Your search keywords:

Constitutional changes still a far-fetched wish

Constitutional changes still a far-fetched wish

It has been more than six months since Nepal’s two major political parties, the Nepali Congress (NC) and the CPN-UML, pledged to make amendments to the 2015 constitution. However, despite their promises, tangible progress remains elusive. A few weeks ago, they announced plans to form a two-party mechanism to address constitutional amendment issues. Yet, this initiative appears stalled, with little to no significant development.

Statements from Prime Minister and CPN-UML Chairperson KP Sharma Oli suggest that a constitutional amendment is not on the immediate horizon. In fact, it may not occur until after the 2027 national elections. Without giving away the specifics, Oli indicated that any potential amendment might only take place in 2030. Regarding the flaws in the constitution, he remarked, “There are some flaws in the constitution which need to be rectified, but it will take place only in 2030 because now we do not have the two-thirds majority required for it.”

The NC has remained notably silent about its position on constitutional amendments. There have been no substantial deliberations within the party, and it is unclear if there is any agreement between the NC and UML on key issues. Both parties appear to share an interest in reforming the current electoral system to ensure political stability, but dissenting voices from Madhesi and Janajati leaders within their ranks could complicate such efforts.

If the two major parties fail to take the initiative, constitutional amendments are unlikely to materialize. When the NC and UML announced their willingness to amend the constitution while forming the government in July last year, it prompted other parties to clarify their positions. The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), which did not exist when the constitution was promulgated in 2015, has established a task force led by Chief Whip Santosh Pariyar to determine the party’s stance on constitutional issues. The RSP’s position on governance, federalism, and the electoral system remains ambiguous. The party’s decision not to field candidates for provincial assemblies in 2022 sparked speculation that it might oppose the federal structure. However, leaders like Pariyar have expressed support for federalism and related agendas.

Meanwhile, Madhes-based parties have begun consolidating their positions on constitutional amendments. These parties are working towards forming a loose alliance to present a unified stance. The first amendment to the constitution in 2016 addressed some of their demands, bringing an end to the Madhes Movement and lifting a four-month-long blockade imposed by India. However, the Madhes-based parties still advocate for further changes to fully address their grievances.

Constitutional amendment was also a key topic of discussion at the recently concluded Central Committee meeting of CPN (Maoist Center), the main opposition. The party has outlined three primary amendments: the introduction of a directly elected president, the adoption of a fully proportional electoral system, and ensuring 50 percent representation for women in state organs. Maoist Chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal has championed these radical reforms, which could reshape Nepal’s political landscape if implemented.

The fifth-largest party, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), has also initiated internal discussions on constitutional amendments. The RPP’s agenda includes abolishing federalism, reinstating Nepal as a Hindu state, and reviving the monarchy. These proposals stand in stark contrast to the positions of most other parties and are unlikely to gain widespread support.

Despite these activities among smaller parties, the NC and UML’s lack of substantive discussion on constitutional amendments is striking. For instance, during a recent UML Central Committee meeting, there was no mention of the specific changes the party seeks to introduce. According to UML leaders, the party’s strategy is to prioritize constitutional amendments only after securing a majority in the House of Representatives.

The 2015 constitution is widely regarded as a product of compromise among four major political forces: the NC, UML, Maoists, and Madhes-based parties. While this consensus allowed for the constitution’s promulgation, it has also resulted in ambiguities and areas of contention that require resolution. The UML’s current stance appears to favor amendments tailored to its terms, further delaying the process due to the lack of cross-party consensus.

As Nepal approaches the 10th anniversary of the 2015 constitution, there has been no expert-led review of its implementation. A senior UML leader has emphasized that the government’s priority is to evaluate the constitution’s effectiveness before deciding on amendments. This cautious approach reflects broader hesitations within the NC, where internal dynamics and divergent views prevent the party from supporting UML’s amendment proposals wholeheartedly.

The road to constitutional amendment is fraught with challenges. Beyond the lack of political will among major parties, there are ideological divides that hinder consensus. For instance, the UML’s preference for amendments that align with its agenda clashes with the more inclusive demands of Madhes-based parties and Janajati leaders. Similarly, the Maoist party’s call for radical reforms faces resistance from parties advocating for minimal changes.

Furthermore, the failure to address constitutional issues risks deepening public disillusionment with Nepal’s political leadership. Many citizens view the 2015 constitution as a landmark achievement that needs refinement to better serve the nation’s evolving needs. The lack of progress undermines confidence in the political process and raises questions about the commitment of major parties to democratic principles and governance.

To move forward, Nepal’s political leadership must prioritize dialogue and consensus-building. A comprehensive review of the constitution’s implementation, involving legal experts, civil society, and diverse political voices, could provide a roadmap for amendments that address the nation’s pressing challenges. 

Comments