"The full test of federalism is not being done"

Stakeholders have said that there is a risk of further instability if the revision is carried out without review. A conversation with constitutional scholar Radheshyam Adhikari on the occasion of Constitution Day :

It has been 9 years since the constitution was issued, how do you evaluate and review the constitution based on its implementation during this period?

Based on the expectation of bringing this constitution, mixed results are seen. Good progress has been made in several areas. Take proportional inclusion for example. This is the essence of the constitution. Due to the proportional inclusion system, 33 percent women are represented in the parliament. Representation of women at the local level is 40 percent. In this regard, we are in the leading position in South Asia.

The representation of Dalits in the back is coming up. The presence of backward Madhesi, tribes and others has increased in the society. This is a strong point of the constitution, a matter to be proud of. If you look at the union, state and local level, I like the work of the local level. The republic has also become stronger. Dharai feels that the monarchy will return or not. Constituent Assembly, union, state and local level elections have been held. What has been seen in all the elections is that there are no votes in favor of those who want a king. It can be clearly seen that the people are in favor of the republic. For that reason, the country is oriented towards stability.

On the other hand, the federal government and parliament are failing to fully implement the federal system. By not making the law that should be made from here, by not giving what should be given, by trying to keep the rights in the lion palace, it is certain that the desired work could not be done. Therefore, federalism is not fully tested. Complaints are heard that the provinces did not work. But is it because of the state or because of the union?

is not going to the federal mentality? Is it because there is a unitary mentality? It needs to be studied. It should be thoroughly tested based on evidence from the academic field. Until now, there have been shortcomings in not being able to accommodate civil servants, police, and not being able to transfer the rights given by the constitution to the provinces. It should be corrected. Now the question of amending the constitution is being raised. I say, let's review.

What kind of complaints and comments are coming about the constitution now, is the root of it the constitution or good governance?

There are more questions among people about the issue of political participation. Was that done by the constitution or by the makers of the constitution? It is being raised that there is no proportional inclusion in judges or other appointments. Who did that? The constitution did not stop it. Interconnection between the local level and the province was not established. It could be managed by making a federal law. We could talk about the distribution of powers between the union and the states. A law could be passed on the matter of vacancy. But it is not happening. For that reason, the perpetrators should be blamed rather than the constitution. A number of things need to be fixed in the constitution.

Is it necessary to amend the constitution now?

Constitutional amendment is needed. The constitution is made with a bit of imagination. When using it, there were some problems. It is good to study and improve it.

The two major parties in the parliament have especially tried to amend the electoral system. What is your analysis on that? Whatever you do in the

election system, you should take care of some things. The provision of proportional inclusion should not curtail the rights afforded. Secondly, the electoral system must connect with the people. You can go to the direct election according to the region. A reserved area should be determined in it. But there is no fully proportional electoral system. It divorces MPs and Parliament from the people. The electoral system can be improved so that the seats won by women, Dalits, Madhesi and tribals do not decrease due to proportionality.

Some analysts have called the amendment of the constitution a Pandora's box. There is also a situation where many issues arise and can be dealt with when trying to address one issue, what do you think?

What the constitution says is that the amendment should be brought among the people, it cannot be done only by the parliament. Do not just pile on the people. If the people reject it, it will not be accepted. But the constitution itself can go without amendment. If the constitution is not amended and the province follows it and makes 17/18 ministers according to the need, won't there be resentment?

More than 5/7 ministers are not needed in the state. It is better to agree on such a thing. Whatever has caused disappointment in the people, it should be reduced by amending the constitution. No one objects to that. But it is not acceptable to stay in Kathmandu and say that the federal government is not needed. Federalism was brought yesterday due to political necessity. It is still today. And there will be a need for it tomorrow too. When it comes to

amendment, do you see a situation where the demands of the parties who were dissatisfied during the promulgation of the constitution can be addressed?

who was the dissatisfied party, they also did not reject the subject of republic, democracy, federalism, proportional inclusive representation. That's what they want too. An amendment does not preclude the addition of an omission. let's try Let's not destroy what is happening, let's improve it. Let's work together.

What kind of challenge have you received regarding the implementation of federalism?

There has been dishonesty in what the Constitution expects. The law that should be made under the federal law has not been made. Even in what has been built, the rights of the province have been taken away. We have repeatedly reminded this. What is said to be given is not given. It has increased dissatisfaction. What we give is not made for writing, for showing, but for implementation. That had to happen immediately.

means that the province can have the self-governance it wants. That is what the constitution says. The task of looking after internal security is assigned to the province by the constitution. But the union did not act accordingly. What happens when the spirit of the constitution is one, the prescribed thing is one and the giving is different? This is not how the constitution works.