Seek Consensus To Amend Constitution

It has been almost six months since KP Sharma Oli assumed premiership of Nepal third time, leading the Nepali Congress-CPN (UML) coalition government. Prior to the formation of the Oli-led coalition government, Nepali Congress and UML had reached a seven-point understanding, of which the amendment of the constitution was the principal agenda. The two parties have agreed to amend some provisions of the present constitution. However, they have not yet clearly spelt out what exactly they want in their amendment. 

It is, however, understood that their primary concern is the electoral system. Our electoral system is of hybrid nature - mixture of first-past-the-post voting (FPTP) and proportionate systems - , which is blamed for political instability and frequent change of governments. This, to some extent, may be true. In the mixed or proportionate electoral system, there is a high probability of a hung parliament in which a political party is less likely to win majority seats in parliament necessary for the formation of the single party government. As a result, coalition government has been and will be the fait accompli. In such a scenario, smaller parties may have greater say in the coalition and bigger parties have to make compromise for the sustenance of the government.  

Hung parliament

The electoral system we have adopted is likely to produce a hung parliament. Many in Nepal tend to link hung parliament with the frequent change of government and political instability. But this is not always the case. In the first place, the coalition government in itself is not a bad thing. Many European countries have proportionate electoral system and coalition governments. The coalitions and alliances are built based on the political ideology and programmes. Political parties that have similar agendas forge alliances. In such a case, the election system does not create instability. In countries where democratic and coalition culture is mature, this does not make any difference. 

In the emerging democracies or developing countries, small parties seek a pound of flesh in the name of forming and sustaining the coalition government. Bigger parties, too, will have to make compromise on various issues. The problem is, thus, not solely with the electoral system but with our political culture. Even when we had FPTP electoral system in the past especially after 1990 political change, Nepal experienced several instances of frequent changes of government and political instability. 

The present coalition government commands two thirds-majority in the House of Representatives (HoR) and can easily amend the constitution. But it may require support of other parties in the National Assembly. This is constitutional and technical part of the process. The present constitution was adopted based on the compromise among major political forces. In this sense, the constitution is the document of compromise that reflects the balance of power of that time. Even in the process of the constitution amendment, a broader understanding and agreement among major political forces of the country is necessary. 

If the ruling parties try to amend the constitution on the basis of technical majority, it may give rise to a new round of conflict and confrontation among different political forces and groups. All political parties and forces, thus, must be taken into confidence and their support ensured for the amendment of the constitution. Although the ruling coalition mooted the idea of constitution amendment right at the time of the formation of the coalition government, not much has been heard about it since then. Perhaps, constitution amendment was the key justification for the formation of the coalition government consisting of the largest and second largest party in parliament. 

If the ruling parties are at all serious on constitution amendment, there has to be clarity on the issues and provisions that require amendment. The first and the foremost task should be to identify the matters with their justification for the amendment. For this, a team of experts has to be given responsibility to identify the issues with their justification. The second step should the consultation among the political forces — big or small on the need and justification for the amendment.  

Different parties have differing interest and interpretation on different issues. Some political parties seem to be opposed to the idea of reforming or changing electoral system. The main opposition CPN-Maoist Centre has clearly spelt out its position on the electoral reforms. It is of the view that if the electoral system, at all, has to be changed, it should be made fully proportionate and it will not accept the idea of doing away with the proportional system in the House of Representatives. Some leaders of the ruling parties have hinted the idea of having proportionate system only in the National Assembly but not in the HoR.

Proportional electoral system

 According to them, the HoR or the Lower chamber of parliament should be composed based on the FPTP system which, according to them, will end the perpetual hung parliament. The Maoist Centre and some other small parties are against this idea and may instead demand abolition of the FPTP system, replacing it with the fully proportional electoral system. The Maoist centre has also demanded directly elected executive president instead of the present parliamentary system. Other different groups may come up with different agendas and demands which will create further complication in Nepal’s political landscape. 

Nepal is perhaps the only country in the world that has experienced and experimented seven different constitutions in the annals of its 75 years history of constitution writing. This enriched knowledge and experience on the constitution-making has also to be reflected in the amendment process of the present constitution. The constitution is a dynamic document that can be amended on the basis of necessity and experiences. But we all have to be careful to ensure that the amendment will not open the floodgates of new political problems. Thus, greater wisdom is required in the process of the constitution amendment. Perhaps our political parties and leaders will realise this necessity and come together to build a broader consensus with a common approach among all political forces on diverse issues relating to the constitution.  

(The author is former chief editor of this daily and former ambassador. lamsalyubanath@gmail.com)