The Nepali Congress central working committee meets today, and the CPN-UML central committee on Saturday, to discuss the election outcome and to decide whether they will join the Maoist-led new government. The CPN-UML standing committee that had met soon after the poll defeat of CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal had decided to pull out of the Koirala-led coalition government and also not to join the next government, on the grounds that the people’s verdict indicated that the party should remain outside the government. However, the party said it would play a ‘constructive role’ in preparing a new constitution’, the central function of the CA. CPN-UML leaders also spoke of sitting in the opposition. For its part, the Nepali Congress is undecided. This week or the next, the final positions of both the parties will be clear.

Both the parties are split over whether to join in or not. Conflicting voices are emanating from the central leaders of the two parties and their sister organisations. However, the question of portfolios may not pose a hindrance to forming a coalition government – the Maoists have shown signs of flexibility in this respect. In contrast, the Congress had been inflexible on sharing those portfolios considered to be the most powerful with any other party, namely Defence, Home and Finance. The collective duty of all the parties, including the new ones, will be to draw up a democratic constitution based on equality, justice and inclusiveness. It will have to incorporate the spirit of Jana Andolan II and adjust the understandings, agreements and commitments made so far, such as the implementation of republicanism and federalism.

The understandings and agreements between the constituents of the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) provide for governance based on consensus until the peace process is complete. That means they will have to sit in the same government at least until the CA

finalises a new constitution, and until even a general election is held. Furthermore, not long before the April 10 CA election, the three big SPA partners had reached an understanding that the party that would emerge as the biggest in the CA election would lead the government, with the others also participating. So, staying out would be tantamount to evading an important responsibility entrusted by Jana Andolan II. Furthermore, the constitution-making process is a complex and lengthy one, all the more so this time around, because of republicanism, federalism and other issues of state restructuring. If consensus is not possible on any matter in the CA, decision will require a two-thirds majority. No single party commands such a majority, not even a 51 per cent one. Besides, the CA is an elected constitution-making body, not a regular parliament. Talking of playing an opposition role, and a ‘constructive one at that’ is hardly convincing; it would smack of an uncooperative attitude. A question arises: Would the Nepali Congress or the CPN-UML be supporting such an argument if the total number of its Constituent Assembly seats and that of the CPN-Maoist had been the other way round and the Maoists had been talking of non-participation?