, the rules are morespecific: if a member fails to appear in fourconsecutive meetings, the Committee Chair may expelthe member from the committee and inform thedecision to CA (chapter 11, article 77).

However, according to the Interim Constitution2007, Chapter 7, article 67(c), the seat of a member ofa CA is said to be deemed vacant “if he/she remainsabsent from ten consecutive meetings withoutnotification to the Assembly.” Again, none of theleaders had given in any such notifications before aNepali national daily broke the story at the very endof August 2009.22

The public revelation of the violation of these rulesand their consequences in terms of leaders no longerlegally being CA members was telling. While CAchairperson Subhash Nembang had continuouslypointed out their absences meant that their CAmemberships would be invalidated,23 it was only afterthe news broke that political leaders took action.

According to consequent coverage, NC leader GirijaPrasad Koirala had put in his leave request the daythe news broke,24 while others followed a few dayslater.25 Citing CA Rules, article 132, the leaders hadsubmitted the requests for leave reportedly on theadvice of CA Chair Nembang.26 However, theregulations state that if requests for leave cannot bemade before leave is taken, the CA member must givea written notice to the CA secretariat as to the reasonsfor their absence (along with an explanation as to whyadvance notice could not be given) within three daysof attending the CA. Apart from the fact that therequests have been couched in vague language –attendance was not possible “for various reasons”27 –these requests have been accepted retroactively, eventhough there is no such provision mentioned in therules. However, since the public revelation and theleaders’ pro-active leave requests in September of 2009,there has been no change in the behavior of theleaders. Absence of the leaders for consecutive daysand without prior notice has continued.28

The failure of leaders to attend and comply withthe CA Rules and Regulations they themselves craftedis further examined by analyzing the attendancerecords according to social groups and electionmethod.

Gender and caste/ethnicity

In the 601 member Constituent Assembly, there are404 men (67.22%) and 197 women (32.78%).Disaggregated in terms of caste and ethnicity, thereare 200 members (33.28%) from the Brahmin-Chhetri-

21 This was point made by the then Nepal Bar Association ChairBishwa Kanta Mainali. See, Pant, Khagendra. 2009. ‘Yi gaye.’Naya Patrika, 2 September, p. 2.

22 See, Pant, Khagendra. 2009. Sabai neta gayal. Naya Patrika,30 August, pp. 1, 2; and Pant, Khagendra. 2009. Antarim samvidhan,2063 anusar Madhav, Prachanda, Girija, Jhalanath, Upendra raBaburamko savidhansabha sadasyata kharej hune. Naya Patrika,1 September, pp. 1, 2. See also MC Policy Brief No. 2, October2009, pp. 5-6; available at www.martinchautari.org.np

23 Pant, Khagendra. 2009. Antarim samvidhan, 2063 anusarMadhav, Prachanda, Girija, Jhalanath, Upendra ra Baburamkosavidhansabha sadasyata kharej hune. Naya Patrika, 1 September,p. 2.

24 Pant, Khagendra. 2009. Jhalanathle jhela gare. Naya Patrika,6 September, p. 2.

25 See, Pant, Khagendra. 2009. Pad jogauna netaharule dina thalenivedan. Naya Patrika, 1 September, pp. 1, 3; and Pant, Khagendra.2009. Prachandale balla mage aghillo ek varshako bida. Naya Patrika,11 September, pp.1, 2.

26 Pant, Khagendra. 2009. Pad jogauna netaharule dina thalenivedan. Naya Patrika, 1 September, pp. 1, 3.

27 Pant, Khagendra. 2009. Pad jogauna netaharule dina thalenivedan. Naya Patrika, 1 September, p. 3.

28 Pant, Khangendra. 2010. Neta pheri gayal. Naya Patrika,10 January, pp. 1, 2.

8



Martin Chautari

Thakuri (or ‘Other’) community; 213 (35.44%)Janajatis; 111 (18.47%) Madhesis; 49 (8.15%) Dalits(including Madhesi and Hill Dalits); 17 (2.83%)Muslims and 11 (1.83%) Marwaris in the CA (see,Figure 2). The CA, as is often noted, is the mostrepresentative elected body in Nepal’s history.

Figure 2: Composition of CA

in terms of caste/ethnicity

Compared to their male counterparts, women CAmembers’ attendance in the CA sittings is encouraging(Figure 3). The average attendance rate of male CAmembers is 59.42 percent, whereas the same is 66.18percent for female CA members.

