Opportunities and risks of constitutional amendment

The world is aware that the main reason for the sudden power collaboration between Congress President Desh Bahadur Deuba and UML President Oli is the then Prime Minister and Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal's obsession with power and 'Palturam trend'. Forgetting the status of a weak third party with 32 seats in the Parliament, the politics of betrayal he did for the post of Prime Minister finally turned out to be fatal for him. Congress and UML have stated two bases of their alliance.

First, strong and permanent government and second, constitutional amendment. How long will the power collaboration last between Oli, who has created an image of being cunning and intolerant towards fellow travelers, and Deuba, who has started counting down the days for the post of Prime Minister after Oli? It can be estimated that it will not take much time to get the answer to this question. Second, the fact that the parties will enter the path of constitutional amendment according to consensus cannot be denied. If we enter that path, it can be expected to help in improving the weak aspects of the constitution. However, it requires the courage to face the dangers, complications and challenges it poses.

The question of the stability of a permanent government or regime is one, there are many interpretations. The first misconception is that the Constitution of Nepal is an obstacle to stability. Which is totally wrong. In other words, because of the two types of electoral system, one of the parties cannot get a majority, some cunning politicians are heard to argue. In reality, this is just a hypothesis. The first thing is that in the two federal and provincial assembly elections held after the promulgation of the constitution, it is well known that the weakness of the parties, not the constitution, is the failure of any one party to obtain a majority.

Let's leave aside the proportional system, why did not any party get a majority even under the direct election system? It simply means that citizens do not have strong faith in any party. The second argument is that the constitution could not provide stability. In the previous elections, the Nepali Congress alone and in the 2074 elections, the CPN alone won the majority. But why couldn't they complete the 5-year term of the government in that parliament? The third fallacy, especially UML General Secretary Shankar Pokharel blamed the small parties for the lack of stability of the government which is not even close to the truth.

Not only the instability, but also the entire failure, the indolence of the state, poverty, inequality, discrimination, etc. are the main three parties- Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and Maoists. His incompetence, lust for power, corrupt character, short-sighted approach have prolonged the problem.

Since the 4th National Assembly of Parliament, other small parties have forgotten the status and responsible role of the opposition parties entrusted by the citizens, but it is wrong to seek a share in the power sharing of the ministers and the state, but there is no basis to assume that their ambitions have led to instability and the state is on the path of failure. It is not only sad but regrettable that the small parties including Maoists have shied away from playing the role of real representatives of the people, i.e. a strong opposition. The role of these parties is responsible for creating the middle ground of people's voice, democracy, republic and constitutionalism. alternative to

proportional system

Is it the right time to amend the constitution? If yes, which subjects need revision? First, the answer to these questions should be clear. This is the time when the parties that reached the parliament by using the concerns of the communities including Maoist, Raswapa, Madhesh and Tharu as a weapon should be careful. People need to be more aware. It is not difficult to understand the signs that the focus of Congress-UML may be to abolish the proportional system from the House of Representatives and the Provincial Assembly. Some argue that the House of Representatives should only be made up of directly elected legislators and that the proportional system should be implemented in the National Assembly. Such an act gives constitutional recognition to the state's singularly racist and intolerant policies and practices. If such a provision is made by amending the constitution, the conflict between political power centers in the country is sure to increase. That does not mean that there should be two types of MLAs in the House of Representatives.

A fully proportional arrangement can be made in the system where the candidate who gets the most votes wins, i.e. becomes directly elected. By removing the proportional system, proportional representation of Dalits, women, tribals, disabled, backward areas etc. among the total constituencies can be secured and ensured. Eg: Giving reserved quota of 20 seats to Dalits. If 50 percent quota is given to women and 30 percent to tribals, the quota can be secured by holding elections among the respective communities.

For example, when there is a competition between Dalits and Dalits in reserved seats, Dalit candidates will win regardless of the party or who wins. Competition for women's seats is held between women, and whoever wins will be a woman MLA. Similarly, the constitutional provision of competition between tribal candidates can be implemented. Reserved seats for Madhesi, Tharu, Muslims, backward areas etc. communities can be secured. Remember, such reserved seats are not always in the same area. It rotates based on population density. If

can't do that, there is another option. Conducting elections through the full proportional electoral system considering the entire country as one constituency. Legislature parties get seats based on the percentage of votes received by the parties. Also, to ensure full proportional representation on the basis of caste, community, gender and population of the region. Keeping the parliament as a forum for law making, policy, solving people's problems and making a cabinet of non-parliamentarians except the prime minister. There is another topic that needs to be revised

. It is necessary to remove the interpretation of secular countries. Constitutionally, Nepal should be made a completely secular country and should be implemented accordingly. When the constitution with federalism is about to come into force a decade later, this federalism appears to be in danger. When the Constitution was issued by the Constituent Assembly, the fundamental complexity of federalism, naming, demarcation, etc., were kept alive.

Until now, due to the carelessness and inaction of the federal (central) government, legislative parliament and major parties, the transfer of constitutional rights to the provinces has not been successful. The powerless and powerless provinces are falling into the trap of power change at the center and the interests of the main leaders. In essence, the provincial structure does not seem to have any utility other than facilitating the management of disorganized and politically unemployed leaders. This inadequacy of federalism should be resolved through the amendment of the constitution.

Why was the implementation of the constitution not complete? Why was the provision in this constitution, all the laws and regulations necessary for the implementation of the constitution, "to be completed within 3 years of the declaration of this constitution" not implemented? If you feel that the amendment of the constitution is necessary from the government experience, it is welcome. That amendment should be to make it more useful in the rights and interests of the people. If the amendment is necessary for the conspiracy to further strengthen the one-party system and the mono-caste power of the mountain Arya-Khas, then such an act can become a threat to the constitution and the system itself.