The 58th National Democracy Day was observed yesterday, as usual. Democracy or not, this

occasion has been celebrated every year since the fall of the hereditary prime ministerial system of the Ranas. The day was marked even during the thirty years of Panchayat autocracy, and also during the king’s direct rule just before the success of Jana Andolan II of April 2006. Dictators, too, have tended to seize on the popular term ‘democracy’ to try to leave the impression that their regimes are democratic. Now, at the time of the 58th year of the introduction of multiparty system, though it was punctuated by three decades of a total ban on the political parties, the country stands at a crossroads, ahead of the election to the Constituent Assembly — the most democratic exercise in constitution-making - that comes off on April 10, barely 50 days away. A battle royal is raging between the forces determined to hold the election on schedule and those who are out to prevent it by all means. The current disturbances in various parts of the country are, in considerable degree, manifestations of this.

Jana Andolan II has given the Nepali people individual freedoms and the right to make their voice heard to an extent unprecedented in Nepali history. And for the first time, they are going to decide exactly what kind of political system is best for them; whether the monarchy is to stay; exactly what kind of federal structure suits Nepal’s conditions best, or whether the unitary system will serve them better; and what other provisions should be put in place. And this constitution will be the people’s constitution. Those who perceive they are most likely to lose what remains of their power, privileges and influence have not been so enthusiastic about the CA polls — covertly or overtly. People who have not been very comfortable with the SPA steering the political transition with its vast decision-making powers have also been alleging that if the SPA is to decide everything, such as the future of the monarchy beforehand, there is no justification for holding the election at all.

This argument does not hold, whether it may have been the result of mere misunderstanding or of some design. Federalism and republicanism, for instance, represent the joint commitment of the seven political parties that led Jana Andolan II. And these parties will be bound by these commitments. But there are other political parties in the country, too. If they won the voters’ hearts and secured a majority, they could write the constitution of their choice based on their electoral pledges to the people. Or even if they succeeded in establishing their sizable presence in the CA, they could influence the CA’s decisions considerably. Things like federal or unitary system are alterable, but only with the express consent of the people. What, however, are clearly non-negotiable are the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Nepal, and the fundamental and human rights of the people. In the coming few days and weeks, it will be clear who have arrayed themselves on this side of the CA election and who, on the other side. Actions speak louder than words of commitment.