The conversation over amending the constitution has resurfaced in Nepal’s political scene since the formation of the new government in July. The discussion on constitutional amendment has hit the public discourse, but this is the first time a new coalition has been formed to amend the constitution. The new political alliance between the Nepali Congress (NC) and the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist–Leninist (CPN-UML) is aimed at amending the country’s nine-year-old constitution. 

The discussion around constitutional amendment mainly revolves around the electoral system, directly elected executive head, and other issues of federalism and secularism. For Nepal, amendment to the existing constitution would mean opening Pandora’s box, inviting a multitude of issues and new forms of power struggles for a nation constantly grappling with political instability.

Nepal’s Constitutional History 

In its nearly 70-year history of constitutional development, Nepal has experienced seven different constitutions. All these constitutions account for different political developments, whether democratic or autocratic. 

The 2015 constitution – the first to be promulgated by people’s elected representatives following a decade-long Maoist insurgency, and also considered to be Nepal’s most progressive, inclusive, and democratic national charter – eventually defined a course to end Nepal’s political transition. However, the post-transition journey toward political stability has not been smooth, primarily because the constitution was a document of compromise among various political forces.

From the very start, Madhes-based parties were not happy with the current constitution. The Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and the then CPN-Maoist Center had forged an alliance against the monarchy which was later joined by Madhes-based political forces. But each party had its own agenda, interest, and stake in the process. This resulted in various implementation challenges, as well as violations of constitutional clauses from its very signatories. 

The political leaders leading the government kept focusing on clinging to power rather than making the laws necessary to implement the constitution. Today, nearly 10 years after the current constitution was adopted, political parties have given no heed to critically reviewing the political basis of the constitution, the expectations of the people, its positive aspects, and the implementation challenge.

Why Amend the Constitution?

The current ruling alliance – the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML –  says that constitutional amendment is necessary for political stability, which will ultimately drive the country toward the path of development and prosperity. In particular, political leaders aim to change the present proportional representation (PR) electoral system, which they say is the main cause of political instability. There has also been some discussion of possible negotiations on issues relating to federalism and secularism. But politicians have not clearly revealed which articles of the constitution will be amended and what would be the process for it.

Amid this, opposition parties have already started expressing their skepticism toward the proposal before it could actually come into force. Opposition parties claim that the narrative of constitutional amendment set by the CPN-UML and the Nepali Congress is just a tactic to overthrow the previous government. 

The public, on the other hand, is skeptical as to whether an amendment to the current constitution would actually lead to a stable political future. 

Given this, it is crucial to ponder why Nepal has been experimenting with constitutions, one after another. Why are Nepal’s political parties keen on delving into amendment of the existing constitution without fully dissecting its implementational loopholes? 

It is also imperative to discuss what the proposed amendment would mean to different political parties in Nepal and whether it will actually lead to the “political stability” that its advocates are vouching for.

The current proposal of constitutional amendment could be a pretext for political union between two major parties with the vested interest of taking turns in the leadership post. Indeed, over two months after the formation of their new alliance, the CPN-UML and Nepali Congress do not seem to have a clear road map on how to move ahead with the process of constitutional amendment.

Diverse Political Interests 

The amendment process would be easier said than done. Recall that it took nearly a decade to finalize the current constitution, which replaced the interim constitution of 2007.

Discussions on amendment will bring multiple issues, differences, and challenges to the forefront. The extant political parties of Nepal have different stakes and agendas, which are very likely to be brought to the fore if the discussion on the amendment of the constitution proceeds. There are dissatisfaction and disagreement on a number of constitutional provisions, including the issue of representation of Indigenous people, Dalits, women, differently-abled people, and other marginalized communities, as well as disagreements over the demarcation of provincial borders. And that’s without getting into questions on the effectiveness of the current electoral system.

Constitutional amendment has different meanings for different political groups. For the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, the discussion around constitutional amendment would center on reform to the current electoral system as well as a directly elected executive prime minister. They are of the view that the current PR system is one of the major causes for Nepal’s chronically unstable governments. 

For other parties, like the Rastriya Swatantra Party, the amendment in the new constitution would be directed toward securing their political presence in the upcoming general elections, while for the Maoists the major agenda item would be reinforcing identity and inclusion along with a directly elected executive president. Some of them would also want to revisit the entire gamut of federalism. The pro-monarchy party, on the other hand, would be sterner in calling for the reinstatement of Nepal as a Hindu state. 

The Madhes-based political parties are already unhappy with the existing constitutional provisions and will certainly come up with an agenda focused on more representation of Madhesi people in national politics. 

Spearheading the discussion on the amendment of the current constitution of Nepal, therefore would be a herculean task that might further push the country toward prolonged uncertainty and political instability if not handled well.

Developing Nepal’s Constitutional Culture

No matter how progressive or inclusive a constitution is, it cannot function well without sincere and honest political actors to implement it. Amid the discussion on revising the constitution, political parties in Nepal continue to function for personalized political benefits. There is talk about forming a national consensus government for the amendment of the constitution. Still, the possibility and impact of such an endeavor remain questionable as the parties involved carry different political baggage.

The deep-rooted culture of coalition and agreements is precarious for Nepal’s political stability. The political parties lack a constitutional culture and vision, as governments constantly worry about the longevity of their own regimes and end up forging unnatural deals. 

Any constitutional amendment needs proper homework and, above all, larger acceptability from citizens. Revision of the constitution can only materialize through a consultative mechanism wherein citizens are made part of the process and dialogues. If we don’t adhere to this basic constitutional culture, there could be a real possibility for the entire process to turn fractious and potentially damaging.