There is a need to free the National Assembly from being a ‘retirement home’ for leaders and make it a ‘place of thought and expertise.’ No institution can maintain its dignity unless the intentions of those who implement the constitution are clearer than the letters written in it.
What you should know
The federal parliament structure envisaged by the Constitution of Nepal is bicameral, with the lower house, the House of Representatives, and the upper house, the National Assembly. The House of Representatives represents direct public opinion and political competition, while the National Assembly is considered the ‘Enlightened Assembly’, i.e. the House of Experts.
The main role of the upper house in a democratic system is to curb the potential arbitrariness of the lower house, reconsider hasty decisions, and provide policy seriousness. However, looking at the practice of the past few years, it is clear that the National Assembly of Nepal is deviating from its constitutional essence and dignity.
Article 86 of the Constitution of Nepal has clearly explained the formation of the National Assembly and its specific working system. It is a ‘permanent house’, which can never be completely dissolved. The term of office of the members of the National Assembly is six years, and for the continuity of the house, the term of office of one-third of the members expires every two years and new elections or nominations are held. This 59-member house has a system of 56 elected members from all seven provinces and 3 nominated by the President on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers. The philosophical basis of this system is that there should always be experience and expertise in the parliament and that the law-making process should not be stopped by political upheavals.
The practice of the upper house is considered very effective at the international level as well. The House of Lords of the United Kingdom, the Rajya Sabha of India, the Senate of the United States, the Bundesrat of Germany, and the House of Councilors of Japan are vivid examples of this. In these countries too, the upper house is respected as a body that provides ‘checks and balances’ and expertise to the lower house. However, in Nepal, the political management aspect seems to have gained more popularity than the positive practices of these countries.
Although in theory it should be a place for experts, in practice the National Assembly has become a cadre management center for political parties and a haven for election losers. The tendency to bring leaders who are rejected by the people in the elections to the House of Representatives through ‘backdoors’ in a short time has seriously weakened the moral foundation of this house. When people who are defeated in direct elections reach the National Assembly, not only is public opinion insulted, but the dignity of the National Assembly falls below that of the House of Representatives. As political parties prioritize party loyalty over expertise, this house has become a mere 'shadow' of the second House of Representatives or the lower house.
The National Assembly is known as the representative of the provinces and local levels. However, in practice, it is found that members of the National Assembly pay more attention to the whip of the party that elected them than to the specific problems and needs of their provinces. As a result, this house, which should act as a bridge between the center and the provinces according to the essence of federalism, has become entangled in the political whims of the center. In particular, the act of recruiting active workers close to the party even in the quota nominated by the President has made a mockery of the constitutional system. The nominated quota should have been for real experts, but even in this, division and political access have dominated.
In a country like Nepal with limited resources and means, the bicameral system is itself expensive. If the National Assembly cannot bring qualitative improvements in the work of the House of Representatives and only manages leaders, it is natural to question its legitimacy. The fact that this house has started being called a 'white elephant' by the people is not a good sign for democracy. If the practice continues like this, there is a strong risk that the demand for the abolition of this House may arise in the future, which is clear from the issue that has been the subject of debate even in the last elections of the House.
Some serious reforms are needed to restore the dignity of the National Assembly. Political parties should set clear criteria for the contribution and expertise made by them to national life while selecting candidates. A constitutional or legal provision should be made that a person who is defeated in a direct election should not be allowed to be in the National Assembly for at least the same term, which is the main reason for its opposition. In addition, the National Assembly should establish a practice of forming a special committee to work on the problems of the provinces, which will also help to strengthen federalism by representing all the provinces.
In conclusion, the National Assembly is a beautiful ornament of democracy and a cornerstone of federalism. Although its constitutional concept is excellent, its relevance is decreasing due to the irresponsible practices of political parties. There is a need to free the House from the ‘retirement home’ of leaders and make it a ‘place of thought and expertise’. No institution can maintain its dignity unless the intentions of those who implement the constitution are clearer than the letters written in them.
