Might the CA also require the new constitution to seek public approval in a
referendum? Article 157 authorises the CA, through a vote of two-thirds of members
present, to refer to a referendum matters of ‘national importance’ on which it is
necessary to make a decision (‘except as otherwise provided elsewhere in the
Constitution’). The purpose and scope of this article is not immediately clear,
but some clues regarding its function may be gleaned by noting where the article
has been placed in the IC and by parsing the definition of what constitutes
conditions under which the article can be used: the article is located in the chapter
titled ‘Miscellaneous’, just before the article dealing with the ‘power to remove
difficulties’, and the referendum is to deal with a matter not ‘otherwise provided
elsewhere in the Constitution’. This treatment accorded the article suggests that a
referendum may be used for deciding the outcome of something unexpected,
something sufficiently critical that it must be decided by the people, regardless of
the cost or complexity of a referendum. As the procedures for the adoption
of provisions of the new constitution are set out at some length in Part 7 of the
IC, it is unlikely that the referendum can be used to resolve an issue relating to
the new constitution. However, the general view seems to be that the referendum
may be used on important issues that failed to win a two-thirds majority.
Decision-making by the CA
The IC establishes a very complex decision-making system. While determination of
the future of the monarchy is kept simple – a majority verdict on whether to retain
the institution or not – all remaining decisions on the new constitution must be
adopted by unanimity (Article 70 ( 2 )). Failing such an outcome – even if there is
just one vote in opposition – the procedures for finding a new compromise come
into effect, requiring that the party political leaders engage in consultations with
each other over the following fifteen days, with a further vote then taking place
seven days after the completion of the consultation. If unanimous agreement is
still not reached, the decision can be made when two-thirds of the members of the
CA are present and if two-thirds of them vote in support of the original proposal
(Article 70 ( 6 )). It is a cumbersome and time-consuming process, but the intentions
seem to be honourable.
Time lines
On the question of the length of time allowed for the conclusion of the process,
there are generally two opposing views. One is that constitution-making is so
critical to the future of the country that it should not be rushed, that people
must be given ample opportunities to participate in the process, and that there
must be enough time provided for educating the people and consulting with
them. Others argue that if too much time is allowed, the members of the CA,