What is the amendment of the constitution?

But this topic is not without challenges. The issue of polarizing the country in terms of constitutional amendment is not only domestic but also connected to geopolitics. Hence this step should be taken carefully, maturely and through extensive discussion with maximum ownership.

The mother of the constitution and the two major parties of the country who are supporters of the country have taken this step for the strengthening of the federal democratic republic and political stability, only if the general public can be trusted, this process will gain political and constitutional legitimacy. Otherwise, it may cause more conflict in the country.

parliamentary system or not?

Despite the many debates and discussions held in the Constituent Assembly during the making of the constitution, it was determined in Article 74 of the constitution that the form of government based on the parliamentary system of government will be the form of government of Nepal. A no-confidence motion cannot be brought against the government for two years after the formation of the government, and if the party represented by the prime minister or the chief minister splits or the party involved in the government withdraws its support, the head of government must take a vote of confidence.

On the other hand, it was said to adopt a different form of government than the past based on the conclusion that in the past due to the dissolution of the parliament, development and construction stalled due to instability and parliamentarians became like commodities. Under the guise of a reformed parliamentary system, the Maoists' face was shaved and they were infiltrated into the parliamentary system. In the case of the dissolution of the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court has also explained this system as a 'parliamentary system inspired by its own originality'.

The Maoist force, which had taken up arms against the parliamentary system, felt that it had acquired a mobile weapon to obliterate its workers. The UML-Congress also conveyed the message that they had won by saying that the Maoists had been infiltrated into the Parliament. The fact that the Prime Minister is elected by the Parliament for whatever reason is agreed upon and the matter of staying or losing the government due to a vote of confidence or no confidence is decided and the government is accountable to the Parliament is the fact that the system is a parliamentary system is a matter of general understanding of constitutional jurisprudence and political science.

Why review the constitution? Regardless of the

background, it is necessary to review and revise based on what the results of nearly ten years of practice of the said parliamentary system of original character have been. It is seen that the government on both the union and state sides has become very unstable, and the constitutional provision to overthrow the government by bringing a motion of no confidence is not being used but it is being imprisoned as a figurative provision of the constitution. It is time to accept the shameful reality that the party involved in the government has changed the equation up to four times a year to get a vote of confidence for its continuation due to the party interest or the government leader's personal interest.

Even before this agreement between UML-Congress, the balance of power had already changed during the constitution. With the end of the war situation, the Maoist power is becoming proficient in peaceful politics like the UML-Congress. From the perspective that the country has gone to a republic, all political parties have no power as a common enemy and the fact that the capitalist revolution has been completed, taking into account the fact that the future socialist journey is to be decided, timely reform of the constitution is necessary. Not only that, different political parties have also emerged than when the constitution was made. Due to these objective conditions, there is a need for occasional reforms in the constitution.

Constitution revision topics

In the status quo, this constitution cannot give more results. This constitution also does not have the power to break the current hopeless situation and give a different result in principle. But there is a need for a comprehensive discussion on what provisions to review, how and who will do it. There are two types of concepts regarding the revision of the constitution.

The opinion that came from the reactionary section in favor of a Hindu state with a monarchy by reversing the achievements of the Constituent Assembly and another type of opinion that timely reforms should be made to strengthen the achievements of the Constituent Assembly. Taking the last election as a base in support of the opinion coming from a retrograde angle, since not even ten percent of the public opinion was seen, that issue has not reached a ripe stage to be a topic of discussion now.

Federalism, inclusiveness, republic, secularism and democracy and independent judiciary are unannounced and unamendable provisions of this constitution. Amendment of any one of these means the amendment of the basic structure of the constitution, since the parliament does not have both the power and the right to amend the basic structure, these matters are the permanent limits of the constitution. In the same way, only the Federal Parliament can make amendments regarding the boundaries of the provinces and the list of rights of the provinces. Since such matters should also be sent to the provincial assembly, it does not seem appropriate to deal with those complicated matters now.

Furthermore, a discussion about the electoral system or the form of government or the superstructure associated with the judiciary is necessary. Jurisdiction, Constitutional Bench, Constitutional Council, Jurisdiction of High Courts, formation of local courts should be reviewed. The appointment of officials of the expensive Constitutional Commission, which is being practiced as a pre-administrative club or as a place to manage workers, should also be reconsidered.

Pro-constitutional forces should not delay discussions to review issues such as transitional justice structures and the right to demurrage, which have been automatically defunct. Not only that, the number of state or union councils of ministers, the number of constitutional commissions or the number of times the executive head of a political party can be the same person should also be included in the constitution. Otherwise, it is seen that the possibility of leadership development in political parties will weaken and the distaste of the new generation towards politics will increase.

