Political instability apparently is a systemic feature of Nepal's political system. Citizens have gotten accustomed to frequent changes in government with politicians' shenanigans becoming a constant feature that people have to bear with. Apparently, the new UML-Congress government led by Prime Minister Oli wants to change this pitiful situation by reviewing the constitution.

In doing so, the two parties risk opening a Pandora's box, causing general discontent and protests among parties in the opposition and even among the general public. While it is legitimate for some political parties to believe that there is room to discuss stronger and better constitutional provisions that might result in some amendments of the current charter, such exercise must be chartered out very carefully.

Any process of constitutional change can turn extremely fractious and potentially damaging with a possible return to low intensity conflicts and tensions of the past. In short, there could be a real possibility that the pushback at the attempts to modify the constitution might return Nepal to an era of bandhs with frequent strikes paralysing the nation.

Parties in the opposition, including the Moist-Centre led by former prime minister Prachanda, could strongly and possibly violently protest any possible debate to change the constitution. Opportunistically, they might, sensing an opening to regain some visibility and legitimacy, leverage the situation and take advantage of it by re-establishing a connection with the common people and re-boot.

Prachanda's party, now much weakened and sidelined, could take a chance at re-finding some raison d'etre, rediscovering a purpose in the form of defending the rights of minorities and vulnerable groups. On this aspect, I do hope to be wrong and my forecasting be proven incorrect. I am saying so because people might not want to return to a past characterised by street protests and chaos. Moreover, linked to this, the citizens' collective intelligence and maturity and understanding of the political discussions going on in the country might have evolved.

Despite these possibilities, yet once it is open, it might get difficult to put the genie back into the bottle. Any consideration at changing the constitution should be carried out through the prism of the common good and inclusively and participatorily. This means putting the common people's interest at the front.

Most importantly, the way and manners that such questions are posed to the public and the framework in which discussions will emerge will matter a lot.

A few questions could help steer the debate.

What should it take to create more stability in the country? What can be done to avoid the consistent pattern of changes in the leadership of the government?

How to separate the political dynamics at the centre, what's happening at the federal level from the provincial ones? In other words, the latter question would entail how to insulate the provincial governments from the gimmicks that so often unfold in Kathmandu.

Less obvious instead is the fact that any changes in the constitution should be debated by upholding and reaffirming some of the sacrosanct values that brought to the establishment of a federal democratic republic in the country: inclusion and a strong and unbreakable commitment to social justice. So, the focus of any propositions on how to better the constitution should highlight an adamant, indisputable obligation to make Nepal a fairer and more just society. If you think about it, it is not totally shocking that in the composition of the new federal government, there is not even a member of the Dalit community.

A revised constitution should not only prioritise a discussion on increasing the threshold that would allow less political parties to be represented in the Federal Parliament, therefore, perhaps, creating more stability. Let's not forget, on this regard, a lot depends less on established constitutional provisions and more on the political culture embedded in the people that use the former for the sake of their own interests.

If the UML and the NC want to change the constitution, then they should do it in a way that underline the still unended quest of the country to turn itself into something much better by embracing social justice and fairness. Along constitutional provisions, a new social contract should be also discussed on how the state at its different levels can become more responsive and more capable of meeting the needs of its people.

Lastly, but very crucially, any possible debate on the constitutional reform should envision the establishment of consultative mechanisms with the people. Here I am not talking of a new Constituent Assembly but rather of enabling and allowing the citizens to be part of the dialogue by bringing such key discussions at the ground level.

In countries like Ireland, Iceland and even in Mongolia, innovative consultative mechanisms were established to enable real people's participation in the process of constitutional change. Elected politicians and their unelected peers engaged in parties' politics should not have the monopoly on the related decision-making.

Obviously, no one is denying that they have a role but the entire process should really resemble a 'whole society approach' in which conversations happen around the country, formally and informally. Vulnerable segments of the population, women and youths should have a special role in shaping and framing the talk.

Let's not forget that changing the constitution should not be seen as an end to itself that will further entrench the power of the elite now running the nation. It should instead be a platform for real and sometimes difficult sharing of opinions and views and, ultimately, a steppingstone towards what some would call, real freedom and prosperity.