Figure 3: Attendance rate according to gender

In terms of attendance of different social groups,Figure 4 shows that the Hill Dalits have the highestattendance rate of 69 percent. Janajatis and ‘Others’(Brahmin-Chhetri-Thakuri) follow with almost 64percent. Marwaris have the lowest attendance rate

(52%) followed by Madhesis (53%) and Muslims(56%). Notable is that Madeshi Dalits have higherattendance rates (60%) than Muslims, Madhesis andMarwaris.

Figure 4: Attendance rate of different social groups

The next section examines trends in speakingduring the full house of the CA.

CA plenary and discussions

on draft concept papers

Overall 347 hours 39 minutes were spent in the 101full CA sittings. On average a CA meeting lasted for3 hours and 44 minutes; the shortest being fiveminutes and the longest 8 hours and 15 minutes. Outof the 330 hours (in 55 days) allocated for thediscussion on eleven draft concept papers, the CAused up 323 hours 38 minutes – that is approximately98 percent of the allocated time. On an average 5.8hours were spent each day to discuss a concept paper.

The discussions on the draft concept papers preparedby five committees – namely, Committee onDetermination of Cultural and Social Solidarity;Fundamental Rights and Directive PrinciplesCommittee; Constitutional Committee; Committee onDetermination of Forms of Governance of the Stateand Committee on Restructuring of the State andDistribution of Power – lasted for thirty or morehours. The total discussion time on the draft conceptpapers of the remaining six committees was less thanthe stipulated time. The discussion on the draft conceptpaper prepared by the Committee on Protection ofRights of Minorities and Marginalized Communities

9



Martin Chautari

took up the least of the allocated time: 25 hours and 25minutes, i.e., 4 hours 35 minutes less than actual 30hours set aside. The Committee on Restructuring ofthe State and Distribution of Power took up the mosthours, exceeding the given time by nearly six hours.

As mentioned above in the methodology section,talk-time is distributed proportionately among theparties according to their member-strength. Speechfrequency unsurprisingly follows similar pattern.However, disaggregating speaker-data in terms ofsocial groups reveals certain trends (see Figure 5 and6).

Figure 5: Percentage of speakers according to gender

The record maintained by the CA secretariat showsthat among all the speakers that spoke during thediscussions on draft concept paper, nearly two thirds(66%) are men, and one third (34%) are women. Thuswhile women have a higher attendance record thanmen (66% to 59%), they speak less in the plenary thanmen.

Figure 6: Percentage of speakers

from different social group

Figure 6 shows that those members falling underthe ‘Other’ category (Brahmin, Chhetri and Thakuri)speak the most. Of all the speakers in the plenaries,41.26 percent are from the ‘Other’ category, nearlyeight percent more than their strength in the CA.Overall, excluded groups speak less than theirmember-strength. In the case of Madhesis, thedisparity between their member-strength and speakingfrequency is notable, nearly six percent less than theirstrength in the CA.

Figure 7: Percentage of speakers

according to election method

The data also reveals that those elected via theproportional representation (PR) method appear totalk more in the CA than those directly elected bythe people (see Figure 7). The ratio of members electedvia PR and first-part-the-post (FPTP) method is 60:40,however when it comes to taking up time during thediscussions on subject committee reports, the ratiobecomes 67:33.

Variations and causes

Interviews with CA members and CA secretariatofficials revealed various reasons and analyses for thelow attendance of CA members. These includedinternal and external dynamics.

Externally, overall blame for low attendance wasput on the larger parties (especially fromrepresentatives from the smaller parties) for theirfocus on government formation as opposed to theConstitution writing process. Other reasons includedthe need to be involved in party affairs as “responsible

10



Martin Chautari

members” of their respective parties, and the need tovisit constituencies to listen to grievances, developmentneeds etc. The latter was especially claimed by thosewho were elected directly (as opposed to throughproportional representation). According to a CAmember, there is a great deal of pressure as a directlyelected CA member to make such visits.29 Anothernoted that he had visited his constituency 244 days inthe last two years, not counting the 55 days or sospent in travel.30

