The concept of an expert-centric National Assembly could bring about a revolutionary change in Nepal's parliamentary system, but its benefits need to be realistically assessed without exaggerating
Governments in Nepal are formed and fall quickly. One clear problem is evident in these cycles of instability: weak separation of powers between the executive and the legislature. The political instability seen since democracy in 1990 has proven that regular elections alone are not enough to sustain democracy. The current turmoil has sought structural reforms including stability, professionalism, and accountability. If MPs from the House of Representatives (HoR) are barred from becoming ministers and the National Assembly is made an assembly of experts, instability and corruption will be eliminated. Lawmaking and long-term planning will be strengthened. This approach would achieve two major goals at once –drastically reducing soaring election expenses and tightening control over corruption within the state machinery.
If a system is made to prevent MPs from becoming ministers, ministers are appointed based on their qualifications and abilities, not under pressure from political parties. In such a situation, the executive is accountable and does not depend on the bargaining power of the Parliament. Since the council of ministers is formed by a group of technical and experienced experts, a government that lasts for a certain period of time is possible. The Parliament oversees the executive, keeping the interests of the country and the people paramount.
The National Assembly should be made a merit-based, professional upper house. The lower house should nominate doctors, engineers, economists, educationists, experts to the upper house. Ministers can be taken from the upper house – not from the lower house.
In the United States and countries with hybrid parliamentary systems, separation of powers has brought stability and accountability. Nepal can adopt these principles in its own constitution. The removal of elected MPs from being ministers and the National Assembly becoming a house of experts – these two steps will make Nepal's democracy stable, capable, and sustainable.
The National Assembly has become mainly a mirror of party representation, which has prevented it from becoming a restraining or expert review house.
But in a federal republic, the upper house must play a strategic role – providing specialised knowledge, balancing short-term populism, and safeguarding the long-term national interest. The HoR should elect members of the National Assembly from among Nepali citizens aged 45 years and above with a minimum of a master's degree, proven expertise in law, economics, administration, engineering, health, agriculture, energy, technology, culture, or diplomacy.
The concept of an expert-centric National Assembly could bring about a revolutionary change in Nepal's parliamentary system, but its benefits need to be realistically assessed without exaggerating. The points below highlight its potential benefits, but each also includes potential limitations and a balanced approach:
1. Rigorous review of laws: Technically sound, economically realistic, socially balanced experts can scrutinise bills from technical, economic, and social perspectives, which prevents flawed laws and makes policy-making scientific. For example, input from engineers in climate-related bills ensures pragmatism. This is beneficial, but the personal bias of experts can upset the balance. Transparent debate and public representation in the HoR should keep this balanced.
2. Long-term priority: Free from election cycles and fixed-term tenures focussed on climate, finance, infrastructure, experts focus on 10-20-year plans, which prioritise sustainable development over short-term popular measures.
3. Institutional stability: Even when the government changes, the expert house maintains policy continuity, which reduces instability in areas such as infrastructure or health. Stability is beneficial, but excessive rigidity can also stifle innovation.
4. Balancing populism: Evidence, research, restraint experts balance HoR's electoral populism with evidence-based research and restraint, which prevents emotional decisions.
5. Strengthening federalism: Experts who reconcile federal, provincial, and local laws resolve provincial-local disputes by examining the consistency of federal laws, which strengthens Nepal's federal structure. Provincial representation and local input are essential, otherwise the federal spirit weakens.
The ban on MPs becoming ministers while introducing the combination of an expert cabinet is a revolutionary step in Nepal's democratic system. But its actual impact needs to be realistically assessed without exaggerating. These reforms can theoretically bring about a balance of power and stability. But implementation challenges, political resistance, and unintended consequences must also be considered.
This provision frees the HoR from the executive and focusses on lawmaking and oversight, which increases the effectiveness of parliamentary committees. When the lure of becoming a minister is removed, MPs can criticise without fear, increasing accountability. The "honesty" of MPs depends on the nomination process. Ministers based on merit can provide technical policy and long-term governance.
When the executive and legislature are separated, arbitrariness is reduced. Theoretically correct, but if expert ministers become the "rubber stamp" of the prime minister, the balance is disrupted. Only the constitutional mechanism of the National Assembly's prerogative veto strengthens it. Stable policies accelerate development. A balance of public opinion and expertise in the HoR is essential for sustainable democracy. These two reforms can make Nepal's democracy strong, integrated, and sustainable, but success depends on transparent nominations, HoR-National Assembly balance, and ongoing evaluation. This is not a "change," but rather a means to balanced development.
