This process of consultation and analysis was conducted without a prior, plenary
discussion by the CA. This meant that different committees were pursuing different
agendas, and there was some overlap. But most committees worked diligently
and were able to negotiate a set of recommendations. The recommendations were
to go to the constitution committee, which was to harmonise and integrate them.
For various reasons, principally continuing rivalries among the major political
parties, that committee was able to achieve little. The CA failed to meet the two-
year deadline for the new constitution and, at the last minute ( 28 May 2010 ), the IC
was amended to extend its life. This delay resulted in the resignation of the prime
minister, but it proved difficult to choose a successor – it took seven months and
seventeen rounds of voting (and a secret pact between two political parties) to elect
a successor. It took another three months to fill all the Cabinet posts. The twelve
months were running out, without any real progress on the Constitution. Another
extension, of six months (to November 2011 ), was voted. Disagreements among
parties continued and another extension of six months was secured for the CA by
an amendment of the IC (on 29 November 2011 ), after the resignation of the prime
minister and the election of another. These extensions were made not in reliance
on Article 64 , as it could not be argued that the delay was due to an emergency.
Instead the IC was amended each time. The requirement for amendment is
relatively easy (see below).
Although by now considerable work had been done on the Constitution, at this
point the Supreme Court declared that any further extension would be unconsti-
tutional. Even this threat did not propel the leaders into making final decisions,
and the CA was dissolved on 27 May 2012 without completing its task. Plans made
by the CA’s Public Opinion Co-ordinating Committee to consult the public on
drafts had by then dwindled to nothing.
The lack of progress in concluding the Constitution is due almost entirely to
the inability of leaders of major political parties to resolve differences, even when
their deputies might have reached agreement. While it is true that integration
of armies took longer than expected, more attention should have been paid
to progress on the Constitution. As it is, the marginalised groups are likely to
interpret the delays as lack of concern for constitutional recognition of their
rights. Indeed, soon after the CA dissolution, a large number of Janajati leaders
left the main parties to form their own, but have been divided over what
ideological focus, other than inclusion and federalism, it should have, with the
result that the new party is not yet in existence.
7
The new government, led by Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai, promised elec-
tions to the CA by November 2012 , but that did not happen. In fact, Bhattarai had
mooted the idea of recalling the dissolved CA briefly to promulgate a constitution
(^7) ‘New Janajati party likely before Tihar’,Kathmandu Post, 11 October 2012.