Nepali Congress Disagrees with Government's Constitution Amendment Process

The Nepali Congress disagrees with both the process and content of the task force formed by the government to prepare a debate paper for constitution amendment. This is because constitution amendment is not solely the subject matter of the ruling party. The ruling party only initiates the process; it is not a matter of concern. Therefore, the importance of constitution amendment is as significant as the importance of constitution making. The difficulties observed during the 10 years of constitution implementation and the subjects requiring amendment are equally important.

Our tradition is that a credible structure should be built when amending the constitution. There are past practices of building a credible structure. Firstly, there is a practice of forming a commission under the chairmanship of a former Chief Justice or former Justice. Secondly, the current government was formed by participating in the election after accepting the constitution made in 2072 BS.

Because they have a mandate to amend this very constitution, the ownership of the subjects that were present during the constitution's creation and the background from which it was created was taken by the parties present in the Constituent Assembly in 2064 BS. Similarly, that constitution was made with the involvement of other external experts and civil society. Therefore, our belief is that a powerful structure should be formed to represent the parties that took ownership at that time, rather than just the current political parties, when amending the constitution.

The current government will only lead this, but in terms of building the structure within the process, moving the process forward, discussing and amending its subject matter, a credible structure should be built by involving the parties that took ownership previously, its experts, and civil society.

Constitution amendment is not an agenda of one party; it is an agenda of all parties, civil society, and the people. Therefore, Congress did not participate because their representation was not included in that structure.

What is seen now is that the government is trying to prepare a debate paper within its manifesto or election commitments. The debate paper they have written, the debate paper for amendment, belongs to the ruling party. It is an agenda within the manifesto of Rastriya Swatantra Party. Constitution amendment is not an agenda of one party; it is an agenda of all parties, civil society, and the people. Therefore, Congress did not participate because their representation was not included in that structure.

Secondly, we have also looked at the policy and program. Policy and program amendment is a very different subject matter. Policy and program, budget, and constitution amendment are entirely different subjects. Both have their own importance, but now the ruling party is trying to create a narrative that it is their own agenda by bringing it into the policy and program. The ruling party has taken constitution amendment as its own subject matter.

Thirdly, in 2064 BS, even though we were the main opposition party, we played a leading role in various content discussions during the constitution-making process. The constitution was promulgated in 2072 BS when Sushil Koirala of Congress was the Prime Minister. Therefore, we are ready to discuss the matter of constitution amendment by including everyone, but even while being ready, the ruling party has also released the content, which should not be done. Discussions could have been held on the difficulties observed during the implementation of this constitution and the subjects requiring amendment. This could have been made a common issue. Now the government has also included the content. For this reason, Congress has not sent its concept paper.

Congress has its own perspective on the fundamental principles of the constitution. Our committee has held discussions by calling various experts. We will again collect suggestions by calling representatives of various groups, experts, politicians, and political scientists. Congress will collect suggestions on where amendments are necessary to manage the difficulties observed during the implementation phase, keeping the spirit of this constitution intact within democratic values and principles. After that, Congress will determine its official perspective. This constitution has adopted a system that is closest to the people. The parliamentary system, under which people elect their representatives through elections, the parliament selects the Prime Minister, and that parliament 'checks and balances' the government according to the principle of separation of powers, is the most beautiful system. This system, which strengthens the parliament and focuses on being close to the people, is the best. The system itself is not bad, but rather than that, let's amend the difficulties observed during its implementation. However, there must be a parliamentary system.

Secondly, we can discuss how to amend the electoral system, but we will move forward with discussions on an electoral system that ensures proportional inclusion, the diversity of our society, and its representation.

The ruling party seems to be trying to make this its private agenda, and that is our question.

Thirdly, we are very clear about federalism. How have we encompassed geographical diversity and various diversities in the matter of federalism? We need to be clear about how to simplify federalism, make it clear, accessible, and empowered. For example, there might be discussions about numbers, reducing ministers, and reducing members of parliament, but federalism itself has a clear perspective from Congress. We are discussing all these matters. The structure formed by the government and the content prepared by itself, we have question marks over that as well.

