Political consensus for amending charter

In Nepal, there is a notable pattern: Whenever there is a change in the federal government, the provincial governments often follow suit. Coalition partners tend to mirror this pattern from the central level down to the provinces, contributing to ongoing political instability.

This phenomenon has created a ripple effect, where the lack of a stable federal government leads to instability at the provincial level, affecting governance and development projects across the country.

The root of this instability lies in the difficulty of securing a parliamentary majority for any single party. This fragmented political landscape forces parties into coalition governments, which are often tenuous and prone to collapse.

Federalism, rather than facilitating development and revenue generation, has become a costly endeavor, exacerbated by frequent political shifts. The promise of federalism to bring governance closer to the people and spur localized development has been overshadowed by these political uncertainties.

This situation underscores the urgency of finding a viable solution.

Some leaders believe that amending the constitution could address these challenges and provide a path forward. A more stable and inclusive political framework could help ensure that the benefits of federalism are realized without the current drawbacks of instability and inefficiency.

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has already presented a seven-point agreement signed between the Nepali Congress (NC) and the CPN-UML during a parliamentary session. The agreement, which led to the formation of the new government, was signed by PM Oli and NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba. The second point of the agreement addresses constitutional review and amendments, stating that the new government will assess the constitution’s performance, address its weaknesses, and make necessary amendments for political stability.

PM Oli has been actively advocating for this agenda. In a recent meeting with the delegation of the Nepal Bar Association, he stated that amending the constitution is not a regressive move. He urged them to trust the people’s mandate and reminded them that the constitution includes a provision for amendment if two-thirds of the parliamentarians support it. He questioned how they could view constitutional amendments as a threat to democracy, emphasizing that such changes are a natural part of a dynamic and responsive governance system.

It is said that to amend the constitution, the government of Pushpa Kamal Dahal was ousted, and the two largest parties in the parliament have joined forces. The UML and NC are reportedly seeking amendments in the electoral system and equation, the process and pattern of choosing people’s representatives, and a reevaluation of the inclusion system. These proposed changes aim to create a more equitable and efficient political process that can stop political instability.

Those leaders advocating for these changes must invite all political parties for open discussions and hold a series of roundtable meetings to reach a political consensus. Constitutional amendment is a regular process globally, and it can be achieved in Nepal as well. I too believe it has become necessary to amend the constitution. But it cannot be done solely based on the decisions of two leaders.

Whether it’s small parties, big parties, national parties, regional parties, or any agenda-based parties, each one should be heard and be part of the political consensus. Whether it be the party of Narayan Man Bijukchhe or Chitra Bahadur KC or Rajendra Lingden or Upendra Yadav or CK Raut, or even those outside the parliament—everyone must be included. This inclusivity is crucial to ensure that the amendments reflect a broad spectrum of interests and are sustainable.

To facilitate this, a Constitution Amendment Recommendation Commission should be formed to prepare a draft based on political consensus. The commission should be led by a person recognized by Nepal’s political movements, an expert on law and constitution, and accepted by all—such as former Chief Justice Gopal Parajuli. Such a commission would bring credibility and expertise to the process, helping to navigate the complex legal and political landscape.

We should also listen to our neighbors, but ultimately, we must do what our country and citizens need. While external perspectives can provide valuable insights, the primary focus should be on addressing the specific needs and aspirations of the Nepalis. Amendments or decisions made without consensus or by excluding any parties will not provide stability or be long-lasting.

Moreover, constitutional amendments can lead to anarchy if all recommendations are not included. This potential for discord highlights the importance of a comprehensive and inclusive approach. To minimize or avoid these challenges, political consensus is a must. Only through collaborative effort and mutual respect can Nepal achieve a stable and prosperous future.

The author, a member of the Supreme Court Bar, has been practicing corporate law for around three decades