Allegation that political parties have not implemented the constitution, the debate about turning back the constitution is a challenge to progressivism.
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.
Santosh Pariyar, chief whip of Rashtriya Swatantra Party (RASWPA), has expressed his concern that the debate on constitutional amendment is not progressing in the right direction.
He said this while speaking at an interaction program on 'Ten years review of the implementation of the Constitution: achievements, problems and challenges and suggestions' held in Kathmandu on Wednesday. He commented that even though the current constitution is relatively progressive, interest groups who seek to maintain continuous dominance in the power structure are not liked.
He mentioned that rather than moving the constitution forward, there is a debate about going backwards on the pretext of amendment and also said that it is necessary to be aware of this.
He accused the political parties of not implementing the constitution. He commented that when political parties and leadership do not behave according to the provisions of the constitution, there is a conspiracy to make a constitution according to the behavior of the party.
He said, 'Due to the continuous efforts, hard work and the role played by the political parties for almost 70 years, today we have got a better constitution in favor of women, in favor of Dalits and in favor of Madhes than the previous six constitutions. Some people did not like this. This is not liked by the domineering who are always in power and who always enjoy the power structure. From various angles, there is a doubt that there is a debate on this in the name of amending the constitution, rather than moving the constitution forward.''
