Submit your Article

Our politicians see the constitu­tion only from a power perspective. All our constitutions from 1948 till date have been misused to make certain politicians powerful. Those constitutions were promulgated to serve certain interests, not the people. For the first time in Nepal’s political history, a participatory approach was adopted when the country promulgated the constitu­tion in 2015 through the Constituent Assembly. But even then, certain people sought to fulfill their own interests, disregarding larger public interest.

Now, the issue of amendment has come up. Opposition parties, mainly Madhes-based ones, and Dalits have grievances with the new constitu­tion. However, we are yet to start a detailed study on what kind of con­stitution amendment is required. This is because our constitution has not completed even a single elec­toral cycle. Laws are yet to be made in line with it. Even the formulated laws are beset with problems.

As the constitution is still new, it is immature to talk about amendment. In an emergency, an amendment could be necessary. But this is not the case now. The talk of consti­tution amendment has surfaced only to make a certain leader prime minister. One can become prime minister only through political backing, not constitution amend­ment. Parties should not choose this wrong path.

There were also attempts to get the consent of the Madhes-based parties to the amendment process with the promise of incorporating their agenda.

Actually, the force which is back­ing this agenda thinks that once the agenda is tabled in the parliament, Prachanda and Bam Dev Gautam will lose their control over it. In this scenario, the force can fulfill its interest. Look at our recent history. The first CA was dissolved without delivering a constitution. The sec­ond CA promulgated a new con­stitution due to a strong position taken by then Prime Minister Sushil Koirala. Otherwise, there was no possibility of the new constitution. The missing constitution was only giving opportunistic elements more space. We certainly have issues of Madhesi, Janajati and Dalit people, but there is a need for a national per­spective on how to address them.

Will it be justified to give Nation­al Assembly power to elect prime minister?

Let’s look back to the time KP Oli became prime minister. Politics was heated then. He somehow got the coveted post, but it was difficult for him to put the house in order. There are two houses in the parliament, and both have similar powers about making laws. But why does only the lower house have the right to form government?

There are certain constitution­al principles behind it. The House of Representatives is larger than the National Assembly. It is more inclusive, and more diverse too. More important, the House of Representatives has powers over money bills and committee systems which are formed under various themes. The leader of the largest party in the lower house stakes the claim for prime minister. I do not think the House of Representatives would agree to tie up its hands and legs by allowing the National Assembly to pick a prime minis­ter. The people who are pushing the amendment have not thought this through.

What do you think was at the heart of the constitution amend­ment demand?

It is an anti-government strategy. It does not address public expecta­tion. Some forces want to disturb the current political stability. Such an amendment proposal cannot be tabled as it could invite unexpected upheaval in national politics. Even if required, there should be adequate discussion among stakeholders. All parties should be involved. The NCP leaders are ready for an amend­ment because someone is mislead­ing them about the outcome. Nepal has a big potential for a consolidated democratic system. There are forc­es that do not like it. They helped initiate the Maoist insurgency. The same forces are trying to scuttle consolidated development in Nepal.

Are you hinting at internal or external forces?

There are both internal and external forces behind it. In certain aspects, the current government is different from the previous ones. India did not support us when we promulgated the constitution. But we had an assertive government which told foreign powers that Nepal will promulgate a new consti­tution, no matter what. KP Sharma Oli received popular votes in 2017 elections due to his strong stand against the Indian blockade. So long as he stays, the same forces will con­tinue to play. The Oli government has also made departure in relation with China. It has given a message to the international community that a second or third power is not needed in Nepal. Some elements do not like this. Obviously, Indian interest always influences things here.

Is such abuse of the constitution common in South Asia?

