Day One, 27th November, 2004
Session I
Dr. Krishna Hachhethu welcomed the participants and Prof. Peter R. deSouza made a brief introduction of the project and spoke about human security. Prof. Lok Raj Baral chaired the session.
Prof. Peter R. deSouza (Professor and Senior Visiting Fellow, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), Delhi): “The objective of this project is to study the working of democracy in South Asia. The workings of subjects like politics and democracy is complex. There is a dearth of valuable lessons of democracy. Similarly, things like popular control, equality are not being exercised in this context”.
“The search is on for common institutions among the diversity in South Asia as a whole. Coalition politics has been exercised in countries like Sri Lanka and India in the latter period of their democracies, which is also doing well. But as a whole, there is a lack of united thinking. Therefore, there is a need for conceptual thinking in democracy”.
“What is diversity? The inclusion of language, ethnicity, religion, caste is necessary for the benefit of all. Connected with this, the issues of federalism, marginalisation and different movements like the Tamil movement in Sri Lanka, the Chakmas in Bangladesh, the dalit movement in India, the reservation/quota system is a search for a way into the mainstream. This project is carried out given this context. In this process brainstorming, field studies, dialogues, getting voices from the grass root level, are taking place”.
“Dialogues as a methodology represents a recognition of people from different fields like activists, intellectuals and general people towards universalism of knowledge. Civil society can equally have attention towards such issues. For example in the case of reservations, K. Patnaik said that quotas are there for ordinary persons to deal with the law. In India, there has been a crisis in the field of agriculture. Why has this been taking place? Small farmers are also being affected by globalisation. Therefore dialogue puts forth such issues and crises. The dialogue is not a method of seminar or a lecture that presents an intellectual way of thinking. It is meant to share experiences and articulate the views of those at the grass root level”.
“Idea of human security is a basic need of human development. Why talk about human security? Traditionally we think of security as that of security through the state, like law and order, army and police. But human security moves from the state to people in general. The popular concept of security is safety from coercion”.
“Human security has two major parts: One, Freedom from fear and Two, Freedom from wants. Freedom from fear includes fear: of ill health, pollution, livelihood, environmental degradation, law and order problems, gender and political issues. All these issues are such that they come under human security. It can be defined in two clusters. The first cluster – the action or inaction of government to discrimination on the basis of caste, religion and region. For example as in Sri Lanka between the Tamils and Sinhalese people. The second cluster is with respect to livelihood and needs. This includes work, education and food security. These are important for the building of democracy. In the present context of globalisation, we try to understand each of these issues in the local context. Nepal is diverse in terms of caste, ethnicity, religion and regions. We will discuss about the ways how security and insecurity is linked with democracy”.
Dr. Harsh Sethi: “It (the dialogue) is not only a larger debate on democracy. It should be arranged in each society. Discussions about the monarchy, insurgency, democracy, ethnic, linguistic and other diversities of Nepal, all these account for a debate on security. When referring to freedom from fear, we only talk about security, law and order, laws, police, citizens and the state. How do we look at the idea of diversity and freedom in a small community? Human security addresses every issue concerned with human need”. “Pokhara is a happy place. But what is the interest of the local people? How do they think? The foreign media informs us that Nepal is not a good place to move and tour. But they do not look at any country or society in terms of their reality. Therefore, to look at the grassroots and their experiences in terms of the national context and diversity, the information, data, insights and facts from so many individual groups makes for a little less to fear and creates more security. Security should not be state centric, it should be people centric”.
Lok Raj Baral (Political Scientist, Nepal Centre for Contemporary Studies): “One cannot be secure unless one has freedom from fear and is secure from the deprivation of basic needs like food, shelter, etc. There cannot be human security from the army and police only. One should be safe in other ways rather than secure from the state. The feeling of insecurity can be there even when the state gives more security. Likewise, there is fear in Nepal, now ,from both the state and the insurgents. Feeling of security should develop in a person itself. Insecurity increases if people are against each other on issues of religion, caste, race and language. Therefore attention should be given to the basic security of people”.
