By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel

Next month, Prime Minister Oli will complete his one year in office. Oli received his third appointment as Prime Minister on July 15, 2025. He earlier served as Prime Minister from October 2015 to July 2016 and from February 2018 to August 2021. He twice led the government with the support of the CPN-Maoist centre, which was perceived as the beginning of a new era in the country. But he quit the government after some differences and problems with the Maoist Centre. Now, he is at the helm of power with the support of the Nepali Congress.

Every time Oli came to power, he committed to bringing substantial changes to the country, be it economically or politically.  On one such occasion, he even went on to say that he would install pipelines at every household to address the recurrent problem related to petroleum and liquefied petroleum gas. People mocked him for his remarks, making him the subject of ridicule. This time, he catapults to power with the support of the Nepali Congress, saying his government will amend the statute to make a more inclusive constitution.

After several democratic struggles, we promulgated the first-ever inclusive constitution, paving the way for the transformation of the country. The constitution addressed long-standing grievances of the marginalised communities. It laid the foundation for inclusive growth and development. But surprisingly, some sections of the communities expressed reservations, arguing that it is a biased document and has nothing to offer.

The proposal to amend the constitution has always triggered a significant debate among the lawmakers in the country, with mixed reactions. Many argue that we need to embrace an electoral system with a directly elected executive head at three levels of the government. The one school of thought advocating this electoral system is the Maoist centre.  They hold the view that it plays a key role in ensuring stability, with one candidate from each party fighting for the executive leadership, whether Prime Minister or President.

A clever politician – Oli – whose political career was dwindling following his oligarchic manner in running the party, joined the bandwagon and echoed that there is a need to amend the constitution. The politics of Oli were understandable. He was losing his grip not only within the party but also as a political figure in the national political landscape. He needed a strong agenda to ensure a strong comeback. He found the constitutional amendment proposal as the perfect agenda to woo the people.

With the Nepali Congress, his party formed the government, and he assumed the responsibility of premiership last year. Almost a year has passed since he formed the government. Within this period, many people, mainly his critics, are mounting pressure on him, asking what led him to stop implementing what he had committed to while forming the government with the partnership of the Nepali Congress.

Now, if media reports are any guide, some forces are trying to topple the present government on the pretext of its failure to translate its words into action. If this happens, it will be yet another tragedy in the history of Nepalese politics. This is an established fact: no party has a majority in the present parliament to form a single government, something which has become a common phenomenon since we adopted the present electoral system. Thus, coalition government is our fait accompli. Change of coalition has been a common phenomenon resulting in the change of guard. It is very strange and surprising to know that no prime minister has completed five years in office since 1951. This has often been attributed to our electoral system.

At present, the NC and UML have a strong coalition government headed by Oli. The NC and UML agreed to form this government for some specific tasks. The key among them is the amendment of the constitution on certain arrangements, including the electoral system. They believe that the existing electoral system is responsible for hung parliaments and frequent changes of guard. Given our bitter experience with frequent changes of government, this argument cannot be ruled out altogether.

But on the other hand, there are many European countries with a proportional system of election, and on several occasions, no single party wins a majority in the parliament. Despite this, there is political stability and the government functions full-time. One reason for this is that they have very healthy politics and a strong coalition culture without any baggage of vested interest.

We all know that a constitution is a progressive and dynamic document which evolves over time. We also know that provisions in the constitution can be amended as per the needs of the time. This is a simple truth that everyone needs to understand and adhere to. The present biggest and largest democracies have amended their constitutions several times.

But it is strange and surprising that our politicians foolishly use constitutional amendments as an agenda to come to power. It is also very disgusting and ridiculous to see our politicians attribute our constitution to the present pathetic situation of the country. While the international communities have wholeheartedly acknowledged our constitution, saying it is one of the best constitutions in the world, our politicians are busy beating their own drum to mislead the people.

Whether our constitution has flaws or not is not an issue of discussion at the moment. But the issue of discussion is that if politicians say that they will amend the constitution on certain arrangements, including the electoral system, they should fulfil their promise. This really is an issue of great concern. But this is seldom discussed and accounted for.

Our politicians should not attempt to deceive people under any pretext. It does not work in a functioning democracy.