The possible arrangement that may replace the current House of Representatives in the run-up to the constituent assembly (CA) polls is being debated in public, and interested groups, such as the Maoists, the seven-party alliance (SPA), members of Parliament themselves, and others are floating their ideas for acceptance. There is nothing new or wrong about the rebels and the SPA claiming their shares in the new arrangement. What strikes one as bizarre is the idea that there should be a third claimant, the civil society, sharing power with the Maoists and the SPA in such a body. According to one idea, the current House is to be retained, and to it will be added over 100 MPs to be spread between the rebels and the civil society. Another idea argues for one-third of the seats in the interim legislature going to the Maoists, the SPA and the civil society each.

Ordinarily, the Maoists and the SPA should occupy the seats in the new legislative arrangement in such a way as to reflect the present political reality in the country. But why should seats go to the civil society also? It is not the job of the civil society to legislate. By definition, they only act as pressure groups in the interests of society, and play some form of opposition role. Their role normally stops at that point. But the moment they become political players in the parliament, they practically cease to be the civil society. Problems might also crop up because most of the civil society organisations are affiliated, one way or another, with some political party, and virtually all of them are foreign-funded, too. They are supposed to perform the role of a watchdog. In their announced programme of pressure beginning today, they should try their utmost to drive home the point that the powers-that-be must honour the mandate of the Jana Andolan II, and that, too, without delay.

But when they seek the political spoils for their contribution to the fight against autocracy, one wonders what happens to their credentials. What about the countless citizens who braved lathis and bullets but who did not belong to any civil society or political party? How are they going to be represented? If the civil society activists are interested in becoming politicians, they should join politics. The question of representation of women, Dalits, ethnic groups, or of geographical areas, might also arise. There should not be separate allocations for these; it is the duty of the political parties to include all these groups in their nominations. In addition, the ‘interim legislature’ cannot afford to be an omnibus. It should in fact be larger than the size of the council of ministers and considerably smaller than the existing parliament. The wholesale inclusion of civil society members may make the interim body unruly as there would be no party whip to discipline them. Actually, just an interim constitution and an interim government should suffice. The interim government formed after the 1990 Jana Andolan enjoyed both executive and legislative powers. Moreover, a big legislative arrangement, and an unwieldy one at that, will be counter-productive in terms of cost, public impression and effectiveness.