“Democracy and freedom are interrelated. Only freedom is not, and cannot be, democracy. Freedom strengthens democracy, but its institutional development is necessary. Laws and rules should be people oriented. If people are weak, the state becomes coercive. The state goes on becoming more suppressive. We can see in the context of Nepal that the state is trying to invest more in security by equipping the army well without investing in food, education, health and water. We are at a very difficult time in history, but we are thinking towards humanity and human security, qualitative transformation, women participation, Dalit and Janajati's interest, and representation over authority and state resources should be arranged. People should be made strong by providing human security by providing for social, economic and basic needs. Tomorrow’s state will be run only by the haves and the products of private schools, which will only create new feudals. Therefore, how can we minimize this gap? How to be secure in the context of the worsening security environment of our country? How can human security be achieved? It is necessary to share experiences on these issues”.
Dhanmaya Biswakarma (Syanja): “In our place, insecurity has been created by the conflict between the army and the Maoists. How can we tell one from another when both the sides move around in the same uniform? How can we recognize one from another? We have been the victims in their process of each trying to dominate the other side. When there were no roads, only the Maoists were seen. But now when the roads have been constructed, the army also goes there. Both the sides view us with suspicion”.
“The problems of Dalits are still the same. Though there have been some improvements, Dalits are still backward due to the lack of enough food, social inequality, economic weakness, etc. Dalits are backward because they have no education, there isn't enough to eat and there is poverty. Therefore everybody should work”.
Prem Kumari Surkhali (Tanahun): “Problems in Tanahun are also as everywhere else. People are pressed between two sides. The Maoists came for food during Dashain and there was fear of what the army will do to us because we fed them. People from both sides come without their uniforms, we can’t recognize one from another and there is great fear”.
“It is said that Dalits will be given facilities, but it does not happen in practice because equal representation has not been given to Dalits. In education, the affluent send their children to cities but the children of Dalits have to study in villages, where Maoists come and sit in the classrooms. The attention of the children goes towards them and not towards their studies, and the Dalits are more backward. Fear has further increased due to clashes between the Maoists and the Army”.
Mangal Nepali (Saamudayik Sewa Kendra, Baidam, Pokhara): “Democracy is only for the big and the rich. It did not come for Dalits and backward classes. More Dalits have been killed by both the Maoists and the Army. Democracy did not come for the Dalits. Because of their (Dalits) lack of education, only others enjoy it. The young generation is into drugs, girls are into prostitution, and most of the people in such activities are Dalits. This has also happened due to social inequality and economic insufficiency”.
Sulochana Sharma (NGO Federation, Pokhara): “Keeping with our tradition of welcoming our guests, people feed both the Maoists or army who come as guests. There are a hundred thousand in the civil service, hundred thousand politicians, hundred thousand Maoists, and they exercise rule over the rest of the 22.9 million people. Should everybody take initiatives on their own? Or should we consider the army and the police the basis of our security? When will we be liberated from the fear by the rule of a handful of people? Thanks to democracy, everyone has understood but no one can speak. Conscious citizens should speak against it. People have treated the Maoists and the army equally. In a situation like this, we should be conscious as to how we can be free from fear”.
Khagaraj Adhikari (CPN-UML): “Different from anywhere in the world, there are 2.2 to 2.5 million Dalits in our country. Division by Jayasthiti Malla on the basis of profession later became division on the basis of caste. And in India and Nepal the dominant call them the untouchable caste. Freedom from fear: on this basis, social rebellion is born. This issue was not addressed while framing the Constitution in 1990. It was said that Jung Bahadur’s Muluki Ain (civil code) was imposed but later the King Mahendra’s new Muluki Ain did away with discrimination on the basis of caste, but feudalism remained as before. The King has kept inequality and caste difference functioning for his own interests. The tradition of washing the feet of the King by his subjects has still been kept”.
“The state’s army and the Maoists have planned cold-blooded murders. For instance, a person was killed inflicting much pain in a place called Saakhar in Syanja. There is punishment whenever any difference in views is expressed. The army and police harass and detain common people simply on suspicion. Fear is from both the state and the Maoists. Not everyone has access to private boarding schools. Even they (private schools) are subject to extortion by Maoists and harassment by the army. Govinda Gautam, an innocent farmer, was killed in Kaski. Armymen shot him from long range and his children are now orphans. How can security be given to them. Likewise, a man called Lal Kaji Gurung was killed in a similar way. Similarly, Maoists from the Basusmriti Brigade shot dead Indra Bahadur Acharya at his house without even warning him. It happened close to a police office. His life will not return by the mere utterance of ‘extremely sorry’ by Rashmi, a Maoist General. The Maoists had killed an innocent man. Likewise, Maoists died while keeping socket bombs but we don’t know who died, common people or Maoist fighters. Also, Maoists extort donations from teachers and latter soldiers from the army torture them asking them why they had donated”.