In weaker countries, it is difficult to explain the constitution on the basis of its worth. Nepal is much better off in this regard. In India, we saw Prime Minister Modi amend the charter and decide Kashmir’s fate without a thought about the Kash­miri people. India is a federal coun­try, but it is concerned more with security than power devolution in Kashmir. There are many constitu­tional issues in Pakistan and Arabian countries. In those countries, consti­tutions have little meaning. We can see similar tendencies in East Asia and South East Asia. Our problem is related more to geopolitics than the constitution. If Nepal is allowed to function independently, we will be better off. We can consolidate constitutionalism.

How do you evaluate the process of constitution implementation in Nepal over the past four years?

First, the constitution was pro­mulgated amid much political ten­sion. But we have made progress and achieved stability. The forces that challenged the constitution have joined mainstream politics now. This is positive. Second, our goal is not only political change but also transformation: we wanted to qualitatively change our political culture in line with the new con­stitution. But we are yet to make laws to implement constitutional provisions.

Another important issue is good governance which is a day-to-day affair. But when we think of long-term, we have to make our vital state institutions vibrant. We have to for­mulate laws and procedures in order to make this constitution strong.

On constitution implementa­tion, we have a mixed experience. On stability, we are in a safe posi­tion. But there are some weak­nesses in formulating laws. One example is the recent media bills. The government has not had a positive outlook on the media. On governance, we have to deal with corruption and build institutions. In general there is no threat to the constitution. But many agendas related to transformation are yet to be addressed. Each provision of the constitution should be imple­mented. Remaining laws should be formulated.

Some say the new Nepali consti­tution too will fail, just like its predecessors. How can you say there is no threat to it?

The biggest threat to the constitu­tion is lack of national unity. Nation­al unity will create an environment for the constitution’s stability. To maintain national unity, we have to ensure justice for all, at least on fundamental issues. There were foreign interests in our past con­stitutions. They failed for the same reason. Nepali people were barred from having their say when big decisions were made. For example, Nepali people were not asked to vote whether they wanted a republican system or a monarchy. We could have gone for federal structure by amending the 1990 constitution, but we took a more risky path.

There are claims that the government is trying to weaken key state institutions.

On the issue of National Human Rights Commission, yes. The NHRC was formed with a view that it should be out of government influ­ence. Now, an amendment bill has been registered which states that the NHRC could recommend the gov­ernment to take action on human rights violation cases. But such rec­ommendation can be implemented only with the consent of the attor­ney general, the prime minister’s legal advisor. This shows the gov­ernment has a dismal outlook on human rights. But there are also reports that the government is think­ing of withdrawing such problematic provisions.

Does the parliament pose any kind of threat to the current gov­ernment?

Till date, the government was under no threat from the par­liament. But now that threat is increasing. This is a challenge not only for the government but also for the stability of Nepal, as well as for the new constitution. While exercising political and con­stitutional powers, PM Oli should accommodate the concerns of all parties. The PM should strictly control wrong activities where gov­ernment ministers are involved, including corruption. This will help not only the government but the entire country. We certainly don’t want a repeat of the vicious circle of political instability we witnessed in the 1990s

The World Bank Group has been supporting Nepal in multiple areas including infrastructure development, public finance management, human resource development and others. The Bank currently has 16 IDA-supported projects with a total commitment of $2.23 billion. Pushpa Raj Acharya of APEX caught up with Faris H. Hadad-Zervos, World Bank Country Manager for Nepal, to learn about the Bank's partnership with the government, its efforts in promoting economic growth, and suggestions for attracting FDI, among others. Excerpts:

The World Bank Group has projected 6.5 percent growth for this fiscal. Looking at the scenario till mid-term of the current fiscal, are you still upbeat about high growth?

In terms of the World Bank's analysis, the growth continues to be strong in this fiscal. In last fiscal, we have witnessed 7.1 percent growth. We are expecting 6.5 percent growth in current fiscal. Obviously, there are lots of things that have been happening over the recent period. Global growth estimate is concerned with the current global health issue. It may impact tourism, trade, and industrial sector across the globe. We have to see how it plays out. These are the things that are exogenous, they are beyond the control of Nepal. Nepal can take policy actions to maximize growth. In view of the situation, we see growth in Nepal is driven by agriculture and services sector. We see there is a lot of work happening on the fiscal side to expand the sources of growth. There have been efforts which need to continue to bring private sector investment. We are optimistic that growth remains strong.

