Editorial: Make amends

A Constitution is a living document, it is a document of compromise that is not immune from the winds of change that blow so very often, especially on this part of the globe. As times change, the makers of a constitution or their successors have to make timely changes in it without compromising on its basic tenets.  

Nepal’s newest charter is not—and cannot be—an exception. 

Nine years have passed since the Constituent Assembly, in its second term, promulgated the constitution of a federal, secular and democratic Nepal, in a massive departure from the unitary system, amid a rough weather marked by protests from sections of the national population and displeasure from the next-door neighbor. Looking back, the system stood pretty shakily on twin pillars of multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy on a seismic fault-zone, thanks to endemic corruption, a war, dynastic rules both of the royals and champions of democracy, rising public discontent and desires for change. 

Almost a decade after the promulgation of the charter that aimed to institutionalize democracy and republicanism by bringing the government at the doorsteps of the people living in far-flung areas in particular, not much has changed. Federalism, which was supposed to take the government to the doorsteps, is proving to be a costly affair, with increasing complaints from the people that all they have got at the provinces are Singhadurbars (Lion Palaces), which are quite costly to keep as they have to foot the cost of their operation. A frequently-heard public complaint is that the rulers have let the lions out among hapless sections of the society instead of extending to them the benevolent hand of the state.

There’s also a feeling among the public that select political leaders of the country can get away with anything, including policy-level corruption, as they are beyond the long arm of the law. 

Rather than decentralizing power, our federal experiment, thus far, has mostly been about managing plum jobs at the provinces for cadres of different political parties.

Moreover, whenever there’s a change of guard at the center, provincial governments also topple,  deepening a chronic political instability and disenchanting the people further and further.

These factors are pushing people, youths in particular, to the foreign shores—for jobs, for an education and even for permanent settlement. 

This does not bode well for a polity. 

The parties represented in the Parliament, including the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, the two largest parties, should wake up and act. Amending the constitution may be necessary—by taking the entire country into confidence through long and engaging discussions with every section of the society on every topic—but it is equally necessary for Nepal’s political leaders to mend ways.