In terms of external factors, many also cited non-governmental organization (NGO) and internationalnon-governmental organization (INGO) programs ascontributing factors to low attendance within theCA.31 Indeed, CA secretariat officials were specific instating that low attendance of CA members was dueto their going to programs organized by NGOs anddonors, even to the extent of signing in but leavingthe CA afterwards – something the CA ChairNembang had warned against.32 Similarly, foreignvisits of the members, again managed/organized byINGOs and donors were also mentioned as anothercontributing factor for the absence of the membersin the CA discussions.33 The exact number of NGO/INGO programs attended are hard to gauge for theobvious reasons – at any one day, numerous programsrelated to the Constitution take place.34 The numberof foreign trips made by different CA members isalso hard to track. The CA secretariat has a list ofCA members who have gone through them in order

to obtain visas. However, not all who are on that listhave actually gone and not all who have gone abroadhave informed the secretariat as donors often arrangevisas directly for them. There appears to be no centrallisting of such trips or donor coordination in theplanning and execution of such initiatives.35 However,according to a news report published in April 2010,more than 165 CA members have gone abroad at leastonce after their election to CA; some up to 10 times.36

Most of these foreign trips have been arranged byINGOs and the donor communities (includingforeign embassies) working in Nepal, although theCA itself also had sent some 10 groups (totaling 70members) to various countries in the name of studyvisits, bearing all the costs incurred.37 The CAmembers acknowledged that they attended theprograms of I/NGOs initially in great numbers, butstressed that they had later made a point to attendsuch programs less, and be more selective.38

In terms of internal dynamics within the CAcontributing to low attendance, the actual processes ofdeliberation within the CA was highlighted by someCA members. They noted the manner in whichdiscussions became boring once the leaders spoke asthe junior members of the same parties then parrotedwhat their leaders said.39 More concretely, it wasexplained that the top leaders spoke on the first day ofthe five day deliberations – often taking up 20-25minutes (by “borrowing” time from other partymembers) – as it was felt important to clearly establishthe party line right at the beginning.40 The following

35 MC attempts to obtain names of CA members from donorshave been of limited success. This raises larger issues of thetransparency and accountability of donors themselves.

36 As reported by Rawal, Ram Bahadur. 2010. Ghumfirmaisabhasad. Nepal 10(36): 34-36.

37 According to the news report, the total cost incurred amountsto one million rupees. See, Rawal, Ram Bahadur. 2010. Ghumfirmaisabhasad. Nepal 10(36): 34-36. Relatedly, issues over the non-transparent manner in which CA members have been selected bythe CA secretariat has been raised. MC interviews; 18 May and16 July, 2010.

38 MC interviews; 15 and 21 February, 2010.39 MC interviews; 21 February, 17 and 25 May, 2010.40 MC interview; 25 May, 2010.

29 MC interview; 20 July, 2010.30 MC interview; 7 July, 2010.31 MC interviews; 15, 19 and 21 February, 2010.32 Rawal, Ram Bahadur. 2010. Ghumfirmai sabhasad. Nepal

10(36): 34.33 MC interviews; 15, 19 and 21 February, 2010.34 Interviewees made clear that “travel costs” and other payments

by donors, INGOs and NGOs to attend such programs is anattractive incentive for CA members. This clearly draws CAmembers from their primary work in the CA. Furthermore, whilethis can be justified to some extent in terms of “learning” etc.,questions have been raised over making such payments “the norm”for what should be taken as either learning exercises and/or partand parcel of fulfilling their duties. MC interviews with donors;11 and 20 August, 2010.

11



Martin Chautari

days were then taken up by junior party leadersreiterating the same lines, with thus little incentive forothers to then attend the plenary. For others, lowattendance was ascribed to the feeling that little couldbe achieved given that the leaders (i.e. decision-makers)themselves did not attend.41 Overall, a clear hierarchicalpolitical culture in which the top political leaders areto take the lead in contouring the debates was evident.

Another excuse often furnished for low turnoutwas that there is very little time available for themembers to comment on any given issue/paper.42 Andsince they could contribute very little, interest toohad waned.43 A few however challenged thisproposition as merely an excuse; a member can alwaysprovide written comments if she or he so wishes.According to CA secretariat officials, not a singlemember has submitted a written comment (except forthe note of dissents on the CA draft concept papers).44

That CA members might have felt that they hadfulfilled their responsibilities after completing theircommittee paper drafts was noted as anotherpossibility for low turn-out.45

Analyzing the differences in attendance data, bothmale and female CA members attributed women’shigher attendance to their sincerity, discipline, andenthusiasm to learn. Men also added that they had tobe more involved in party affairs than women.Further, it was said that because more women wereelected via the PR method, they were less busy thanthe directly elected who had constituencies to tendto. It was also claimed that men were more occupiedwith obtaining ministerial posts or other lucrativedeals – which is not the case for women members –and are thus more absent in the CA.46 Interestingly,when asked about the low attendance of top femalepolitical leaders, one female CA member noted thattheir low attendance might extend from the fact that

