Easier Said Than Done

Our politics and media are abuzz with talks centred on what some claim are impending amendments to the constitution. Political anomalies have occurred in the country as parties opted to govern the nation in the same manner that people have protested against. Despite successful uprisings in the 1990s and 2006, the country did not witness expected level of economic and prosperity improvements. The cause of these drawbacks can be traced back to an extreme level of political instability. Political parties now understand that if they do not address instability, it will hinder the country’s progress which will give rise to people’s dissatisfaction against them.

The current coalition government in Nepal led by two big parties, the Nepali Congress and CPN (UML), was formed through a 7-point pact, focusing on amending the constitution. The leaders of the two parties have promised to include all political parties and stakeholders in their proposed changes to the charter. According to them, the amendments will not be an act of regression or backward looking but will aim to strengthen federal republicanism, inclusivity, and governance in the nation. The parties’ claim is based on the fact that despite almost a decade since the new charter was implemented, the country has faced continuous political instability. This has led the major parties to consider revising the charter to ensure greater clarity, relevance to, and, most importantly, public acceptance of the charter. 

Political instability

Political instability continues to pose a threat to our democratic republic system, despite having numerous elections. For the past 16 years, since the first election of the Constituent Assembly in 2008, 13 governments have taken office, showing deepening political instability. Since the current constitution was enacted, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba, and CPN (Maoist Centre) Chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal have all held the position of prime minister multiple times.

The nation’s economic and social well-being, as well as its overall development, are negatively impacted by political instability. The constitution is now seen as a crucial factor for achieving political stability, economic prosperity, and social well-being by major parties, stakeholders, and experts.

The idea of improving the electoral and executive systems has gained support from the Nepali Congress, the UML, and their followers. Talks reportedly center on extending the vote of confidence period from the current two years and making it mandatory for the largest party to form the government. At the same time, they will aim at addressing the importance of inclusiveness and representation. In order to guarantee long-term stability, some advocates recommend replacing the current parliamentary procedure, which includes proportional representation, as well as ensuring the provision of direct voting for electing the prime minister.

The misuse of Nepal’s proportional representation system has raised concerns and prompted demands for reforms to ensure authentic inclusivity in decision-making. Party leaders are frequently criticised for using the system to nominate their loved ones or relatives as parliamentarians, in order to gain more influence in parliamentary committees. Corruption and inefficiency have resulted from the misuse of proportional representation and political appointments. The appointment of relatives and party loyalists to important positions goes against the purpose of the constitution as criticism was directed towards multiple appointees of constitutional bodies for their unreliability, controversial image, incompetence, and their political loyalities.

Since the adoption of the new constitution, concerns about the efficacy of our federal system have been scrutinised, leading to calls for constitutional amendments to enhance the autonomy and efficiency of federal and provincial governments. The viability of the existing federal structure, including state governments, is being debated and restructuring is being considered. The three levels of government—federal, provincial, and local—encounter enduring obstacles in their operations. 

Numerous laws have been passed by the federal government, but legislative advancements have slowed down, and therefore it is felt that the constitution requires amendments for better governance efficiency and stability. Ongoing issues persist in local governance structures, leading to calls for a constitutional revision that prioritises practical governance needs. Similarly, various groups have raised concerns about the performance of parties in parliament. There are a considerable number of crucial bills awaiting Parliament’s attention, including ones concerning civil servants, police, and federal education. 

Genuine needs

According to experts, our constitution emphasises the importance of granting all citizens free and fair access to healthcare, education, and other government services. However, successive governments have failed to address these priorities effectively. Many of these services are now privately owned throughout the country. A significant effort is underway to revise impractical provisions and features in the constitution to address these shortcomings. The main concern should now be matching the constitution with the genuine needs of the people, rather than political rhetoric and party interests.

Nevertheless, the process of amending the charter is riddled with challenges. Any attempts at reform, even if well-intentioned, would incite anger from various groups pushing for their own preferred changes. The Maoist Centre opposes changes in the PR system and federal structure, while pro-Hindu groups and the Rastriya Prajatantra Party advocate for the removal of secularism from the charter. The Rastriya Swatantra Party along with many others aim to remove the federal structure, while major parties seek to decrease the number of parliamentarians in federal provincial parliaments and reduce the total number of local units.

Currently, major parties and their supporters are pushing to raise the election threshold percentage from three to approximately 10 per cent in order to avoid smaller parties and political factions from gaining the status of national parties. Such a scenario would foster a two-party system and stop the rise of numerous national parties. Smaller parties have taken a stand against this.

Changing the constitution is a difficult endeavor, despite the collective efforts of political parties, supporters, experts, and stakeholders. However, they can reach their goals through extensive, result-oriented debates and interpretations based on facts that would suit the spirit of the constitution and are focused on strengthening the constitution.

(The author is a former managing editor of this daily)