Shankar Baral: “Social insecurity did not appear only now in the Nepalese society. People could not become fully sovereign by the People’s Movement of 1990. Even the given rights have been taken back. In this process, the political parties have been unfaithful to the people. Common people have fallen victim from both sides, the Maoists and the army. Dalits and Janajatis have been the most victimised. Others have been hit when the Constitution of 1990 called Nepal a Hindu state. The state has not worked towards people’s rights and security. Even when the army knows well in time that the Maoists have warned someone, they do not act. They only come later to give trouble. For instance, industries are permited to run in Hetauda only after donating tens of millions of rupees to the Maoists. The Maoists have likewise closed down hotels in Ghandruk. An environment exists where those who give money and donations can run their businesses, but those who cannot should remain closed. Authority should be handed to the people. A political solution should be sought for this. It should be bottom-up but the Maoists do not allow politics in villages”.
“Since the political parties have not worked as they should have, a state of anarchy has been created and the Maoists have wanted the same, there is the necessity of initiatives from people’s level”.
Second Session
Freedom from fear and want
The representatives of political parties included: Sarita Giri, Khagaraj Adhikari, Shankar Baral, Shukraraj Sharma Poudel, Jhapat Bahadur Gurung. Dr. Krishna Khanal chaired the session
Krishna Khanal (Political Scientist, Tribhuvan University): “Life is insecure. Programs should go to places where people are deprived of opportunities. There have been incidents where whole family committed suicide in a group because they had no food to eat. There is a movement in Dailekh, where people demonstrated against the Maoist excesses. Subsequently, the Maoists killed three persons there”.
“I observed in the Nepal-India border in Rupediah that the suspicious attention of the security personnel and custom officials is fixed on those poor simple people from the hills. Is security only for the clever and tidy looking and insecurity for those hungry and without clothes? Likewise, there is insecurity when there are soldiers and Maoists. One positive aspect is that people can express everything without hesitation. Wide discussions are going on, people are speaking at all programs, but political parties are not being able to speak expressively. The voice of civil society, only, is not sufficient. The Maoists first banned the activities of political parties and the parties gradually vacated the villages. So all the space became vacant for the Maoists. Therefore I request the political parties to make their perspectives clear on this issue”.
Jhapat Bahadur Gurung (Janamukti Party): “This program is good. It is said that there is democracy in the country, but only one-third of the people may know its meaning and two-third don’t know about it. The word ‘Loktantra’ is better than ‘Prajatantra’. It will take some more time for people in the villages to know about it. People have not been able to understand about democracy because of their lack of education a feeling of being neglected. They also don’t know anything about the situation of the country. Discussion programs should be taken to the villages. The village people’s economic condition is difficult. Economic resources are centred and there is nothing in the villages. Schools, bridges and roads have been constructed only with people’s own efforts. There is no help from those in the higher level. There is no provision of food in the homes, which is what the state and the government must pay attention to”.
“People are more in pain due to the Maoists. They have to feed them. Otherwise, there is a fear of being killed. All the pains and problems are due to power politics. The situation has worsened because power has always remained confined to the same power holder. For instance, there is no proportional representation in the Nepali Congress. Dalits, Janajatis, women are not represented. Maoists have spread because of this. Therefore, if all have proper representation, people may not go to the Maoists”.
Sarita Giri: “What stage of social development are we at? We were in the process of making a modern state after 1950. It is seen from this discussion that the general people have no relation with and no affection to both the sides - the Maoists and the Army. But only those who are in party politics, and on the charge of spying, are threatened and targeted more”.
“In the context of the appearance of multiple authorities at the local levels in place of a central authority, how can people balance and coordinate for day to day living. We should look not only in political terms, but also in sociological and psychological terms. It should also be seen from an emotional point of view rather than as food and shelter issues. People have been living with their profession for years and years, but the state has not been able to protect them. Only three hundred thousand people have taken the benefits of the existence of state”.