It would be wrong to say that the ruling party cannot amend the constitution. Amendment proposals come from the government, but before that proposal comes, the government must prepare a powerful structure on the fundamental values and principles of the constitution and ensure ownership from everyone. The ruling party seems to be trying to make this its private agenda, and that is our question.

The ruling party has a majority, and we have no two opinions about forming a government, providing good governance, and succeeding in work. However, a government is formed simply by having a majority. A majority means executive power. Whoever has the majority forms the government, and whoever does not sits in opposition. Forming a task force and raising issues by oneself is wrong. Let the ruling party form the government; we have no objection to that. The government itself will bring the proposal tomorrow. When we were in the Constituent Assembly and in the interim constitution, I myself was an external drafter. Even though I was an external drafter, we later made it a matter for the government and the parliament.

We have raised questions only about the process and content. The government must take the matter of constitution amendment seriously. We have no objection to the ruling party forming the government. We have a mandate to sit as the main opposition party. As the mirror of the people, we are fully prepared to sit as the opposition party to raise public interest issues in the parliament, make the parliament more dynamic, and strengthen the parliamentary system. However, the process of constitution amendment is as important as its creation. Why are we opening this matter after 10 years? But the process adopted by the ruling party for constitution amendment is wrong. This is because the matter of constitution amendment is very important in itself.

Based on the majority of two-thirds, the constitution will be discussed in the parliament tomorrow. Just because the government has a two-thirds majority does not mean the constitution will be amended without discussion.

The constitution has provisions for various commissions; let's review them. How can the electoral system be made simpler? Proportional inclusion is our fundamental principle; discussions can also be held on the electoral system. Federalism is our main agenda. How to simplify it? Should ministers be reduced, or members of parliament reduced, how to simplify it? To prevent overlapping of authority among the three tiers of government, there are ambiguities in the schedules of authority for local governments, provincial governments, and the center. How to provide clarity? If we look at all three governments, there are legislatures and executives. At the local level, there is even a judiciary. Due to the overlapping within these three areas of authority, and with matters of shared authority, provinces and local levels are unable to work. This will be amended. We are in discussion about the matters within it.

Based on the majority of two-thirds, the constitution will be discussed in the parliament tomorrow. Just because the government has a two-thirds majority does not mean the constitution will be amended without discussion. Therefore, discussions will take place inside and outside the parliament on that matter, but the constitution is not amended simply because there is a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives. A two-thirds majority is needed in the National Assembly. Any amendment to the provincial structure requires ratification by the provincial assembly. The current two-thirds majority is comfortable for running the government, but for amending the constitution, the National Assembly and provincial assemblies are all needed. The current constitution does not understand that it can be amended just because there is a two-thirds majority.

A committee has been formed from the party to provide advice and suggestions for constitution amendment. We will soon clarify the party's perspective. Rastriya Swatantra Party also participated in the election by accepting this very constitution. They started taking ownership by saying they would abide by this constitution. They went to the elections based on this constitution. The government has been formed according to this constitution. The executive has been functioning according to this constitution.

We are in the process of discussing how the constitution can be reviewed once or how the difficulties encountered during implementation can be made simpler through amendment. For example, many things were written in the fundamental rights, but we still need to make laws or implement them. Discussions will be held on matters like the electoral system, simplifying federalism, or clarifying the overlapping or shared authorities of the three tiers of government by the center and provinces through legislation.

Congress alone cannot amend the constitution, but it can lead the subject matter. Therefore, in our committee, after taking suggestions from various stakeholders, clarifying our perspective, we will also discuss with other parties as needed. We will bring out our views clearly stating that Congress has its perspective on these specific subject matters.

(Based on an interview with Congress leader Bhusal)