The three decades since multi-party democracy was established in 2046 (except for the 15-month direct rule of King Gyanendra) have been subject to contentious debates about parliamentary practice and policy-making. Political parties, political scientists, intellectual communities, and civil society have been accusing the sovereign parliament of being relatively dignified and ineffective in the policy-making process.

He termed the principle, method and process of policy making as 'faulty' and suggested to improve this process. The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Speaker of the National Assembly expressed their displeasure with the slow pace of policy making and urged the ruling party, the opposition and MPs to be serious. Commenting that the policy making process is slow and disappointing, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has warned that if the bill does not become a law within 90 days, he will choose an alternative path.

Parliament has an important and effective role in a democratic system. But the parliament has not been able to play an important role nor is it effective. Parliament is the supreme body that makes the government accountable to the people and voices the voice of the people. But for a few decades, there has been less discussion and debate in the Parliament about matters of national and public importance and public concern, and more political accusations have been made.

Parliament has not been able to play an effective role due to being a victim of unwanted political revenge, arrogance and frustration. Although it has a long history of more than three decades, parliamentary practice seems to be getting more and more distorted. Not only the Federal Parliament, but the fate of the Provincial Assembly is also the same. What could be a greater misfortune for the parliamentary system? Why was the parliament not effective? Why is there a delay in the law making process? Is it the weakness of the ruling party or the opposition? Some theoretical questions have been raised, which are inevitable to be stated. 

Why the delay in making laws?

More than four dozen laws are yet to be enacted to fully implement the constitution. What can be more ironic than the fact that more than four dozen laws necessary for the implementation of the constitution have not been made even for a decade long period after the constitution was promulgated? Important bills such as Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority and Prevention of Corruption have been pending in the parliamentary committee since 2076. If such an important law is not made even for 6 years, will the question be raised about such a parliament or not? With the view of implementing the federal system, the government has been putting oil in its ears about the essential federal education, federal civil service, and federal police laws. 

The amendment bill related to Nepal Police established in 2012 and Armed Police established in 2058 has been registered in the Parliament for the first time on the initiative of Home Minister Ramesh Akhtar. The law making process is slow and the laws that have been made are controversial. An unfortunate situation has also been seen that the law passed by one session has to be amended in another session. 

The Ashok Rai-led Jaspa was registered with the Election Commission based on the rules due to a legal vacuum related to political parties, a case which is currently pending before the Supreme Court. After the election of the House of Representatives in November 2079, only 11 bills have been passed so far, apart from the budget, from the four sessions held. Why? Some of the main reasons are:

First, parliament is blocked. Since 2048, due to disputes, conflicts and power-struggle between the ruling party and the opposition, the parliament has been stalled many times, resulting in delays in the making of laws. In this way, when the parliament was blocked, not only the parliamentary system and the parliament were attacked, but the voice of the sovereign people was also blocked. The ruling party and the opposition are equally responsible for the ineffectiveness of the parliament and the delay in policy making. 

because in the parliamentary system, the ruling party as well as the opposition have an equally responsible role in the parliament. UML has been setting new records in terms of disruption of Parliament. In June 2078, after replacing the then Oli government and forming a government under the leadership of Sher Bahadur Deuba, UML had continuously blocked the parliament for about six months. Since the Parliament did not create the law itself, it was not unusual to raise questions about the legitimacy of the body.

In this context, 6 decades ago in 2016, the history of Nepal's first popularly elected parliament is relevant. When the parliament and the parliamentary system were not developed as they are now, the parliament was not interrupted for only 30 minutes symbolically during the period of 18 months. 

Prime Minister BP Koirala, Speaker Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, leader of the main opposition party Bharat Shamsher, due to the high political and parliamentary culture, Parliament seems to be moderate, active and effective. Due to BP's cultured parliamentary practice and the high respect given to the opposition in the parliament and the opposition also playing a positive role, although 18 months is short, the period is memorable and exemplary from the point of view of parliamentary practice.