41 MC interview; 17 May, 2010.42 MC interview; 15 February, 2010.43 MC interviews; 15, 17, 23 and 25 February, 2010.44 MC interviews with CA secretariat officials; 18 February and

17 May, 2010.45 MC interview; 17 May, 2010.46 MC interviews; 17 and 18 February, 2010.

47 MC interview; 25 May, 2010.48 MC interview; 25 May, 2010.49 MC interviews; 17 May, 2010.50 MC interview; 25 May, 2010.51 MC interviews; 8 September, 2010.52 MC interviews; 21 February and 17 May, 2010.53 MPRF was a major coalition partner in the UCPN-M led

government, which fell apart when the Maoist tried to sack thethen army chief Rookmangud Katwal. The MPRF split into twogroups over the issue of joining the Madhav Kumar Nepal (ofCPN-UML) led government. See, MC Policy Brief No. 1 “TheConstituent Assembly Process” (May 2009) for further details;available at www.martinchautari.org.np

they thought themselves senior leaders, and thereforetoo busy/important to attend the CA.47

In terms of speaking within the CA, thoughwomen members’ attendance rate is higher than theirmale counterparts, the speaker-data shows that theiractual involvement (measured solely in terms offrequency of speech during the deliberation on draftconcept papers) is less than that of men. Men mayattend less, but they speak more. It was claimed thatthe main reason that women were unable to get timeto speak was because party leaders and the party whipare all men.48 Thus female CA members from largeparties complained that despite requests, they weregiven little time to speak as the allocated time wastaken up by the big leaders.49

Overall, the lack of self confidence and thedifference between local and national politics werecited as barriers to participation of members ofexcluded groups and of the newer political faces inthe CA.50 For Janajatis, the problem of not being ableto speak “pure” Nepali and not being understood inone’s own language was stressed, as was the lack ofknowledge on issues raised.51

In comparative terms, Madhesi members clearlytended to attend less and speak less in the CA. Apartfrom issues of language and knowledge base,52 manyof the interviewed Madhesi CA members blamed theirpoor record in the CA on the split that occurred inthe MPRF on the issue of joining/supporting theMadhav Kumar Nepal led government.53 After thevertical split in the party, some claimed that the overallmorale of the members fell and this seriously impacted

12



Martin Chautari

Madhesi CA members’ presence in the CA plenary.54

Furthermore, those who became part of the factionled by Bijay Gachchedar joined the government andforgot the CA while those of Upendra Yadav’s factionmoved to the districts in order to consolidate theparty at the local level. In addition, low Madhesiparticipation was claimed as resulting from a lack ofconfidence that Madhesi issues would be addressedby the CA.55 However, more self-critical remarks werealso voiced. Some Madhesi CA members attributedlow attendance and low participation to the fact thatthey had done little serious work, had no clear vision,were out for individual interests and did not“understand their own responsibilities.”56

For Dalit CA members, low speaking rates wereattributed to the lack of self-confidence, a result ofhistorical factors and the fact that while there are DalitCA members who have political experience, this hasall been at the local level, far different from having tospeak at the CA rostrum. In terms of Madhesi Dalits,low speaking rates were also attributed to the factthat there are more women than men in this category– the inference being that women speak less than men.57

However, CA members also clearly stated thatMadhesi and Dalit CA members were not able tofreely speak because of the need to obey the partywhip and to avoid being singled out by the top leadersof the parties.58 A Madhesi CA member, complainingabout the need to toe the line within such parties asthe UCPN-M, CPN-UML and the NC and what hesaw as the practice of having Madhesi CA membersas mere tokens, asked “What kind of Constitutionwill be made if those who have come to make themain law are not able to freely speak their maincommunity’s case?”59 While one Madhesi party

54 While average attendance prior to the split was higher (57.96%compared to 52.87% after the split), both numbers are below theaverage attendance rate of 63 percent.

55 MC interview with senior Madhesi CA leader and CA member;17 February, 2010.

56 MC interviews; 17 and 26 May, 2010.57 MC interviews; 16, 17 and 25 May, 2010.58 MC interviews; 16, 17 and 26 May, 2010.59 MC interview; 26 May, 2010.