It seems that the issue of how many times the same person can stay in key positions like Prime Minister, President, Chief Minister should also be made a subject of constitutional amendment. The National Assembly has lost its originality and is developing as a subordinate assembly of the House of Representatives. As the National Assembly has developed as a recruitment center for party workers who have lost elections or who have not found opportunities elsewhere or who cannot win when they stand for elections, it cannot establish justification. This can also be taken forward as a matter of constitutional amendment. How to review

?

These and many other subjects which are not the basic provisions of the constitution, occasional amendments have become mandatory. But it can be discussed in many ways regarding how it will be done and who will initiate it. In my opinion, it is appropriate to adopt a three-stage process for amending the constitution.

In the first step, the entire constitution should be reviewed, not the subject of amendment. For that review, the involvement of the political party should be made absolute and a citizen-level study task force should be formed by including experts in the constitution, experts in political science and other necessary disciplines. But the political party must own that process. There are some important reasons behind saying this.

The first reason, in the review from such an academic level, political interest is relatively less and the subject gets justice. Second, the analysis conducted through the eyes of subject matter expertise is of far-reaching importance and its conclusions face less challenge in the future as the successes and failures of international practice are compared. Thirdly, the acceptability of such academic and civil level studies is relatively high. And, the study conducted at that level makes the rationale of the amendment credible at the public level.

In the second phase, a constitution reform committee or commission should be formed including political parties and academics. Finally, it should be discussed at the public level and introduced to the parliament. Thus, the three-stage exercise reasonably confirms the acceptability, need and justification of the amendment. But it has become mandatory to complete all this work before the next election of the House of Representatives and go to the people based on the revised provisions.

Nepal Bar Association among civil level organizations has formally demanded the amendment of the constitution through the National Conference. Now it is necessary for journalists' federation, professor's association and other such effective civic level intellectual organizations to open their mouths on the issue of constitutional amendment.

Discontent in politics, the slow pace of transmission, political instability, the burden of administrative expenses, low capital expenditure, breaking the centralized thinking of the federal government and making politics healthy and cultured, periodic review and amendment of the constitution is an acceptable method in the world. The longer we delay the adoption of this acceptable method, the more powerful the anti-constitutional forces will become.

team needs more restrictions

There seems to be a need for more debate on a topic that was much debated during the promulgation of this constitution. There was a lot of debate on whether the constitution should interfere in the internal affairs of political parties. Based on the conclusion that the constitution should direct the party on limited issues as a conclusion of the debate, some issues such as the constitution of the party should be democratic, elections of federal and provincial level officials should be held at least once in five years in Article 269 of the constitution. The effect of

has also been seen well. But the process of configuration and transfer of power could not be carried out in the established political party only with these conditions. Therefore, until a limit is set on the number of times the leader of the party can stay in the party, it is seen that the current perverted practice of not being democratic in accordance with the constitutional expectations must be stopped now. It is necessary to consider the objective reality of today's situation in which more conditions should be imposed in the constitution.

A citizen who gained political rights at the age of 18 cannot be the chief official of a political party until six decades later, the established political party should consider the fact that the attraction of the youth towards the political party has decreased. Otherwise, the political future of the parties after the next five years will be a question that cannot be answered. Therefore, an easy constitutional way to increase the attractiveness of political parties and transfer leadership to the new generation is urgently needed.

Politics is not a profession, but a service, and leadership is not an ancestral right, but a limited-term opportunity, and the party needs more constitutional restrictions to establish a cultured practice and trend.

The two major powers of the country standing together in the political agenda of amending the constitution is a progressive step to some extent. But it needs to be approached with maturity and caution. Even now, the parties that cannot understand the need for constitutional amendment will be called status quoists rather than progressives. Constitutional jurisprudence has adopted the subject of periodic review of the constitution based on the belief that every ten years a new generation is born in the society and it seeks its space.

Even from this point of view, a ten-year-old minor at the time of the promulgation of this constitution is now about twenty years old. If this constitutional arrangement does not give any space to the wishes, desires and aspirations of that generation, it is certain that that generation will raise the flag of rebellion. Any constitution refuses to tolerate rebellion against itself and instead paves the way for the constitution to address the changing aspirations of the new generation. That is why constitutionalism believes that the provision of constitutional amendment must be kept in every constitution.

This provision of the constitutional amendment should not be limited to show. The pro-constitutional forces should decide soon whether to take up the agenda of constitutional amendment and place themselves in the category of progressives or status quoists. Finally, this question to the political forces in favor of the constitution - are you in favor of progress or in favor of status quo? People are eager to hear the verdict soon.