“We should therefore go for a federal structure. There is trade with China, which has also been operating illegally. The Maoists have been captured transporting weapons through the conventional trade system. Therefore, the state should change this. The state has taken resources from it and used them for itself”.
“Is it only the power of grievance conflict or is there crime or anything else? The 18 points of the five parties in agitation, and the issue of social transfer brought by the Maoists, should be considered”.
“The Nepali Congress and UML are the main parties who have structures throughout the country. But their attention is towards the king. They are conservative in making budgetary allocations to the local government and the devolution of power. The king does not have to be compared with any one. The Maoists do not seem sincere on social transformation. They have only used the people from lower level politically. The agitation of four parties has also not met success. Our party (Sadbhavana) itself does not have a clear vision. Struggle for what?”
Shankar Baral (Janamorcha Nepal): “The 1990 Constitution has talked about a modern era. But what the constitution has given is not taken in the right way and analysed. The king was not kept within the constitutional boundary. Dictatorial Monarchy continued. Proposals were raised in the five-party agitation to reform this. The king does not want to give rights to the people and the feudal system continues. Political parties should bring reforms in this. Villages are empty. The king has done only what interests him. How should a constitutional democracy be? Like Japan, or like Britain? Nothing is clear. There is no clear consensus among the political parties on this issue. There is no consensus on the issue of a Constituent Assembly among the political parties. There is no environment for it. The Nepali Congress abandoned it in 1958 but the Nepali communist parties have carried it forward. Ganesh Man Singh had said that we should not expect much. NCP (Masal) had raised this issue even then, but NCP (UML) did not remain with it”.
“Though the Maoists have raised the debate of the Constituent Assembly, Janamorcha has its own view about it. The Maoists were against the Constituent Assembly in 1990 itself. Pushpa Kamal Dahal had spoken against it. The reason that the NC and UML are being made to leave the villages is because they had used force during the elections. Cadres of the UML are in the Maoist group. All the parties have not been able to speak against the wrong activities. Therefore Maoists have increased. Since they could not dominate the bigger parties, the Maoists came with a policy of dominating the small parties. The palace is close to them and has helped them”.
“Learning from the mistakes of the past should be done. Other parties should speak against the faults and weaknesses of the Maoists. The task of going ahead by defeating the problem of regression has been engaging everybody. The Maoists should also leave they present ways to uplift people and to correct regression and should first make monarchy constitutional or bind it for human security. This is the first thing. There are differences between castes/classes, the hills and terai. Therefore we should move forward to embrace this truth”.
Khagraj Adhikari (CPN-UML): “Thanks to the organisers. Although party discipline is an obstacle in the search for truth, this is an attempt to give it consideration. We are status quoists in actions though revolutionaries in party documents. Our leadership is status quoist. There are groupings if a new vision is given to the party. We could not go to leadership positions because we raised new thinking in our party. This has happened in UML. The Leadership does not want to take trouble; leaders of all parties have got comforts and facilities. Therefore, they do not want change. Society is filled with fear and the leadership is also afraid to make this change”.
“Neither the ministry of local development nor district development committees want to empower the villages. Therefore, restructuring should be done but not on the basis of ethnicity. Because conflict in a state has been managed only through politics and parties. Therefore we should go for a regional structure. We should think about having provinces. Religious and ethnic harmony should not be broken. But they should not be exploited upon. Therefore restructuring should be done economically, culturally and politically”.
“In parties, there is a practice of not giving candidacy to those who raise good issues. We take pride in working in the Arabian Gulf countries. Who will think about developing by utilising the biodiversity and natural resources that we have. Therefore there is no political stability be it in the Panchayat or the multiparty system. Where have we taken the examples of Singapore or Thailand? Therefore we need an inclusive democracy. Talking about security, when the state tells a section officer to take care of his security himself who will take care of the people’s security?”
“Maoists are going for the tunnels. There is terror because of this. There is an international network. Therefore, rather than the state’s security being confined to itself, there is also the influence of external powers. We should not only blame the state’s army and police. Their higher posts are filled with feudals, Ranas and Shahs. Others run at their service. Besides this, there is a security threat. Communists should also think about their plans made during the war. Why don’t Maoists understand? Not all the thoughts of Lenin made during the First World War work now. There is a division of values in everything and we should grow new values. Therefore, society should be built in a new way”.
