Nepal's Parliament at a Crossroads: Seeking Reform Amidst Generational Change

Kathmandu. Nepal's parliamentary politics is currently at a historic turning point, where old narratives are collapsing and new aspirations are emerging.

The rebellion of 'Gen-Z'—the new generation—and the rise of new political forces have not only heightened public expectations of Parliament but have also placed immense pressure on state institutions to transform their character and working style. Currently, a new draft of the House of Representatives' operational regulations is being prepared, which is seen as a key link to making Parliament effective.

With the belief that the old regulations can no longer serve a Parliament defined by new thinking and momentum, a special committee is working continuously to give it shape. The question arises: 'Does a Parliament become strong merely through the strength of numbers, or does it depend on the nature of the Parliament itself and the intentions of the government?'

Experts have long argued that only by strengthening Parliament can parliamentary supremacy and government accountability be realized, allowing even an opposition that appears numerically weak to find its rightful place.

Regarding the current Parliament, senior journalist Jagat Nepal stated that the true power of Parliament lies not just in its numbers, but in the quality of debate within its halls and the respect accorded to the opposition. In Nepal's parliamentary history, the Parliaments of 2015 and 2048 B.S. are considered benchmarks. In the 2048 B.S. Parliament, then-Speaker Daman Nath Dhungana established a historic precedent.

Journalist Nepal says, 'The principle established by Speaker Daman Nath Dhungana that "the government belongs to the ruling party, but the Parliament belongs to the opposition" is even more relevant today.'

This was not just a slogan but the lifeblood of democracy. The more space and respect the opposition is given within Parliament, the more vibrant and dynamic it becomes. Dhungana's ruling established the democratic ideal that while the ruling party runs the government, it is the opposition's duty to question that government and hold it accountable to the people. Journalist Nepal fears that with a massive majority for a single party in the current Parliament, the opposition might be pushed into a corner.

He argues, 'Only if Parliament fails to address public expectations does a sense of rebellion arise among citizens.'

Parliament should not be merely an administrative venue for passing bills; it must be a forum for intensive debate on every issue of public concern. Therefore, to strengthen Parliament, it must first demonstrate its own activism, and the new regulations must further empower the role of the opposition.

The government's intent and determination are equally decisive in maintaining parliamentary supremacy. The government must develop a political culture of accepting Parliament as the supreme body that monitors its work and being accountable to it. Only when the government respects Parliament can transparency and accountability in governance be ensured, making the government more people-centric. Similarly, the experience of former secretary Som Bahadur Thapa, who held administrative leadership in the Parliament Secretariat for a long time, suggests that our Parliament has yet to escape the Panchayat-era administrative mindset.

In Thapa's view, 'Our Parliament has yet to escape the Panchayat-era administrative mindset, where it is customary to table answers to questions only on the final day.'

According to Thapa, keeping Parliament free from the shadow of the executive requires strict adherence to parliamentary regulations and the direct accountability of ministers. While a provision for direct question-and-answer sessions with the Prime Minister was included in the regulations, it has not been effectively implemented in practice.

Thapa says, 'We included the provision for direct Q&A with the Prime Minister in the regulations, but it could not be implemented in practice. Like the British model, the Prime Minister must answer in Parliament twice a month with facts and evidence. The tendency of ministers to leave the hall or hide behind tabled written answers when it is time to answer questions is a shameful matter for a democratic Parliament.'

In addition to administrative efficiency, there is a need for improvement in the expertise of the Parliament Secretariat. According to Thapa, the Parliament Secretariat should have a team of subject experts and researchers to assist our lawmakers. If they only listen to what ministry staff say during bill discussions, Parliament loses its own discretion. The Parliament Secretariat should be like a think tank that helps lawmakers engage in study-based debates.

The new regulations must include provisions that compel ministers to stand and answer in Parliament. To strengthen Parliament, the government must have the resolve to respect Parliament and follow its directives. If the government does not follow the directives given by Parliament, it is a devaluation of Parliament, and the devaluation of Parliament is the defeat of democracy.

Senior journalist and author Hari Bahadur Thapa presents the reality that in Nepal's parliamentary history, governments with majorities have not fallen due to the opposition, but due to their own arrogance and internal strife. Whether it was the majority government of 2015 B.S. or those of 2048 and 2056 B.S., the main factors behind their collapse were internal party conflict and the hubris of the majority. Regarding the potential majority of new forces, Thapa warns that they must learn from history.

Thapa's analysis is, 'The more powerful a majority government becomes, the greater the danger of it becoming autocratic. Relying on a two-thirds majority, the government tries to turn Parliament into a rubber stamp that merely validates its decisions.'

In such a situation, the role of the Speaker is most important. Thapa says, 'The Speaker should not be like a branch manager of the Prime Minister's office. It is necessary for the Speaker to be completely free from party influence and stand in a guardian-like and neutral role.'

When the Speaker ceases to play an impartial role, not only does the dignity of Parliament fall, but questions begin to arise about the system itself.

Citing statistics, Thapa says that the recent drop in the number of questions in Parliament from 5,000 to 500 is a sign that Parliament has become sluggish and lawmakers have stopped monitoring the government. Once lawmakers get caught up in the race to become ministers, they forget their primary job: legislation. Explaining the debate on a directly elected executive as a path leading to dictatorship, Thapa emphasized the need to make Parliament powerful within the parliamentary system itself.

'Only if Parliament is strong will the government be people-centric,' this conclusion by Thapa highlights the importance of parliamentary activism. The new generation and new political thinking that have entered the current Parliament have challenged traditional parliamentary practices. Gen-Z, the new generation, which is now politically very conscious, is looking for delivery and accountability, not just speeches. For them, the Parliament building should not just be a large hall, but a center of good governance. As the regulation drafting committee works now, it faces a major challenge to address these aspirations.

Parliament should be active not just as an administrative venue for passing bills, but as a forum for intensive debate on every issue of public concern. A time limit should be set for ministers to answer questions raised by lawmakers during zero and special hours. Parliamentary committees should be made more powerful and well-resourced so that they can closely monitor every file in the ministries.

When Parliament works effectively, even an opposition that appears weak finds its place secured. A secure place for the opposition means secure questions from the people. Only if Parliament and the government respect each other's constitutional responsibilities and work with high accountability can the overall democratic system be strengthened.

A strong Parliament does not mean a weak government, but rather a government that is more transparent and people-centric. The practice of Parliament turning the people's voice into law and the government implementing those laws with honesty can give meaning to the new generation's rebellion and the general public's trust. Administrative efficiency in the Parliament Secretariat, the Speaker's impartiality above party bias, the deep study of lawmakers, and the government's respect for parliamentary supremacy are the solutions to the current political crisis.

This coordination, balance, and accountability between Parliament and the government are the foundation for the sustainable future of the federal democratic republic. These suggestions from experts make it clear that it is not through the strength of numbers, but through the rule of law and a culture of accountability, that the temple of democracy—Parliament—remains secure. The leadership must understand in time that the Gen-Z rebellion is not for changing the system, but for changing the working style within this very system.

Only if Parliament understands its power and limits, and the government maintains the dignity of Parliament, will the roots of democracy in Nepali soil be further strengthened. Only if the upcoming regulations can encompass all these sentiments will Parliament succeed in truly representing the people.

– News Agency Nepal