You mean Nepal will achieve sound growth not only in this fiscal but also in the medium-term as the World Bank has predicted before?

Over the medium term, we expect average growth to be around 6.5 percent. Growth will be driven by services. We are hoping and we continue to hope that the tourism sector is going to be important. Visit Nepal 2020, which the World Bank is supporting, is an important initiative. We are very optimistic that the global health issue will not take a toll on this. Nepal is doing a lot of things to increase tourism and it should pay off. We expect that growth continues to be robust. Irrespective of what happens, this remains a window of opportunity for Nepal to continue deep reforms particularly to bring private investment and help them with infrastructure and creating jobs in the country.

Slowdown in tourist inflow from China along with coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, slump in paddy production, and deteriorating private investment are considered major factors affecting growth in this fiscal. In view of this situation, how can we be optimistic?

The storyline for Nepal's development is: Nepal has to diversify its base. We did have good monsoon last year and remittances are being transformed into productive use. We have long been saying that remittances should not just fuel imports, they should also fuel investment in the country. We also talked about the importance of congenial environment for FDI that creates jobs in different sectors. Similarly, scaling-up tourism will continually help to get large number of tourists. It's not only about the number of tourists, but how much they spend is important. The country is developing other forms of services and to enhance Nepal's export potential. Before the recent dialogue on coronavirus, there was a lot of discussion on how to enhance productivity in Nepal and increase exports. Currently, there is some concern on global economy and tourism. In fact, it’s a pressing issue now. The dominant strategy is to look at other sources to diversify economy. We can expect that tourism can go up or down in a particular year due to various circumstances but the policy should be consistent. We are upbeat with the efforts to diversify economy. We have seen major foreign direct investment (FDI) transaction in Upper Trishuli-1. The 216-megawatt power plant is a large-scale FDI. Such large-scale investment is important. But Nepal’s economic salvation comes from small and medium enterprises (SMEs), not just these big foreign-investments.

Do you believe that the FDI threshold should be minimized?

Absolutely. The minimum threshold of US $500,000 prevents the entry of FDI where it is most needed: the SMEs. This sector needs both financial and technical input from other countries.

Let's look at the economy of China and India, where the situation is 'precarious'. How does it affect Nepal’s economy?

The world is interconnected. Nepal is not only connected with its neighbors, but also with the source market from where remittances come: the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) and Malaysia. Due to this interconnectivity, Nepal is likely to see some effect. The thing about the economic solution is 'irrespective'. People and nation work not only when you are in good situation, they work even more when you are in a 'precarious situation'. Nepal will continue to work well. But diversification is important. It comes down to the ability of Nepali to be able to engage investors, including non-Nepalis, across different sectors. It is very common in a deep economy to have various sectors. Often, we talk about advanced economies: let's take the example of Germany. When we talk about Germany, people automatically start thinking about Mercedes Benz and large-scale industries. But very few people recognize that Germany is propelled largely by SMEs and that is the heart and soul of the German economy. I think focusing also on SMEs, giving them opportunities—access to finance, access international investment and expertise—is going to be very critical for Nepal.

While talking about attracting investment, the Ease of Doing Business Report, 2020 of the World Bank ranks Nepal in the first half of the countries, which have better business environment. How can Nepal capitalize on this improved ranking?

