While the two main parties are debating on the streets and meetings about when and how to go on the constitution amendment agenda, last week the two major issues that were sought to be established as essential for the amendment of the constitution received discussion from the bureaucracy and the political leadership.

First, Chief Election Commissioner Dinesh Thapalia, who was the speaker of the interaction on 'Electoral Reforms in Nepal' organized by the Parliamentary Affairs Journalists Society in Kavre on January 5, tried to dispel the illusion of linking the electoral system with political instability.

In an interaction titled 'Challenges of Regional and Local Government Performance and Way Forward' organized by Kathmandu University Nepal Center for Contemporary Studies (KU-NCCS) in Surkhet on January 4th, two former Chief Ministers of Karnali Province said that the main factor behind the illusion of stability and instability is the constitutional system or occasional changes. It has come out that the facts submitted are not the only leadership. 

Looking at the issue of constitutional amendment, it can be said that even though it has occasionally heated up the streets and meetings, it has not been able to take the form of an institutional discussion. In terms of personal preparation, UML General Secretary Shankar Pokharel is advocating the context of increasing the 'threshold' to 10 percent and taking the country to a two-party system.

Some leaders including Shekhar Koirala of the Congress are saying that the House of Representatives should be freed from the system of being elected through proportional votes. Both of these parties have said - "According to the existing system, there is no possibility of a single party getting majority in the parliament, the electoral system itself is the source of instability and it needs to be modified." 

However, there is neither intensive discussion on this at the Congress-UML level, nor any concrete proposal. Due to the lack of intensive discussion and preparation, as a whole, the amendment of the Constitution, making the House of Representatives the House of the winners and the National Assembly the House of those who come from the proportional election process, reducing the number of members who are elected proportionally from the current 40 percent, increasing the 'threshold' required for party representation, etc. You can hear the discussion going on. 

It can be said that it was brought into the debate to show hope to the people in terms of finding an answer to the question of why the two main parties, which seem like two sides of the river with cold relations for a long time, shared power.

It seems that even the Constitutional Commission has taken a position on this matter, which is being discussed unnecessarily as the election system is an obstacle to the stability, development and prosperity of the government in the country. Chief Election Commissioner Thapalia himself has challenged those who say so to present the issue based on facts and logic.

Political party leaders are saying that the election system needs to be changed without any facts and evidence, Thapalia said that they should show if any article of the current constitution or any provision of the election system prevents the parties from getting a majority. He said, "The facts are of a different nature than what the leaders say, that is, when the parties reach the majority, then the parliament is seen to be unstable." 

In all the cases of 2015, 2048, 2056 and 2074, when one political party won the majority, the parliament did not complete even 3 years out of the 5-year period, but recalling that the parliaments where one party did not have a majority lasted for a long time, he asked, 'What is stability? The rapid death of the parliament or the sudden collapse of the parliament?' 

Comparative studies also show an increasing number of countries moving away from direct first-past-the-post electoral systems and adopting proportional or mixed electoral systems. Through the meeting, Chief Election Commissioner Thapalia has said that it is not correct to blame the system for the parties not being able to reach the people, not being able to convince the people, inciting the people by talking and not being able to get votes. Which is factual, reasonable and close to reality. 

stability or revising the 'threshold' in the name of the majority without facts or increasing others is not only undemocratic in itself, but also reflects the adage of 'working black, bear eating corn'. Because, it prohibits not only the political forces working on the basis of small geography and population, but also the small parties in representation.

is the help and result of 'threshold' to put those votes in the hands of the big parties who like to call themselves national, without letting the public opinion that they have earned based on their hard work be represented. But by doing this, will our federal republic of Nepal create a more robust structural framework than today's character of inclusive democracy based on pluralism? No. 

It is not hidden that the proposal of 'threshold hold' review put forward by Shankar Pakharel is based on the intention of taking the country to two parties. If small parties i.e. the latest ideas are not allowed to flourish, Nepal's democracy seems to be nothing but a spice in the pocket of a few leaders. The question may also arise as to what is different today. However, even if some situations seem to be under the control of some leaders, Nepali democracy as a whole is still advanced compared to other countries. It is many times better than America, which is said to be based on two parties. At least we have not had to suffer the repeated state power of a racist monologist like Trump. 

