Spread the love

By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel.

It has been nearly six months since KP Oli became the Prime Minister for the third time, leading the Nepali Congress-UML coalition government. While forming the Oli-led coalition government, the Nepali Congress and UML had inked a seven-point agreement. Of which, the amendment of the constitution was their key agenda. Both agreed to amend some provisions of the constitution. It is still unclear what they want to amend and how they will do it.

Since we restored a multiparty democracy, the political instability has remained the biggest headache for us. We often witness the change of government even under the slightest pretext. Many tend to link the electoral system—a mixture of first-past-the-post voting (FPP) and a proportional system for the frequent change of government. To some extent, their argument is justifiable, as a mixed or proportionate electoral system often leads to a hung parliament. Hence, the coalition government remains the only option in which smaller parties have a dominating voice in the coalition and bigger parties have to make compromises for the sustenance.

In many European countries, the coalition government has been functioning very well. These coalitions are established based on the political ideology. The political parties with similar ideologies forge alliances and form the government. Clearly, this is not the case in our context. The political parties that are poles apart in terms of political ideology forge alliances and form the government, which soon dismantles their indifferences—be it ideology or agenda.

It has been found that in fledgling democracies like ours, smaller parties in the coalition government often demand a big piece of the cake in exchange for their support. The bigger parties, too, make compromises on various issues to ensure their sustenance. When the demands of smaller parties go unheard, they withdraw their support, and the government collapses, laying the ground for a change of guard.

However, it would be stupid to blame the electoral system for frequent changes of government. Instead, it is the unethical and immoral political culture that led to the forming and dismantling of the governments in Nepal. This is evident in the fact that despite having an FPTP electoral system in place in the past, we experienced several instances of frequent changes of government and political instability.

Nepal is the only country in the world that has experienced and experimented with seven constitutions within seventy-five years of practising the constitution. The present constitution is the result of several compromises among major political forces. To say, the constitution is the document of compromise that reflects the balance of power of that time. This essence related to compromise is also needed at the time of constitutional amendment to ensure its broader acceptance.

The present coalition government commands a two-thirds majority in the parliament and can easily amend the constitution. However, it may require the support of other parties in the national assembly, which is a technical and constitutional part of the process. With the support of the parties in the national assembly, the constitution will not draw any flak. In plain words, the ruling coalition cannot and should not attempt to amend the provisions of the constitution based on technical majority. By doing so, it will only lay the ground to sow the seed of conflict and confrontation.

When the Nepali Congress and UML joined hands to form the government almost six months ago, they agreed to amend some provisions of the constitution. This was their major agenda. However, recent political developments suggest that amendment to the constitution will not be anytime soon.

PM Oli just recently said the constitution will be amended only after a few years. His remarks came at a time when his political detractors were telling the people that Oli’s assurance of a constitutional amendment was just a pretext to form the government under his leadership. How Oli will convince the people remains to be seen.

In any functioning democracy, the political parties have differing voices. This is the essence of democracy. Some political parties have clearly sent the message to oppose the idea of reforming the electoral system. The Maoist Center has made clear its position on the electoral reform. It is very unlikely to accept doing away with the proportional system. Some leaders in the ruling coalition have also opined the national assembly should be represented by those elected through proportional elections.

It is a fact that the constitution is a living and dynamic document. It evolves over time and can be amended on the basis of necessity. Even the constitution of the largest democracy—India—has been amended over 100 times ever since its adoption in 1950, reflecting the evolving needs of the society. 

If the ruling coalition is serious about a constitutional amendment, it has to explain which part of the provision will be amended and how it will be amended. They have to be very careful to ensure that the amendment of the constitution will not open Pandora’s box of political problems threatening our past democratic achievements. It calls for greater wisdom and thinking among our leaders of all hues.

The broader acceptance of the constitution can be ensured only when the leaders come together, shun their egos, and stop being stubborn. Flexibility, compromise, and consensus are key factors that determine the broader acceptance of the constitution. Our leaders, in the past, have displayed optimum maturity and made compromises in giving us the present constitution. We hope they will display maximum flexibility when the proposal for the constitutional amendment is tabled in the future.