“Talking about parties, though I didn’t take a Pajero or allowances, why did the society defeat me in the elections? Therefore, new views and values should be brought to the people. There are conflicts among the parties, between parties and the king, among leaders and even inside the parties. Internal conflicts have grown because of no understanding of the fact that the Maoists have used leaders of all parties. Why can’t it be understood?
“All things cannot be achieved at once. It takes time. So there was omelette and not eggs or chicks when the Maoists tried to change everything at once. The Maoists have shown double standards. Therefore a new thinking should be brought in place of old thinking. Politics should take leadership in it. Because it has been criticised and it is the centre. Democracy is not faultless, but its alternative is better democracy, not dictatorship or despotism. By this, a society without fear can be created.
Shukraraj Sharma (Nepali Congress): “Since the political situation is complex, the social situation also has become complex. Human security and freedom from fear are related to each other. Human security has been becoming scarce each passing day. Our constitutional institutions and forces do not have access to it for some years now. Political activity is absent in villages. So we have not been able to work there. Dalits, Janajatis, the uneducated, religion, culture, all these are insecure. We political activists are also insecure”.
“The state is the first issue that comes up with regard to human security and freedom from fear. When there is a rebellion in India, the constitutional institutions remain fully active there. But we have a constitutional void. People’s expectations were increasing in Nepal, but the Nepali Congress also could not keep them in track. 1951, 1960 and after that, 1990 came. 1990 happened to work for the people. Roads, electricity, education will develop in their time but we could not address people’s basic needs, and the needs and expectations of Dalits and Janajatis. The state should be liberated by democracy. The people, who are helpless, cannot speak about their problems. Therefore, infrastructure and bases of democracy should be prepared. It is restructuring that is necessary. In party politics, the pointing out of each other’s faults should be rectified. But the National Assembly is in a miserable condition at present. It has not been able to function. Religion, Dalit, Janajati, all should be mobilized by democracy. Therefore, such an environment should be given. The bases were broken in practice. Everyone is to blame for this. All of us who are active in the name of the people should unite and democracy should be established in practice. The murder and violence of the Maoists has been an obstacle to democracy. They should leave violence and murder and come into politics. A regime that is established through the gun is never permanent, successful or good. Where there is democracy based on people’s power, there is a better living standard”.
“We should correct our faults in democracy. Only democracy gives value for people’s voices. The development process of society is very long. All attempts are committed to achieving a good life. Therefore change will not come at once. It is also not good, there as there can be accidents; and therefore in the process of gradual development, practices get established. This has happened due to the failure to do good works in time. The issue of Janajatis was raised by the Nepali Congress in 1951, by the UML in 1990 and now by the Maoists. To be free from this, changes in democratic structures should be made continuously and not be kept in a status quo. The educated and those who understand are silent and have not taken initiatives for change. This should be done. There are conflicts between parties and between leaders in parties. There have been no thoughts about which view, of whom, is right and what is beneficial for the people. Although foreigners have given much help, right views should be given as to what should be done for democracy. Only by this the insecurity that the society is bearing, can be removed. Security should be dedicated to humans, the nation and society. Then only human security can be achieved”.
Som Raj Thapa (President of Civil Society Network comprising 50 organizations): “The impact of armed conflict in terms of casualties are as follows: number of murders in the western development region: 243 by state, 126 by the Maoist and 42 by others. Arrest and abdication: 57 by Maoists, 18 by state, disappeared - 870. In Kaski district alone: 11 have been killed by the state, 11 by the Maoists. Field reports of all incidents show dreadfully people being killed. Why don’t people go to the political parties? Political parties should be responsible. Many incidents occurred but the political parties could neither do anything against them nor could they even speak against them. In the context of the incidents of Suresh Baral (killed by the government) and Indra Bahadur (killed by the Maoists) in Pokhara, the Maoists and the government spoke out but why could political parties not challenge their negative deeds by any program or demonstration? There are warnings when protesting against murder and repression, mostly from the state side and sometimes from the Maoist side”.
“Political parties only give speeches on democracy but did not show it in practice. Democracy should be shown not only in appearance, but also in attitude. Political parties should responsibly give substantial alternatives. Once people support it then only, will democracy work in the truest sense.
Prem Kumari Surkhali (Tanahun): “This has happened because the political parties did not include people from the lower communities while making the constitution. Political parties should now take the initiative. Political parties should now help the Dalits and backward communities”.
