Motherfuckers, each of them. I hope, when they are laid out at Aryaghat to be burned, just before the funereal fire is shoved into their face, a shit-eating bird of some kind flies right above them and shits right into their slightly open mouths. I hope they contract the most scaly-itchy-stinky venereal diseases without ever once getting laid. I hope that each time they go out to make a speech full of lies and arrogance, a foot-long worm worms its way out of their ass. I hope the day comes in their lives when they will no longer remember what they look or sound like, and start plotting to overthrow the government of that smirking bastard the other side of the mirror.
Why?
Because what they have done last night is wrong, wrong, wrong.
I am not sure I understand... It was unconstitutional, and undemocratic, right?
ReplyDeleteYes. Unconstitutional, and undemocratic.
ReplyDeleteUnconstitutional because they ratified a constitution that wasn't an artifact unto itself, but merely a tool facilitating the creation of a "real" constitution. And they did it not out of a failure of the document, or a defect in the Interim Constitution that was accentuated by what is manifest reality, but because they wanted to, well, because they wanted to.
Bad precedence. Whoever becomes the next PM can't be removed by bringing a simple majority against him [who are we kidding? it is going to be a man]. In fact, so long as there is no unanimous decision, the person can't be removed, because that would be "against the spirit of consensus."
So, all the drama that has happened so far--each episode being entirely about who should remain the PM or who should be thrown out--will be played out for even more intensely before the next PM is chosen.
More worrying is the effect it will have on the Constitution to be ratified. It will still draw upon the reserve of "revolutionary logic" of 2006 to produce laws that might not be tolerable to a vast majority. This might not include the more important issues--positive discrimination for regions and groups held at disadvantage, or a revolutionary redistribution of land-capital--but, it might focus on things like special priority rights along ethnic lines [rather than economic or gender lines], or on wrangling over property and land confiscated from the "class enemy" instead of focusing on how to bring new properties to those without any.
NC and UML might fight with the Maoists about returning captured property, and the Maoists might indulge them. Instead, the fight should be about how to bring land and property to the landless farmers of Nepal. This is not merely a semantic distinction, as the CA has already shown that these distinctions can hold the assembly hostage for months, years.