A healthy democracy, not a constitutional laboratory
The repeated promulgation of constitutions shows that Nepal has been a constitutional laboratory for experimenting with various democratic models. From the Rana oligarchy to absolute kingship, the partyless Hindu monarchy, multiparty democracy and now a federal republican system, the country has transitioned through diverse political frameworks. After decades under the unitary system, Nepal has embraced federalism since 2015.
These transitions reveal that Nepal has adopted a new constitution almost every decade in a span of 75 years. Recently, some groups have started advocating for a directly-elected executive form of government—the only model yet untested. The recurring failure of political leadership is often mistaken as the failure of constitutions, prompting public frustration and calls for change. However, no constitutional reform can succeed without honest, visionary and committed leadership.
In the 1940s, public outrage ended the Rana regime. During the 1950s, King Tribhuvan restored monarchical authority, and later King Mahendra imposed a partyless system that faced strong public resistance. In response, King Birendra promulgated the 1990 constitution, recognizing multiparty democracy. Yet, it was later replaced by the interim constitution of 2007, which in turn gave way to the 2015 constitution—the first drafted by people's elected representatives as mandated by the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Accord that formally ended the decade long (1996-2006) Maoist insurgency.
Chronicles of change
Of Nepal’s seven Constitutions, the Government of Nepal Act, 1948 was the first constitutional document. However, it did not vest sovereignty in the people of Nepal.
Professor Laxmi Prasad Kharel, in Comparative Law and Nepalese Legal System, observed that the 1948 Act was “doomed to die from its inception”—the Ranas opposed sharing power, and the people rejected it for failing to meet their expectations.
During the Rana era (1846–1951), state power was monopolized by the Rana family. Jung Bahadur (1817–77) seized power in 1846 and made himself permanent prime minister.
In 1951, an Interim Constitution was introduced but King Tribhuvan failed to fulfil his promise of establishing a constituent assembly. The King retained the power to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister and Ministers and the cabinet functioned at his pleasure. The interim constitution lasted eight years, during which King Mahendra ascended the throne and imposed a direct rule on 1 Feb 1958, governing nearly two years without any constitution.
In 1959, King Mahendra promulgated a new constitution where the Cabinet was accountable not only to the parliament but also to the King. He retained sweeping powers, including the power to dissolve the government and lower house and declare emergency under Article 55—making him politically supreme. In 1962, he replaced it with another constitution establishing the party-less Panchayat system, combining monarchical and parliamentary features. It banned political parties and imposed discriminatory citizenship provisions requiring knowledge of Nepali language.
The 1962 constitution was replaced by the 1990 constitution, adopted after the people’s movement. The 1990 constitution introduced a multi-party democracy system and an independent judiciary.
Federal dreams
The 1990 constitution also failed to survive for long. The Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007 was crafted through a political understanding following the abolition of the constitutional monarchy. It served as a transitional framework until a new constitution could be promulgated through the Constituent Assembly.
The interim constitution, 2007 was the first Constitution to be written by Members of Parliament. It mandated the Constituent Assembly to enact a formal Constitution institutionalizing republicanism, federalism and secularism.
During the period of 2007 to 2015, “The first priority today has to be the creation of a truly federal, democratic, republican political system and to ensure its development rising above the party-political lines and transient priorities. This task cannot be accomplished by limiting oneself to a certain political ism or anti-ism,” observes political scientist and professor Krishna Khanal in his book Federalism in Nepal: Management and Implementation.
Prof Bipin Adhikari in his book, Salient Features of the Constitution of Nepal, 2015, observes that inclusivity and diversity are the core focus of the 2015 constitution. However, Nepal’s journey toward inclusion depends, to a great extent, on the quality of democracy and constitutionalism it will achieve on the foundation of its constitution, argues Prof Adhikari in another book, From Exclusion to Inclusion: Crafting a New Legal Regime in Nepal.
So, how can one discredit the progressive features of the current constitution? We can find hope in every political movement, but in Nepal’s case, the political transformations have, often, failed to deliver. Frequent repeal or enactment of constitutions cannot be considered a yardstick of a healthy democracy. Rather, the actual implementation of the constitution should serve as the foundation for good governance and a truly healthy democracy.
Let’s build, not blame
The problems in politics should not be mistaken for problems in the constitution. Merely testing different constitutional models cannot provide a lasting solution. The enactment of a constitution is not a magic stick to transform the state. What Nepal needs now is collective commitment to effectively implement the constitution.
Conflicting provisions, if any, can always be amended through due process. Actual transformation can be achieved through constitutional stability, not through frequent changes of constitutions. Weak governance, a politically influenced administration and public dissatisfaction with political leadership are to blame for the current mess, not the constitution.