If democracy had not adopted the principle of inclusiveness with a mixed electoral system, then there would have been a situation in Nepal where we would have to search for the representation of not only women and minorities but also the youth. If Nepal was living under the provision of non-inclusive state power like 2064 years ago, it could have been characterized by a state power based on religious extremism like in the north, or a state power based on religious extremism like in the north. 

Although the Maoist party has deteriorated in terms of age group and caste and gender representation, it now looks more ancient than Congress and UML, when the Maoist party entered the parliamentary system, the representation it gave to the state power was not only for the youth, but also for women, dalits and other backward groups. For the competition of this side of Maoists, Congress and UML have started representation from this group.

It can be said that the same group is still successful in maintaining the democratic consciousness of the country and weakening the discussion of single ideological thinking going on in the neighborhood. As a result, despite the demand of Hindutva, which is rising in Congress, the leadership is not ready to make a decision, and the advocacy of a single communist party and the Chinese model of state power have also been unsuccessfully used by the communists. 

Ravi Lamichhane, the leader of the National Independent Party, despite the fact that there is still disagreement in the economic and social sectors, the same way the party sent another batch of young people to the parliament, it has also put pressure on increasing the youth representation of the old parties. Even though Lamichhane's centralized thinking is not particularly broad in terms of inclusiveness and federalism, due to the constitutional obligation to ensure the representation of women, Dalits, tribes, etc., even the youth of those groups got a chance to be represented in that party. Otherwise, Sumana Shrestha, Santosh Pariyar and others were not so easy to see there. 

If there is no fault in the constitutional process, structures and election system, then the question is surely in the minds of many of us Nepalis that what is the reason for the instability that has been reported today. Because in the political circles it has been made into a powerful commentary. Nepal's Karnali region was seen as a suitable place for its development. According to Mahendra Bahadur Shahi and Jeevan Bahadur Shahi, the first and second Chief Ministers after the implementation of federalism, the change of political leadership, which seems to be the effect of majority or minority, does not bring instability anywhere.

Mahendra Bahadur Shahi, who was elected from the Maoist party, says, "I announced the main plan, made the selection process of that plan inclusive, after the discussion and consensus of all the political forces here, the plan was selected and implemented." As a result, even after I stepped down as Chief Minister, there was no obstacle in the implementation of that plan, it continued.

results, many of the works we started started giving results on time. Agreeing with his statement, Jeevan Bahadur Shahi, who later became the Chief Minister from the Congress, added that instability is not a structural problem. Neither state nor local government is a source of instability, nor is the political leadership that changes from time to time. Karnali is an example of stability in the work done by the leadership, who is in the leadership is secondary.

It was seen that if the culture of policy and planning is developed in coordination, cooperation and cooperation among political powers and forces, stability can be guaranteed and stability can be guaranteed. Narrating the experience of Karnali that the stay of chiefs of secretaries sent to the state was not more than 9 months, he claimed that the federal bureaucracy tried to exaggerate the instability comment but tried to give an example to the change in political leadership.

In this way, they argue that if the political level is widely discussed and agreed upon, development works will be completed on time and the people will be happy to see the results. That argument has been confirmed by the latest survey conducted by Kathmandu University, which is conducting the seminar. 

According to the Nepali public opinion survey conducted covering 7056 households across the country, this is the most positive province of the current path followed by the country. When federalism was implemented in 2017, a total of 52 percent answered positively in the country, while 80 percent were positive, and in the last survey three years ago, Karnali is more positive than Bagmati and Gandaki provinces. While the positive thinking seen in the majority of the youth there is seen as more important, the reason given by the majority of those who preferred to say positive in this way is physical development. 

Rather than the essence, this discussion of Kavre and Surkhet has exposed the fact that the constitution is not relevant in the name of instability, especially the forceful intervention that is intended to be done in the electoral system. It can be said that the attack on the election system adopted by this constitution to create an inclusive state without even completing a decade of its implementation by learning from past experiences is itself another poisonous seed of instability.

Suffering from the chronic disease of 'I will eat, I will eat, I will do well, I will do it' With the political coup d'état and the projects and programs that are going on with the unnecessary intervention and behavior showing unstable character, forward