Many high-ranking leaders of the biggest constituents of the seven-party alliance (SPA) are creating public confusion by their discordant voices on the most pressing issues awaiting resolution before the constituent assembly (CA) elections are held. These include questions of the dissolution of the House, arms management, and induction of the Maoists in an interim administration. The June 16 eight-point agreement provides for sending a formal request to the UN to help manage and monitor both the government and rebel armies and the weapons in their possession. Even the letter somewhat belatedly sent by the government to the world body is shrouded in mystery, the contents of which are yet to be made public. The Maoists have already protested against what they termed the government’s failure to consult them before sending it, which perhaps also requires their signature to enable the UN to undertake the job. The government is suspected to have written only of the need to manage the Maoist army and weapons. If so, the letter will be nothing more than a time-wasting tactic.

No less puzzling to some is PM Koirala’s expression of ‘surprise’ at and ignorance of the agreement among the CPN-Maoist, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML at Godavari last Friday on the creation, as some newspapers reported, of an ‘interim legislature’ to replace the restored House of Representatives. Talking to the press just after the 7-hour-long ‘informal’ Godavari parley, participating leaders had also said that a summit meeting would be held this Friday to discuss the modalities of an interim arrangement. Koirala’s surprise, expressed to Speaker Subash Nembang, who was leading a team to Baluwatar on Sunday to acquire further information about the controversial UN letter, has generated some confusion.

What may, however, have been a source of confusion is the name given to the interim arrangement to be put in place while dissolving the parliament. Certain sections of the media had carried the report speaking of an ‘interim legislature’ and certain politicos in the SPA may have been keen on this concept. But what is of central importance is that the three parties expressed their commitment to implement the 8-point agreement, which provides for an alternative arrangement while dissolving the parliament. The idea behind this is that there may not emerge any obstacles on the road to the CA polls as the country is making a transition from one constitution to an entirely new one to be fashioned by the CA and the subsequent political and other systems. In fact, there is no such thing as an ‘interim parliament’ that creates an interim government. The legislature has to be dissolved even under the 1990 Constitution, and, in many democracies, this is done while announcing a date for the general elections. Once the interim constitution now in the making spells out these arrangements, all confusion is expected to — and indeed should — disappear.