Bijay Karna: “Why were there no reforms in parties after they came to know of their history and faults, and why was there no fight for it within the parties?”
Shukraraj Sharma (Nepali Congress): “Democracy is a long process. We are continuously active. Whatever we said yesterday, we are doing all that for democracy. We should go for a continuous process of change in democracy. For instance, there was a collapse when making a drastic change in Russia. They speak against the Congress, we are trying to improve”.
Bishwa Kalyan Parajuli: “There is no consensus among the political parties – there is conflict, obstruction and controversy. Who will raise the voice to free people from fear? Why can’t the political parties speak against the anarchy and violence of the Maoists. Why don’t the People’s Front and UML speak, as they are close to the Maoists in ideology? So why have those, who say there has been regression and those in armed conflict, made the king powerful? Why could the parties not protest it?”
Sulochana Sigdel: “It is said that leaders and administrators are corrupt. Is it because they are within such mechanisms or should changes be made there?”
Ganesh Datta Bhatta: “There is no democracy in the country. Forty two percent of the people are below the poverty line. On democracy and human security: human security should be exercised through democracy. But have we understood where is democracy? It is not that we should go for the same process as in Britain although it is a slow process there. Only democracy makes human security. Democracy cannot work if the economic and social structures within it are not strong. Leaders have increased the needs of the people by raising their expectations and not fulfilling them, and there is no human security. One should be very democratic to guarantee human security”.
Naresh Shankar Palikhe: “Leaders of political parties try to block change. Like, they don’t want change because their position will not be secure because of the order that will come after change. Similarly, there is no internal democracy in political parties. In our society, we first want to make our children doctors, engineers, employees of the UNO, etc, then make them businessmen, government employees, teachers. Therefore leaders and political activists come from C grade people. So, because those of class C rule over B and A groups, the intellectuals of A and B classes should also take risks to improve politics. Political instability is the source of all fear. Therefore political stability is needed”.
Indira Thapa (Lamjung): “We have neither democracy nor human security. We don’t have our rights. How can we speak against it? For example, they take our brothers, sisters, mothers and don’t allow us to speak against it. The Maoists have confiscated our property. My father does politics, but why are we punished?”
Surya Kala Thapa (Lamjung): “Development should go to those villages where it has not reached. The Maoists take away our property. Then army comes and gives us trouble saying why did you help them? Where to search for freedom from fear and human security in such a condition?”
Lok Raj Baral (Political Scientist, Nepal Centre for Contemporary Studies): “Everyone should fulfil his or her own role. Does a person from a profession know another’s profession? He does not. Therefore, our role is to point out what went wrong and what happened. An axe does not make a flake; a saw is needed. Intellectuals do not go on street protests, all should not carry flags and be party cadres. Therefore each should fulfil his or her own role. We give our opinions. But were have the political parties made their road maps, where is there a clear vision? The Main role is of the political parties. Politics should be in the right place and parties have to do their duties for this”.
Pushpa Bhushal: “Where is there a vacuum- in democracy, political party, people? Those involved in politics have mostly been victims in villages. Common people there are frustrated with parties because the political parties and party workers have not been able to raise their voice against such activities. There are not only physical threats, but also psychological threats. So how can these leaders and cadres take democracy ahead? Therefore, one should be conscious of the psychological fear within oneself and against the environment”.
Khagraj Adhikari: “Development in cities is not sufficient. It should go to villages also. Our party has a road map but it is hardly followed by leaders. Party leadership seems conservative and wants to stay away from intellectuals”.
Shankar Baral: “If the constitution of 1990 had provided for constitutional monarchy, how did regression occur from this constitution? Girija could not use the Army! After all that is happening in Dailekh, nothing will happen with the government going there. They should come out of the government and struggle against regression. Likewise, there should be political collaboration against Maoist atrocities and the intellectuals should help”.
Sarita Giri: “We have failed in party democratisation. The Maoists thrived due to the divisions in the UML. The king became powerful because of divisions in the Nepali Congress. Small parties also have their own roles in promoting the rule of law”.
Krishna Khanal (Political Scientist, Tribhuvan University): “Parties should take inputs from the people. They should give content to the people. The 1990 constitution also became too much for the king and then October 4th happened. Politically, the constitution is no longer alive”.
