Editorial
Easy does it
Amending the constitution is a serious matter and not something that can be done overnight.
The text of the midnight deal last Monday whereby the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML agreed to stitch together a new coalition remains hidden, giving rise to much speculation. Yet while talking about the deal, the leaders of the two parties have pointed to the necessity of a ‘national consensus’ government in order to address the country’s pressing problems. This, they say, entails amending the nine-year-old national constitution. Even if the country’s two largest parties come together, they will fall short of a two-thirds majority needed to amend the constitution in the federal lower House. Had they the numbers in the lower chamber, they would have fallen short in the upper House. To amend the constitution, the ruling parties ought to have two-thirds majority in both. This is why many analysts reckon the constitution amendment is no more than an excuse to justify the toppling of the Pushpa Kamal Dahal government. That is unfortunate. The biggest architects of the national charter cannot be so cavalier when it comes to its amendment.
The other suspicion is that in pushing for constitution amendment, the two big parties want to significantly reduce the number of proportional representation seats in the two Houses. The reasoning is that the PR seats have allowed many smaller political outfits to enter parliament and to bargain for power with the big parties, thus contributing to political instability. The Congress and the UML also seemingly want to capitalise on the perception that the PR seats are mostly reserved for those close to powerful party chairs rather than for members of the marginalised and under-represented communities, as was envisioned in the constitution. Whatever the case, they should tread carefully. Despite all its flaws, the PR system has significantly increased the political representation of marginalised communities and groups and it would be dangerous to fiddle with it without their buy-in. There is also no guarantee a fully FPTP system will ensure stability. Even before the new constitution came into effect in 2015, not a single government, each one of them formed through direct elections, came close to serving out its full term. This again points to the need for broad consultations—and not a little introspection on the part of our top leaders.
A living document that is the constitution can and should be amended on a timely basis, or it becomes irrelevant. But hastily tweaking it could invite more problems than it would solve. It is interesting that many of the high-ranking Congress and UML leaders were unaware of the Monday deal even an hour before it was signed. It is thus hard to believe that the points of agreement were much discussed even inside the two parties, much less in the broader society. For far too long, the leaders of the big parties have treated the apparatus of government pretty much as their personal property. The biggest reason the new federal republican system has not functioned as intended is their sense of entitlement, lack of accountability, and paucity of faith in the system they have themselves championed in public. Unless there is a change in this mindset, no system of governance or election will yield the desired results.