Amendments based simply on the need and influence of the political elite will only make the situation worse and the political and social order more chaotic and fragile
The demand for constitutional amendment in Nepal has emerged as a multifaceted discourse, driven by converging pressures from intellectuals, public opinion leaders and, more recently, the governing political establishment. Intellectuals and opinion-makers articulate the need for reform as an imperative to modernise governance structures and address systemic ambiguities. Simultaneously, grassroots movements reflect the public's growing frustration with perceived inequalities and governance inefficiencies, amplifying calls for transformative change. However, interestingly, they do not speak about the constitution, they speak for change. The involvement of major political parties in the government has lent institutional gravity to these demands, signalling a critical juncture where scholarly advocacy, popular sentiment and political will converge to redefine Nepal's constitutional framework.
In Nepal, scholars and intellectuals advocate constitutional amendment, citing governance inefficiencies, underperformance of this country compared to the speed of development in the neighbouring countries, and underwhelming governmental delivery. However, scepticism persists, as some perceive their advocacy as veiled efforts to dismantle federalism and revive the abolished Monarchy. Whatever the process be and when it starts, what is almost clear is that the amendment will certainty be limited to those points which the leaders of the UML and NC want amended. The amendment process requires the support of a two-thirds majority in both houses of the parliament, making the backing of both the NC and UML essential.
The current situation in Nepal reflects widespread public frustration and dissatisfaction with the government's delivery and the harsh realities of life for the majority. This contrasts sharply with emerging voices from political quarters, largely driven by the vested interests of the top leaders of the ruling parties. These leaders prioritise consolidating power, safeguarding their positions and ensuring loyalty within their ranks. Their intent for amendment is limited to few specificities, such as discouraging party divisions, streamlining leadership elections and enhancing their control over the parliamentary board and government. Among others, key measures in their charter include granting the party head excessive authority over candidate nominations, weakening provisions for no-confidence motions, tightening control over the judiciary and budget processes, and undermining the role of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority and maintaining a shield against potential charges of corruption in the future.
What is more interesting is the highly proactive initiatives of lawyers, including ex-judges, in the discourse. Sushila Karki, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, at one public programme, was critical at the attempt to amend the constitution, arguing that this constitution is too young and has not yet been fully implemented.
Karki further advised that the constitution did not hinder efforts to develop the nation or undertake initiatives that benefit the country. However, even for someone who is neither for or against constitution amendment, her comment sounds weak and uninformed. When the proponents are making points that federalism is not functioning well and delivery has been seriously affected due to some provisions in the constitution, the ex-judge was saying that the constitution is still not mature enough for amendment. On the contrary, I don't see how the age of the constitution can be a deciding factor for its amendment. In my opinion, any constitution can warrant amendment even immediately after its promulgation if there are flaws in its original version.
It would have been more convincing had the ex-chief justice discussed the matter of 'constitution amendment' within the purview of whether or not the present constitution supported or presented barriers for translating the major preamble of this constitution into people's everyday life, such as in strengthening democracy, heading towards socialism as a norm of society, promoting the rule of law, human rights, inclusion, climate awareness and so on.
What is worth noting in this discourse is that lawyers and people from the legal profession are at the front. That sounds normal in its face-value, but I am not convinced as to why only lawyers and politicians should have a claim to a stake in it.
What is unnatural and what seems like a serious gap in this discourse is about the reference of data and narratives from people's everyday lives and nation's vision that warrants amendment. Little is discussed about the barriers in the constitution in creating jobs and employment opportunities for millions of youths. There apparently is an apathy to discussing barriers and the way out for accelerating innovation, facilitating entrepreneurship and connecting education to entrepreneurship and economy. Little is known, if in fact any, about the provisions in the constitution which are an obstacle for aggressive expansion of development infrastructure and facilitating access to education and health to the marginalised. And, in my view, those must be the central agenda for any discourse in constitutional amendment.
For the attempts at amendment to be effective, fruitful and longlisting, the process must be inclusive, widely participatory and transparent, ensuring that people from all walks of life have the opportunity to share their experience and perspectives. Discourse must start from reflecting on the barriers along with the scope and details for revision categorically. Amendments based simply on the need and influence of the political elite will only make the situation worse and the political and social order more chaotic and fragile.
Bhattarai is an expert in Development Analysis