What Nepal has done last year to improve its ranking from 110^th to 94^th was quite positive and extraordinary. It was actually a record for Nepal to have some considerable policy reforms. Nepal has not any record of policy reform in the history of doing business in facilitating construction permits, ease in getting credits, trading across borders, and enforcing contracts. Whoever has worked on it should be congratulated. Nepal has entered into a healthy Doing Business race and is competing for foreign investment. To compete, the country has to be ahead of the game. Nepal has now moved to the top 94, but there is still a lot to go. To move up the ranking this year too, Nepal has started new set of policy reforms. The trick with the Doing Business is: Once the country starts moving up, moving down is not an option. So, the trick is how to continue being upgraded. There are other 93 countries ahead of Nepal that are competing to retain their positions. Nepal has very positive story and it has made re-strike. But that does not matter when it comes to foreign investment. Foreign investors look at Nepal vis-à-vis other countries. I used to be the country manager of Malaysia before, which is in the top 20. I had also worked in the same region, Singapore, which is the most competent country. Private sector investors are demanding more reforms there, despite being in the top rank. This is why reform is a continuous process. It never ends.

Nepal has achieved an average of 4.5 percent growth in the last decade. Since the promulgation of constitution, Nepal has a new structure and there is a stable government in place. This is considered opportune time for Nepal to overcome the structural constraints of the economy to move forward. What would you like to suggest how the country can capitalize this situation?

Nepal has a democratically-elected government, and the people of Nepal are in search of their economic destiny. It is not for the World Bank to tell them. We would like to offer advice from our experience or what we learned from working in different countries. The main story is to create an environment in Nepal where Nepalis can self-realize their economic ambition for growth and share prosperity of the country. I know this sounds little philosophical but it is very important. Nepal should create a situation where Nepalis with ideas can access resources and infrastructure. They need to be able finance the ideas. By tapping international expertise, well-trained and capable Nepalis can actually fulfill the idea. The major objective of the economic policy should be to create an equal level-playing field. Rules of the game should be predictable and transparent, allowing young Nepali women and men to achieve their goals. Once you create an ecosystem, it will take care of itself. This is what international experience has shown. Now there is an opportunity to make growth in Nepal that is not only driven by the central valley but actually through the seven corners of the country. Nepal has an ability to reset or reboot the system, even the Karnali, Sudurpaschim, Gandaki or Bagmati or wherever people have access to the same opportunity. 

Absorption capacity of foreign aid is another long-time debate in Nepal. Utilization of net available funding from the multilateral development partners is critical to bridge yawning infrastructure gap. Do you think that low absorption capacity reflects the inefficiency of project execution?

The government's absorptive capacity for public investment is certainly critical priority. The government will be the first entity that can tell about things to focus. This is not only an issue of spending money, it is also an issue of providing services to the population. If you don't do the project, you are not achieving your development objective. Having said that, we have witnessed improvement in disbursement ratio of bank-financed projects. Despite that, there needs to be considerable acceleration on this. For delivery, the government should provide incentives. High turnover of project chiefs results in lack of action. The government should make the project officials accountable through incentives.

Secondly, it is important to look at the public procurement regulation. We have seen series of revisions in this fiscal. To really look deeply into the public procurement regulation that actually tackles the issue of incentives of both the public and private sector.

Recently, the World Bank Group has approved credit worth of $120 million for the YETI project. There is widespread impression that it is revamped version of Prime Minister Employment Program (PMEP). The program was already controversial for their last-minute spending at the fiscal end. How would you like to assure that the fund will not be misused?

The YETI project stands for Youth Employment Transformation Initiative, the title itself tells what this project is and what it is not. This project is being led by the Ministry of Labor, Employment, and Social Security. The project itself was set up to work closely with various initiatives including Prime Minister Employment Program (PMEP) and others. The YETI project is about creating management information system. It is not about job creation. In fact, it is fundamentally data project related to the private sector. Data is the most important thing for Nepal for transparency, for effectiveness, productivity and accountability and everything. Data is important to know where the priorities are and whether you are doing a good job or not. For citizens to know what their government is doing, and for the private sector to operate, data is needed.

Recently, the World Bank has carried out Federalism Capacity Needs Assessment (FCNA). What are the gaps you found and what would you like to opine on fiscal sustainability of federalism?