Secondly, not legislators, but development workers. MPs have been playing the role of development workers, not MLAs. Rather than policy making, their interest and preference is seen in constituency-oriented development programs. Development is the jurisdiction of the Executive and Legislature. An MP should not be a development worker, but a competent policy maker. As long as MPs are development workers, they cannot be successful legislators. 

Policy making was not the priority of the parliamentarians, neither of the ruling party nor of the opposition. The fact that Parliament had to be adjourned several times due to the tendency of the development activists, when the Prime Minister, Ministers and Ministries did not reach the quorum, is as bright as the sun. In a country with a prosperous democratic system, the role played in policy making is evaluated and the priority of the parliamentarians is policy making. But in Nepal, development is evaluated on the basis of budgets and plans. 

Third, the constitution. The unfortunate trend of issuing ordinances circumventing the prevailing democratic and established parliamentary system has been repeated time and again. The government has been claiming that the ordinance had to be issued because the parliament did not enact the law on time. Constitutional provisions designed for special and emergency situations have been misused by all governments. 

About some ordinances issued two weeks ago, accusations are going on between the ruling party and the opposition. Democracy is not a constitution, it is a rule of law. It is important for the government to accept the reality that such constitutionalism makes democracy and the parliamentary system more weak and unpopular. 

Undemocratic practice of policy-making

Despite following a democratic system, the policy-making process is not democratic, participatory and transparent. is limited to mere ritualism and formality. First of all, such flawed process should be fundamentally reformed and made participatory and transparent. The need of the day is to democratize the policy making process itself through meaningful participation and intervention of citizens. This is also the basic principle, methodology and process of policy making in a democratic system.

Parliament and the government do not discuss and consult during the drafting and construction of policies and laws. There is not enough debate in Parliament and in public. There is no culture of public debate on policy and law. Laws approved by parliament based on drafts in the dark room and party whips are not constitutional, rights-friendly and citizen-friendly. 

As long as the government and bureaucracy dominate policy making, the possibility of making people-oriented policies and laws is weak. Not only the government and bureaucracy, but also interest groups have been dominating policy and law making. Due to the incompetence and extra priorities of the parliamentarians, the parliament has become a helpless shadow of the government and the government has been making the parliament a puppet. 

Therefore, before drafting policies and laws, the government and after the bill is registered, the committee should discuss and consult with experts, stakeholders, and civil society. The suggestions given by them should also be assimilated and policies and laws should be formulated. Research institutes, intellectual communities and civil society should periodically conduct public audits of policies and laws made in this way.

law or policy making?

In a democratic system, public policy is more important than mere laws. But ritualistically, no policy is submitted to the parliament except the annual policy and program. Nepal's sovereign parliament has no role in policy making. The draft made by the staff without consultation is issued by the government as a policy through the Cabinet. Therefore, Nepal's Parliament does not make policies, only laws. Does Parliament create only laws or policies? The appropriate time has come to arrive at a conclusion after reasonable debate on the theoretical question. 

In countries with a liberal and prosperous democratic system, the parliament not only makes laws but also policies. In democratic countries like America, UK, India, Germany, laws as well as policies are made through parliament. Therefore, in Nepal, not only the law, but also the policy should be followed by the highest democratic practice in the parliament. The policies and laws created by the parliament by adopting a participatory and transparent process will be constitutional, people-oriented and rights-friendly. 

Parliament and MPs will be more responsive and accountable to the people when policies and laws are made through Parliament. In the popular commentary of Nepal, the jurisdiction of the government is defined as government, public policy is defined as government policy, and public property is defined as government property. Due to the confused perception and misinterpretation of the government and policy makers, a fundamental problem has been created in the formulation of public policy. But government policies are not just government policies, they are public policies issued for the benefit of citizens. If the parliament and the government accept this reality, the real process of public policy making will begin.

