estled on the southern slopes of the majestic Himalayas, Nepal continues to be a favorite exotic destination for tourists. Its capital, Katmandu, has several geographic similarities with Denver. But the country has undergone rapid and difficult political changes in the last decade.
The centuries-old monarchy was abolished and the 10-year-old Maoist armed conflict, costing 12,000 lives, ended with a comprehensive peace agreement in 2006. The transition to a republic took place with the election of a Maoist-led government in August 2008. Several leftist parties merged, naming the party currently in power as the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Other major political parties include the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) and the main secular opposition party, the Nepali Congress Party.
In the company of a dozen international experts, I spent four days in Katmandu working on their new constitution with leaders of the government and the elected Constituent Assembly, which also functions as the Parliament. The major issues were the shape of the parliamentary/presidential government and electoral systems, human rights, secularism, and the nature of the federal structure and the judiciary.
Nepal is a pluralistic society. The country is multi-ethnic and multilingual. More than 80 percent of the population are Hindus, 11 percent are Buddhists, and there are Christian and Muslim minorities.
Sixty-one constitutional committee members have been consulting with representative groups throughout the country. The new constitution is planned to be completed by the end of May 2010.
The consensus has emerged that the country, thus far a Hindu kingdom, will be a secular state. Several Constituent Assembly members said the constitution should establish the role of the state vis-u-vis religion on the model of the U.S. Constitution, and that the secular government not be seen as anti-Hindu.
The general preference is for a parliamentary system. We recommended the constitution refer to the U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights and several international treaties on human rights as sources of interpretation for the constitution.
We also urged that the judiciary be independent and impartial. There is widespread recognition of the need to create more courts and to hire more judges and pay them better. Also, there is inadequate access to justice at the village level. However, there are insufficient resources to allocate for this purpose.
Nepal is so small and resource- poor that it must not be divided along ethnic and linguistic distinctions. Thus, we thought the constitution should divide the country into six to eight provinces on regional and geographic lines, taking into account history, culture, and the people’s wishes. Currently, a parliamentary system rather than presidential is favored.
There is general enthusiasm in Nepal about the new constitution. But the prevailing political climate is still one of uncertainty. The public has yet to be convinced that the Maoists and other political parties can work together. Corruption and nepotism add to the challenge. Also, the government has not held accountable those who committed egregious human-rights violations during the civil war.
The peace process is fragile. An enduring constitution for Nepal will help provide the necessary framework for the country’s governance. The international community — in particular India, China, the United States and the United Nations — must maintain an active engagement with the government, including financial support and an emphasis on transparency, human rights, and political pluralism.
Ved P. Nanda (vnanda@law.du.edu) is Evans Distinguished University Professor and director of International Legal Studies, University of Denver Sturm College of Law.