FCNA was a historic moment. Two federal ministers (finance minister and federal affairs and general administration minister), five of the chief ministers, and other representatives have talked about FCNA. It was not only the federalism capacity, it was also about a roadmap. It is the first time that we have managed to sit together and talk. As a result of that, we are now actually working with the central, provincial and local governments. The FCNA was done in consultation with 115 palikas. We can go to the 7 provinces and operationalize it. It is very understandable that we don't have data. Again, considering Nepal's two-year-old transition into federalism, we cannot expect everything to exist. We have to be patient. The FCNA was meant to kick start a process of constant dialogue and feedback.

World Bank-funded projects are moving at a snail’s pace. How can those be pushed up?

Obliviously, given to the aspiration of the Nepali people, it is very clear that we need to move as fast as we can possibly go. Even if we achieve our maximum velocity, we need to move faster. As far as our concern, we can never go fast enough. But there is huge room for acceleration. However, I would not say, probably, not accurate to say 'snail pace'. The disbursement rates of World Bank finance projects in the South Asia region and Nepal is one of the higher performing ones. It’s actually moving relatively well. It may not be the fastest as we wanted, but definitely not at a snail's pace. If we look at the Kamala-Dhalkebar-Pathlaiya road, in four months, it went from the concept to having a DPR. It is moving quite quickly. Kathmandu-Naubise-Mugling was also agreed just few months ago. Now we are expecting to go to the board within this fiscal year. ICD Chobhar is very important. Our goal is not to do things fast but to do it right. ICD Chobhar was in the process of moving forward. There were some grievances and concerns from the community. For the World Bank, we take this extreme seriously. The issue or any concerns of the community around the development projects financed by us really get a lot of attention. They are taken seriously. This is why we actually needed slow this down, the government decided to slow this down. The government formed two-tier grievances redressal mechanism and issued a public notice to gather public grievances. Now the grievances also had to be reviewed and final decision shared with the communities. Kabeli 'A' project is closed for us and the government has not requested for renewal. The idea is not to do things quickly, but to do them right to make sure that they reaches the Nepali citizen.

In its recent report, the World Bank Group has highlighted huge gap in infrastructure sector in Nepal and talked about attracting private sector investment to bridge the gap. Despite PPP (public private partnership) policy, the private sector is not willing to invest in infrastructure. Against this backdrop, the government can encourage private sector through viability gap funding (VGF). What is your take on this?

We know the gap is massive as Nepal is willing to achieve a status of middle-income country by 2030. It needs to quadruple its infrastructure investment. To do that, the government does not have enough resources. This is why it is important to have the private sector. In my observation, the number one priority for Nepal is ecosystem, just create the field. Put the laws/regulations in place, and make them credible. Laws themselves are necessary but insufficient. Laws/regulation should be clear and transparent, they must be investors-friendly. That provide clear message to the investors where Nepal stands on this. This will provide assurance this will not require the interpretation of the specific civil servant and that must be codified in good practice. It is important for the government to create the ecosystem, create the lines, protect the people, and predict the rights of investors as well consumers. Beyond that, let the private sector do what it does best.

Q. Who would you like to collaborate with?
A. I see many talented musicians from Nepal and any one of them would be great to work with. I’d especially love to work with Kutumba someday.
Q. Have you ever had stage anxiety?
A. I did in the early days but now I’m ready to rock the stage every time.
Q. What is one thing that annoys you the most?
A. Negative vibes and attitude
Q. What is your least favorite type of music?
A. Although I listen to all types of music, I don’t prefer high tempo techno music.
Q. What is your favorite “Edge” song?
A. “Thaha Chhaina”, “Nachaheko Hoina”
Q. Do you recall your worst hair cut?
A. I’m sure I did have some really bad haircuts but I don’t recall the exact time and age.
Q. What is the most rewarding musical advice you have ever gotten?
A. To practice a lot and play with as many musicians as possible, and as often as possible.
Q. If you could change one thing about your look, what would it be?
A. I’m happy with my looks.
Q. Last band or artist you listened to?
A. Jaco Pastorius

The government performance is average. In Nepal’s modern polit­ical history, after the big majority government of BP Koirala in 1959, it was only the second time that a government was formed with such a conducive environment. The cur­rent government has a strong man­date with almost two-third support in parliament and it has popular support as well. There is virtually no opposition as well. In this situa­tion, people expect more from the government.

