If a system of governance with directly elected executives is adopted in Nepal, it will be difficult for people from minority castes, religions, or communities to get elected.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
Calls for a change in the form of government in Nepal have been raised from time to time. There are a few reasons for that. After 2046 BS, dozens of people became prime ministers, but the expected change in the country's situation did not occur. That is why many people feel that there is a problem with the parliamentary system we are currently adopting. They feel that it should be changed.
Due to the weaknesses of those who run the system, there are calls for changing the governance system from time to time. On the other hand, Nepali society has a tendency to look for heroes everywhere. Looking for a directly elected executive also means looking for a hero.
Actually, I myself thought that the country needed a directly elected executive until a year and a half ago. After the war between Russia and Ukraine, I changed my previous belief. When thousands of Ukrainians died in the war. The entire physical infrastructure was destroyed. Then I realized that there are problems with directly elected executives too.
Many people think that there are no problems with a directly elected executive. But that is not the case. The US president is not directly elected, but he is like a directly elected. The president is powerful. But there are problems there too. One can remember the tenure of Richard Nixon.
Even though Nixon became president, the opposition party had a majority in parliament. He had to resign in 1974 after the Watergate scandal. It is said that he showed accountability in a democracy. But if there had been a majority in parliament, he would not have resigned. In a situation where the president is elected from one party but another party has a majority in parliament, a directly elected executive cannot function. They will have to face difficulties.
It can be said that a majority of one party may come. It may. However, in that case, there is a possibility that a directly elected executive will become an authoritarian. We are not looking for an authoritarian. We are not looking for an unstable government either.
In a parliamentary system, governments become unstable. Those who are accused of crimes, those who are being shouted at on the streets. They can be the prime minister. Such problems occur in a parliamentary system. But even when a directly elected executive comes, the problem is not solved. Because, if there is no majority in the house, such an executive cannot function. If there is a majority in the house, it can become an authoritarian.
When discussing the form of governance, the characteristics of Nepali society should be taken into account even more. Because Nepali society is multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-communal, and geographically diverse. The constitution itself has defined their rights and representation. There is also a question of whether a directly elected executive can address all the characteristics in such a society.
Even in an educated, democratic and liberal country like America, only one black person has been able to become president. No woman president has been elected yet. If a system of governance with directly elected executives is adopted in Nepal tomorrow, it will be difficult for people from minority races, religions or communities to be elected.
We now express anger and criticize leaders like Jun and others. Because of the leaders and parties we are advocating for directly elected executives. There is no basis for them not to become directly elected executives. There is also no basis for people from oppressed communities to become chief executives.
On the other hand, recently, from Indonesia to Madagascar, there have been Gen-G movements everywhere. Most countries have directly elected executives. There is also corruption and misrule, unrest and inconsistencies, public anger, and Gen-G agitates. Therefore, having a directly elected executive does not mean that there are no problems.
It seems that as soon as a directly elected executive comes, all the problems seen in the parliamentary system will be solved, and many of the current problems will be improved. It is human nature to expect. But we should not think that changing the system of government is the only solution to the problem.
At this time, we will have to amend the constitution to change the form of government and move towards a directly elected executive. At that time, many other achievements may be lost. We should be aware of that risk. If the current government is burdened with amending the constitution and changing the form of government, the government itself may fail.
We must continue to strengthen the parliamentary system. For that, the constitution and party statutes had to be followed. The parties had to take the youth forward. Ticket buying and selling during elections had to be stopped. Not much needs to be done. Even if the top leaders of two or four parties were honest, there would be a lot of improvement in politics.
