Scapegoating the 2015 constitution has become Nepali politicians’ latest sing-along. They blame the constitution for the government’s instability, and then the instability for the deepening despondency in the country. They argue stability is possible only if we have a one-party government. However, with a constitutional provision for proportional representation, no party can win a parliamentary majority, making a one-party government impossible. The politicians claim they have no option but to form a coalition government, but coalitions are inherently unstable. The only way to a stable, one-party government is to eliminate the provision of proportional representation.

Experience elsewhere shows that a multi-party coalition has little to do with government instability. A government becomes unstable when those responsible for implementing the constitution do not respect the constitutional spirit.

Coalition and instability

Most of Europe has long been governed by coalition governments. Take Germany, for example. Since the establishment of the Federal Republic in 1949, Germany has had a single-party government only once, from 1957 to 1961. All others have been in stable coalitions, which have turned the country into Europe’s economic powerhouse over the years.

Germany also uses a mixed first-past-the-post and proportional electoral system. Every voter has two votes: One for the constituency candidate and the other for a political party. The proportional system has not been a handicap for stable governments.

Israel has never had a single-party government. Despite the never-ending series of coalition governments, the country has done well economically and militarily. Manmohan Singh ruled India for 10 years as the head of a coalition of several parties. His government is credited with a breakthrough in India’s economy, catapulting the country to the world stage.

As a coalition government is not a recipe for instability, a single-party government is not a prerequisite for stability and economic progress. North Korea has had a stable single-party government for a long time. It is an economic basket case. Our own partyless Panchayat regime ensured political stability for 30 years. Yet, all we have from those is the 1,000-km East-West highway and a few factories, all built with foreign aid.

Additionally, a single-party majority in the parliament comes with serious risks when the party's leader abuses the constitution to further their ego and personal ambitions. Adolf Hitler came to power using democratic means. Recep Erdogan of Turkey and Victor Orbán of Hungary are recent examples. They have used their majorities in their respective parliaments to muzzle the media and undermine the judiciary; in short, they undermine democracy. Under Narendra Modi’s single-party rule, India’s free media—once a shining light of the Indian democracy—has been bent to serve Modi’s ambitions. The country’s much-vaunted judiciary is compromised; opposition leaders are routinely thrown behind bars; Muslims, who comprise 14 percent of the population, have been marginalised, and secularism is under threat.

Instability and political leaders

In the past 76 years, Nepal has written seven constitutions (including the Interim Acts of 1948 and 1951) and trashed six because they did not work. Instead of blaming the constitution for government instability, we should ask why our constitutions have not worked.

The conversation between the two prominent politicians, Rishikesh Shah and BP Koirala, in 1968, soon after BP's release from Sundarijal, may provide an answer. I happened to be standing behind the two when they were talking. Shah argued that a flaw in the constitution—an obscure clause which vested emergency powers in the King—allowed King Mahendra to arrest BP and dissolve the parliament.

Koirala responded, “Shahji! No constitution is perfect. If those responsible for implementing the constitution have respect for its spirit, nothing like what the King did would have happened”. “You know, Professor,” BP continued, “According to the Constitution of the Soviet Union (The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), all Republics in the Union had full independence to secede, should they decide to do so. Yet, the Soviets sent their tanks even to independent countries like Hungary and Czechoslovakia when they challenged Moscow's grip on their countries. The British Monarch has several emergency powers, including dissolving parliament, but he does not now exercise them. Clearly, to the Soviets in Moscow, the constitution is just a piece of paper; to British monarchs, precedent, established democratic norms, and tradition are not to be violated”.

Democracy and government stability are ensured only when the leaders are honourable and operate with high ethical and moral standards, respecting the spirit of the constitution and established democratic norms. This includes ensuring that the parliament functions properly.

We buried the 1990 constitution and ushered in a new one in 2015 but not the political leaders responsible for implementing it. We failed to recognise that changing the constitution does not change the behaviour of leaders whose focus is to enrich themselves and their party. The trio of Sher Bahadur Deuba, KP Sharma Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal is still in command, and their manners have not changed. It is not the constitution but the non-stop jostling for political power among the trio that causes frequent blocking of Parliament and government instability.

Some parts of the constitution require more clarity and consistency, but dropping the provision for proportional representation is not one of them. What is urgently needed is freeing the country from the stranglehold of the three major party leaders who have repeatedly shown little respect for democratic norms and the spirit of the constitution.