For instance, the Oli government has come up with a new education policy but it is doubtful any edu­cation expert has gone through it. The policy is a mess but no one is challenging the policy, neither from inside the party nor from outside it. Previous governments had no such luxury.

The Oli government is undertak­ing only day-to-day tasks. But such things could also have been done by any of the previous, and far-weaker, governments. It is a tragedy that there is no substantial difference between previous short-lived gov­ernments and current stable one.

Why has such a strong govern­ment performed so poorly?

There is a lack of homework, and our state machinery is also weak. When Oli was electioneering, I had asked whether the big promises he was making could be honored by our weak state machinery. Why are our development projects so slow? There could be political and other vested interests and there also could be some financial issues. But the main thing is that we do not have the required manpower to run them. We have insufficient project management skills. We have the manpower who have studied management but project manage­ment is a different area altogether. There are other countries too that are both corrupt and that witness a high level of political instability, and yet they are making good prog­ress on development projects. So we cannot entirely blame corrup­tion and political instability for our project delays.

Development projects have cer­tain characteristics. To achieve tar­gets, people in leadership should enjoy a level of autonomy. We do not have the concept of autono­my here. Whoever becomes proj­ect head has to constantly appease their political masters. Look at the current Millennium Challenge Cor­poration compact debate. If you look at the MCC compact, there has been an attempt to assure the management’s autonomy in order to ensure the project’s timely comple­tion. In our projects we do not have such autonomy, and hence they often fail.

The government, however, claims it is well on its way to achieving its goal of national prosperity?

The major slogan of the Oli gov­ernment is ‘Prosperous Nepal, Hap­py Nepali’. But the key question is: what are the indices to measure prosperity? What does the govern­ment want to achieve in education, health, and other sectors? The fig­ures included in budget speech are abstract. After the elections, the Nepal Communist Party had a month in which to internally pre­pare to make their electoral promise a reality. Even though the election results where yet to be declared, KP Sharma Oli was sure to be prime minister and he was in a position to lay out his government’s vision. Yet there was no such homework. This suggests the political leader­ship of Nepal is of average quality. And this is true right across par­ty lines. It would not make a huge difference if Madhav Kumar Nepal or Prachanda took over PM’s chair tomorrow. They have already been tried and tested and found wanting. Our leadership has a weak vision and even weaker capacity to come up with policy actions to realize this vision. We cannot expect more than average work from an average leadership.

What is your take on the media’s rather harsh response to Oli gov­ernment’s functioning?

During the 2017 elections, there was massive opinion in media in favor of the left alliance. But the media got progressively critical even before the federal government had completed a year. See the news reports and analysis covering the government’s two years, they are overwhelmingly critical. This clearly shows that there are weaknesses in government functioning. The government has also failed to take the public into confidence. This is dangerous. The government has become too defensive. It should convince people with its deeds, not its rhetoric.

But there must also be some posi­tive things that have happened in the past two years.

Two years are not insufficient to evaluate a government but they are also not sufficient. We have to wait for some time yet before we reach a conclusion. I feel happy in the sense that we promulgated a new constitu­tion by overcoming big challenges. The constitutional and federal pro­cesses have moved forward and the credit goes to polit­ical parties. There may be some prob­lems as federal­ism is not some­thing that can be implemented overnight. So, yes, you cannot also say that nothing good has happened in these two years.

Do you also think the conflict between the two NCP co-chair­men Oli and Prachanda hampers government functioning?

