Process initiated to testify disputes at CA ballot
N24 Correspondent, Kathmandu: Political parties who in the recent five point agreement had agreed to resolve all issues through consensus within three days by forming national consensus government, have ultimately failed to do so. They have instead decided to resort to the Constituent Assembly to resolve disputed issues through majority based voting on Saturday. The decision was taken after rounds of talks between them failed to bear fruit.
While still claiming that continuity will be given to discussions for garnering consensus, parties decided to further process to resolve disputed issues through majority based voting in the CA. The Dispute Resolution sub-committee under the Constitutional Committee, decided to opt for the regular process after efforts to garner consensus did not materialize.
Sub-committee coordinator Prachanda had proposed to further the majority-based voting system after 10 hours of continuous discussion failed to corner the contentious issues informed member of the sub-committee member Kalpana Rana. On Saturday morning, parties had deferred CC’s and sub-committee’s meeting hoping to garner consensus on the disputed issues by evening.
“It has been decided to prepare questionnaires on issues that have not been resolved by the sub-committee and resolve them through majority based voting process,” Prachanda said while exiting the meeting. UML Chairman Jhalnath Khanal added that along with preparing questionnaires and initiating the majority based voting process, efforts will be kept on to garner consensus on them.
While substantiating the information given by Prachanda and Khanal, UML leader Madhav Nepal added that the “sub-committee has prepared 30 questionnaires and they will be officially handed over to the CC on Sunday.” He further informed that the questionnaires will be than tabled in the CA.
Elaborating on the latest developments in resolving differences related to state restructuring, Nepal informed that though consensus has been reached with the Maoists on 11 federal provinces, differences still persist in boundaries and basis to name the states.
In the post five-point agreement period, political parties have concentrated on resolving differences surfaced in state restructuring while suspending the issue of forms of governance. Though parties had neared understanding on 11-state federal model on Friday evening, parties had remained at odds mainly over the basis to name them.
In comparison to Friday’s meeting, more differences surfaced among political parties on Saturday’s meeting informed Maoist leader Barsha Man Pun. “Yesterday discussions were positive to incorporate geography and historical factors to name the agreed 11-provinces. Comparatively todays discussions were not satisfactory,” Pun said.
The Maoists had shown flexibility in adopting historical context and ethnicity as the basis to name the states while preserving ethnic identity added Pun and claimed that the consensus could not be reached after NC and UML reverted back to their earlier stance.
Nepal, however denied having knowledge of Maoists acceptance for multi-ethnic states as claimed by Pun. “It is just a rumor of Maoists acknowledgement to adopt multiple bases to name the federal provinces,” Nepal said adding “During the 12 hour long discussion since morning, I never heard such a proposal from the Maoists.”
Maoist Vice Chairman Narayan Kaji Shrestha accused Congress of retreating back to its earlier stance from the 11 province model. He claimed that the Congress did not show flexibility on its stance, though the Moaists had agreed to show flexibility on the boundaries and basis to name the states.
Expressing concerns that the unwillingness of the parties would derail the constitution writing process, Shrestha informed that his party had even proposed to form a commission for finalizing the boundaries of the federal states.
Congress Vice President Ram Chandra Paudel had a different story to tell the reporters while exiting the meeting. He claimed that the Congress had tabled its 8-province model by revising the 7 province model tabled by Maoist Chief Prachanda during the Hattiban meeting. “We too are in favor of providing ethnic identity while restructuring the nation. It’s not true that the Congress had retreated from its 8 province model,” Paudel said. He further informed that differences on naming and boundaries of the proposed 11 province model and ruled out that any talks were done on adopting multiple basis to name the states.