In the 'Journal of Public Policy' (March 2019) published by the University of Cambridge, Gerry Alones has made a bitter conclusion that the government, bureaucracy and interest groups are becoming dominant in policy-making worldwide. Stating that the tendency to make laws contrary to the spirit of the constitution and the wishes of the people is a common challenge worldwide, Allons has suggested to democratize the policy making process through the meaningful participation and intervention of citizens. 

The role of the British Parliament and the US Congress 

Considered the mother of parliamentary democracy, Britain is a country with parliamentary supremacy. There is a popular political adage that the Parliament of the UK, which does not have a written constitution, is so powerful that 'women can do anything to men and men can do anything except declaring women'. 

Britain declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939, when only Parliament had the power to declare war. But Conservative Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was widely criticized as weak. Therefore, there was a historic and lively debate in the parliament for three days from May 7 to 9, 1940, on burning issues such as Britain's role in the World War, Germany's attack on Norway, and the war strategy against Hitler. 

Despite winning a vote of confidence, Chamberlain eventually resigned over the debate. The debate called 'Norway Debate' is considered to be historical in the 20th century. When Winston Churchill of the Conservative Party became the Prime Minister, Churchill succeeded in defeating Hitler by making an alliance with the President of the United States, Franklin Roosevelt, and Stalin of Russia. Incidentally, the political map of the world changed because of the same Norway debate.

Despite being a country that has adopted a presidential system, the US Congress is considered the most powerful. Congress checks and balances the powers of the President in the United States, which consists of two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives. In the United States, only the Senate and the House of Representatives have the right to declare war. On November 5, 1940, Roosevelt was elected president for a third term with a pledge not to engage in foreign wars. So there was a long and serious debate in the US Congress about America's involvement and role in World War II. But after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, on December 11, 1940, the US Congress unanimously declared war on Germany and Japan.

The British Parliament and the American Congress not only declared war, but also supported and controlled the government by continuously debating and discussing war policy and strategy in the Parliament during the Second World War. Former President of India Pranab Mukherjee, former Prime Ministers Jawaharlal Nehru, Chandra Shekhar, Atal Vihari Bajpayee, Manmohan Singh had high respect for Parliament and parliamentary practice. All played an effective role in the Parliament. They passed important ideas and announcements through Parliament. The Indian Parliament became dignified because of leaders who were loyal to the Parliament like him. Therefore, it would be better for Nepal to get education from Britain, America, India.

Although the Parliament of Nepal has not played a historical role. After the success of the 2062/063 people's movement, the historic declaration of the federal democratic republic was made through the parliament, ending the 238-year-long monarchy. The historic declaration of the Parliament will be written in golden letters not only in the parliamentary history, but also in the history of Nepal itself.

Advice to Parliament and MPs 

One, no matter how many disagreements and disputes there are between the ruling party and the opposition, it is necessary to pass a resolution proposal not to block the parliament except for a token. The need of the day is to develop a civilized parliamentary culture of reaching a conclusion through dialogue, no matter how contentious the issue may be. It is appropriate to develop the sovereign parliament itself as a forum for maintaining national consensus. Even if the opposition blocked the parliament, the ruling party should take positive steps to run the parliament through dialogue and discussion. 

Two, the parliamentary democratic system is a system that makes the government responsible and accountable to the people through the parliament. The more active and effective the parliament is, the more responsive and accountable the government is to the people. Therefore, it would be preferable to make the sovereign parliament dignified, dignified and effective through the joint efforts of the ruling party and the opposition. 

Three, although the agenda was made in the last session, it has not been implemented effectively so far. First of all, the parliament had to function effectively according to the schedule. Taking into account the fact that the Parliament has not decided on any bill for seven to eight years, a mandatory environment has been created where the deadline for legislation has to be determined. It would be appropriate to set a limit of 120 days for the new bill and 60 days for the amendment bill. Although it is not possible in the budget session, this provision can be applied in the case of the winter session because of the bill session. 120 and 60 days are not insufficient if there are regular discussions and debates in Parliament and Committees. So the question is not about rules, but about intention. There is a solution to the rules but not the solution to the intention.