After the unification, Prachan­da has been giving voice to some alternate views. Otherwise, there were no alternate voices to Oli in the former CPN-UML. These days, Prachanda is close to PM Oli. Pra­chanda is saying Oli will be at the government’s helm for five years. There are some internal conflicts but it is not at the level of paralyz­ing the government. For the first time, internal conflicts came to the surface during the selection of the speaker of the House of Represen­tatives. The issue of MCC is yet to be settled. Otherwise, there is no internal ideological challenge to the government. For example, Ghan­shyam Bhusal, a possible ideological challenger, has now become part of the government. There is a sense of insecurity on Prachanda’s part and he is impatient about his turn in power but he is not challenging the government yet.

How has Nepal’s international relations changed in the past two years?

We have seen a visible change in our geopolitics. The relation with China has moved ahead apace, more swiftly than we anticipated. At the same time, the level of depen­dence on China has also increased. We say the rail will come only if China builds it with its own money. The Chinese side has not assured us about the rail and has proposed better roads as an alternative. But we keep emphasizing railway. With China, we made a leap forward. But do we have enough capacity and preparations to sustain this new level of engagement? If we do not, it could be counterproductive. We are in a sensitive geopolitical location and it is not easy to take both our neighbors into confidence. We need their support but at the same time our options should remain open.

What about Nepal’s relations with other powers?

With other powers, our relations have shrunk. The activities of the European Union are slowing down. We are in increasing disputes with the United States. For instance, there was no need to link the Indo-Pacific Strategy and the MCC and blow up the issue.There is no possibility of our joining an American secu­rity alliance as non-alignment is a cornerstone of our foreign policy. Internationally, Nepal is increasing­ly thought of as close to China and as a communist country. There are five declared communist countries: Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba and China. Some now think of Nepal as the sixth one. The difference is that unlike in those countries, in Nepal the communist party has come through a democratic process.

In the past, international actors in Nepal were not in conflict. Nepal was a pleasant place for all pow­ers but the situation is gradually changing. The Europeans are not happy though they have not said so directly. It also seems that we are trying to create a distance with the US, creating unnecessary disputes.

How do you evaluate the role of the opposition parties, particu­larly the Nepali Congress?

There is a huge majority govern­ment and the opposition does not get much space in such a setup. Despite this, the opposition is failing to carry out its expected role. Con­sider the prime minister’s recent address to the parliament. After the PM’s address, the leader of the main opposition should have spoken. Instead, some opposition lawmak­ers only asked innocuous questions over his address. In a parliamentary system, the opposition is an alter­native to the government in two ways. First, in its role in the current parliament and then as the potential ruling party after the next election. The opposition should come up with alternative policies, programs and ideas, not just with facetious questions.

The government has made sever­al attempts to curtail freedom of expression but with only limited success. Is it particularly difficult to curtail free speech in Nepal?

Despite the many criticisms of Nepali democracy, over the past 10-12 years it has succeeded in cre­ating a vibrant civil society. People immediately take to the streets if the government tries to shrink civic space. There are also instances of street protests forcing the govern­ment to withdraw some of its plans. The people who have come out on the streets are not committed NCP voters. This is the biggest plus point of our democracy.

Separately, the government works should be analyzed from two angles. In line with the policy commitments it made in election time, the ruling party is free to bring policies and programs. The government can introduce new policies in educa­tion, health and other sectors, and which are liable to change in the coming days. The opposition can only protest but it cannot block those measures. But the key ques­tion is whether the Guthi Bill, the Information Technology bill, and the National Human Rights Com­mission bill are such policy com­mitments. They are not. They are constitutional commitments rather.

For example, the issue of human rights is related not just to a party or the government; it is a constitu­tional commitment. Press freedom is also a constitutional commitment. The government should realize that there is a difference between elec­toral commitments and constitu­tional commitments. The parlia­mentary majority-minority is not applicable to constitutional com­mitments and electoral mandate should not affect them