The decision by the Balendra Shah-led government to form a task force to prepare a discussion paper on constitutional amendment signals renewed political intent. Yet, despite years of rhetoric and electoral promises, translating that intent into action remains deeply challenging.
At the heart of the difficulty lies the arithmetic of power. Although the ruling bloc—particularly Rastriya Swantra Party—appears to command close to a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives, this strength does not extend to the National Assembly. Since constitutional amendments in Nepal require approval from both houses, the absence of sufficient numbers in the upper chamber poses a structural hurdle. Even with potential support from smaller parties, securing the required majority in both houses remains uncertain.
Beyond numbers, the lack of political consensus presents an even more formidable barrier. While almost all major parties—including Nepali Congress (NC), CPN-UML, Nepali Communist Party, and RSP—have expressed commitment to amending the constitution, they diverge sharply on what those amendments should entail.
The most contentious issue is the form of governance. The debate over executive power has resurfaced strongly. RSP and Maoist forces are advocating for a directly elected president, arguing that it could ensure stronger and more stable leadership. However, the Nepali Congress has consistently opposed this model, favoring the existing parliamentary system. This disagreement is not new—it dates back to the original constitution-drafting process of 2008 to 2015, when parties ultimately rejected a directly elected presidential system, citing risks for a politically fragile country like Nepal.
Such foundational disagreements make consensus-building extremely difficult. Constitutional amendments are not merely technical adjustments; they involve redefining the structure of the state. Without alignment on core principles like governance models, progress is likely to stall.
Adding to the complexity is the absence of a clear roadmap. The government has formed a task force to draft a discussion paper, but has not yet established a formal constitutional review mechanism. This raises questions about whether the process has sufficient institutional grounding to move forward effectively.
Political ambiguity further complicates the process. Many parties, including NC and UML, have acknowledged the need for amendments but have refrained from specifying concrete proposals. Even parties with clearer positions, such as RSP—which has advocated for a directly elected executive and a fully proportional electoral system—may face pressure to moderate their stance in the post-election political environment.
Electoral reform is another sensitive issue. While concerns have been raised about the current system’s inability to produce stable single-party governments, recent electoral outcomes have somewhat weakened that argument. This reduces urgency and consensus around reforming the electoral framework.
Finally, broader ideological issues—such as secularism—could emerge as flashpoints during the amendment process, further complicating negotiations.
In sum, constitutional amendment in Nepal is not just a legislative exercise but a deeply political process requiring broad consensus, institutional clarity, and numerical strength across both houses of Parliament. The current scenario reveals gaps on all three fronts. As a result, despite renewed momentum, the path toward amendment remains uncertain and fraught with challenges.
