The constitution is not being seen as a document that reflects the consensus of the people's political, social and cultural aspirations
The sudden midnight agreement on July 1, 2024, between the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML to form a coalition government, had shaken the nation by surprise. The reason for this was that these two largest parties in the House of Representatives have historically and ideologically been opposed. Hardly anyone believed that this agreement to form a coalition government would, in fact, mark the beginning of a politics of consensus that would steer the country in the right direction. At that time, the country was embarrassed and gripped by fear due to various corruption scandals. In such a dire situation, people suspected that this sudden push for consensus was a ploy to divert attention from these scandals and protect those involved. Unfortunately, people's fears proved to be justified. Discussions on most of the scandals have been halted, and investigations have stalled, preventing them from reaching logical and satisfactory conclusions.
On every front, the policies of the government seem unclear and confused. In the case of foreign policy, this confusion is even more visible. Neither non-alignment nor partnership keeping the country's development and interest in mind is visible. All neighbours are very important, but the dimensions of the relationship depend on the need and various components and particularities.
Almost immediately after the announcement of the alliance, the leaders of the NC and CPN UML began discussing amendments to the constitution for the sake of stability. However, this 'stability' seemed to prioritise government continuity over providing the country with a clear direction and momentum.
It's worth noting that these two parties have dominated Nepali politics for most of its history, yet neither has managed to present a vision that inspires hope or a convincing development strategy beyond mere governance. Throughout their rule, corruption scandals have proliferated, with government leaders and supporters implicated in various malpractices. In such a context, the stability of governments holds little significance. If the constitution is amended with this narrow objective, it will only perpetuate corruption and malpractices, strengthening their grip under the guise of stability.
Homework is going on behind closed doors on the constitutional amendment. A task force of a few people has been formed to work on the draft. It seems that the constitution is not being seen as a document that reflects the consensus of the people's political, social and cultural aspirations, nor as the fundamental law based on these aspirations. Instead, it is being treated as a tool to govern the country. Due to continuous threats to the stability of their governance, they want to close these sources by amending the constitution to suit their needs.
Efforts are being made by the CPN-UML and the Nepali Congress to justify the amendments. They propose to remove proportional representation (PR) from the House of Representatives, reduce the total number of members of this House, increase the threshold up to 10 per cent to promote a two-party political system, and change the present fundamental structure of the National Assembly, which really is a house of the federal parliament to represent local levels and provinces. But all these arguments are being made solely by the ruling group and their associates, as if there are no other concerned and relevant stakeholders in this country.
It is undisputed that only the PR system can ensure proper representation for an inclusive democracy in a diverse society. This is the reason why Madhesis, Tharus, indigenous people, women, Dalits and Muslims are being represented in the federal parliament in whatever way possible. To some extent, they get a say in the state's affairs. The reason why the ruling class objects to proportional representation is that through this system, people from those groups, kept aside till now, are able to get representation and seek a share in the federal parliament. Imagine if this system is removed; then it is certain that fewer people from these groups will be able to reach the federal parliament. The aim of reducing the number of members of the House of Representatives is not really to reduce unnecessary expenditure but to reduce the representation from Madhes and Tharuhat because these regions will lose the most due to the reduction in the number of seats.
The concept of a bicameral federal parliament was conceived by the Constituent Assembly as a special representative chamber to protect federalism and safeguard the rights and interests of the state and local levels. Despite the lack of a clear explanation in the constitution, the National Assembly has been seen moving forward in this direction. Amendments should be made to speed up this pace. The number of members elected from the representatives of the local levels and the states should be arranged in proportion to the population of the states. But as is being heard, there is talk of binding the National Assembly as a shadow of the House of Representatives. Instead of refining the rights of the National Assembly as the protector of federalism, elections with PR system from all over the country will do the same.
Thus, it is very clear that the present ruling coalition views the constitution not as a document of popular consent and a guiding principle but as a tool for political control. The entire nation must immediately recognize the gravity of this issue. Failure to do so will reverse our hard-earned progress toward identity, self-governance, and inclusiveness. While the Constitution requires amendments to move forward, our immediate priority is to prevent its backward slide.
Lal is President, Tarai Madhes Loktantrik Party