60 MC interview; 17 May, 2010.61 MC interview; 12 January, 2010.62 MC interviews with CA members and CA secretariat official;

17 and 25 May, 2010.63 MC interview; 17 May 2010.64 See, MC Policy Brief No. 1 “The Constituent Assembly

Process” (May 2009) for further details; available atwww.martinchautari.org.np

65 See, www.lawcommission.gov.np (Accessed on 12 September,2010).

member blamed his party leaders for not payingattention to who is and who is not speaking, statingthat there was no real discrimination in getting timeto speak,60 CA secretariat sources said that thediscussions over the committee reports have also beencompleted in less than the stipulated amount of timeas the Madhes based parties did not utilize theirallocated periods.61

Lastly, and importantly, many interviewees madeexplicit the fact that it is the top political leaders whodecide who gets to speak.62 According to one CAmember the larger percentage of speakers from PRas opposed to the directly elected appears to holdsimilar logic: most leaders have come through the PRsystem and they are the ones who speak the most.63

Conclusion

The analysis of the attendance and speaking recordsof the CA members reveals problems in the processesby which the Constitution is being written. The April2006 and the Madhes 2007 peoples’ movementspromised a tranformation in the workings of politicalparties and political processes. However, little appearsto have changed.

To begin with, as noted before,64 the CA Rulesand Regulations are structured to maximize politicalparty control over members. The Anti Defection Act1997, amended in January of 2010 to include the CAwithin its mandate,65 ensures votes of conscience areimpermissible. The party hierarchy and the party whipenables party leaders to control CA proceedings anddebates and ensure individual CA members remainwithin party control and lines. Despite the emphasison “inclusion” and “the most inclusive elected body

13



Martin Chautari

in Nepal’s history,” the actual internal functioningof the CA reveals the maintenance of structuredhierarchies and the exclusion of the marginalized.

In this vein, the overall trends in speaking are moreimportant for the power dynamics they reveal, thanactual “participation” of CA members. Morespecifically, this policy paper does not cover thecommittees. Clearly in terms of participation, it canbe argued that most of the hard work took place inthe committees and that more CA members werepresent and were actively involved given the relativelymore enabling, informal environment.66 Regardless,theoretically the CA plenary debates should also allowCA members to voice their own views and opinionson consolidated drafts of the Constitution. Clearlythis has not happened. CA Rules and Regulations andpolitical party processes have reduced the value ofthis important forum.

Furthermore, the absence of senior leaders ofpolitical parties have been largely attributed to thepolitics of power distribution and consolidation –both in terms of the government and internal politicalparty dynamics. Indeed, the focus on “consensus” forthe peace-process has undermined the CA’simportance and the consequent “deals” and agreementshave only served to continue the pre-2006 politicalculture.

The rationale of the need to attend to “party work”or “the constituency” at the cost of attending the CAin general, speaks of the relatively low prioritizationgiven to the Constitution writing process in thecurrent political climate. It also importantly obscuresthe fact that CA members were elected specifically towrite a new Constitution. They are being paid andreceive entitlements such as housing allowances etc.,for the specific task of attending the CA and

participating in activities that contribute to the makingof the Constitution. Their constituency, in this vein,are all Nepali citizens who are best served by thefulfilling of their duties in terms of writing the newConstitution.

To end, if elusive outside the CA, internallyconsensus appears to have been reached among CAmembers in terms of breaching the CA Rules andRegulations they themselves scripted. Tellingly, the CAConduct Monitoring Committee to be formedaccording to chapter 18, article 146 of the CA Rulesand Regulations, does not exist. The Committee wouldhave the mandate to undertake required investigationsinto “publicly raised questions or notices given to thecommittee by anyone regarding violations by anymember of the Code of Conduct, as stated in Rule145, Sub-rule (1),” which include, abiding by rules andregularly participating in committee and plenarymeetings as well as voting. According to interviews,the committee has not been established as no-one hasyet given any such notice.67 It has thus been up to theindividual discretion of the CA Chair to hold CAmembers accountable. Clearly, more institutionalizedand transparent processes are necessary.

In Nepal, civil liberties, freedom of information,free plural and independent media, a robust civilsociety and associational life have been well recognizedas important parts of the democratic public sphere.What is often missed is that access to officialinformation and a public culture of transparency arealso vital to this sphere. Nepali citizens should possessthe information necessary to hold their electedrepresentatives accountable for either specific policy/legislative/constitutional outcomes or processes. Thisrequires understanding accountability and transparencyas being in the national interest.

66 Important to note is that past research has revealed the sameconstraining factors at work within committees as well. See, MCPolicy Brief No. 1 “The Constituent Assembly Process” (May2009) for further details; available at www.martinchautari.org.np

67 MC interviews with CA member and CA secretariat official;2 September, 2010.

��

in the constituent …himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/mcpb/pdf/...parties from mid...

Documents