Regarding the quest of a constituent assembly, CK Lal states that everything such an assembly can do "a sovereign parliament can do better" ("Four wheels of democracy", #118). First of all, a parliament would need the correspondent mandate from the electorate. A normal parliament, like a renewed or a newly elected one, doesn't have this clear commission and thus lacks legitimacy. This is what CK Lal is completely disregarding (but thanks to Puskar Bhusal for his recent clarification in "Revolutionary resolve", #119). By asking for a constituent assembly, the Maoist are not claiming more than any democratic force in Europe. The Swiss people, for instance, would also start an insurgency if they weren't allowed to vote on every modification of their constitution. From a European point of view, the basic fault of Nepali democracy since the jana andolan is it never elected a constituent assembly. In the history of Nepal the people have never been accorded this fundamental right. They could neither choose those who made their laws, nor could they influence national referendum. Redressing this issue will not only legitimise the new constitution, but also drain all legitimacy from the violent Maoist movement. Legitimacy is the key element that needs to be taken more seriously in this debate.

Thomas Benedikter,
Kathmandu