In the past, deprivation, poverty, underdevelopment, inequality, oppression, and discrimination in our Nepali society could not be ended, that is, Nepali society could not be transformed in the true sense. In reviewing that, we came to the conclusion that the 'state system' and 'governance system' we have adopted is an obstacle to the overall development of Nepali society.
The character of the 'state system' we have adopted in the past was 'unitary' and the form of 'governance system' was 'centralized'. Contemplating this fact, after the people's movement of 2062/63, we gradually changed the character of the 'unitary state system' to 'republican' and adopted the 'federal system' by changing the form of the 'centralized' system of governance.
The new constitution was promulgated by the Constituent Assembly on September 19, 2008, with the participation of the members of the Constituent Assembly elected by the sovereign Nepali people.
As mentioned in the preamble of the said constitution, we, the sovereign Nepali people, are putting an end to all forms of discrimination and oppression created by the feudal, autocratic, centralized, and unitary state system; We have promulgated this new constitution to fulfill the aspirations of sustainable peace, good governance, development, and prosperity through the federal democratic republican system of governance by adopting the competitive multi-party democratic system of governance of the people.
It has been almost six years since the new constitution was promulgated. In the meantime, some people are disillusioned with the current constitution, state system, and governance due to the apolitical games in the name of politics, the complexities in the implementation of the constitution, the self-interested attitude and behavior of the ruling class, and the political complexities arising from court decisions.
In a sense, this is natural. The constitution we have adopted now, the current state system, and the system of governance we have adopted are being questioned. In which the country has always gone into instability due to the current constitution, the monarchy was better than the republic or federalism is not appropriate in the context of Nepal.
First; Is there a problem with the 'constitution' we have adopted? Let's talk a little bit about the constitutions being adopted by other countries of the world. The United States Constitution, issued in the late 17th century, is the smallest written constitution in the world.
Leaders of some other political parties have been publicly saying that the constitution is in crisis, the achievements are in danger of being lost and the current state system and governance system are in danger. Is there really a crisis over the 'constitution', 'state system' and 'governance system' that we have adopted? This article is based on this topic.
The United States is moving forward as the richest and most powerful country in the world, standing on the foundation of this constitution, which was drafted more than two centuries ago. There are countries like the UK, New Zealand, and Israel where we do not have a written and documented constitution but we can see their progress and the prosperity of their people. Examining these facts, it can be understood that the constitution is not feasible but only a means.
The history of the constitution of our country is not very long. We Nepalis have adopted six constitutions in a period of about 68 years and have been implementing the seventh constitution since 2072 BS. Nothing in the world is absolute. Everything has to be looked at in relativity.
The problem is not in the constitution but in the intention of those in the body to interpret and implement it. Relatively speaking, the current constitution is much more advanced and progressive than the previous six constitutions. Therefore, in the present context, the constitution we have adopted is not a problem.
Second; Is there a problem with the character of our 'state system'? The character of the state system we have adopted now is 'republican' governance. Was the monarchy more appropriate than the republic as discussed now? How can a republican state system where the daughter or son of the people can be the head of the state be more inappropriate than the system of being the head of the state based on being born in a certain family?
There are different practices of republican government in the world. There are also countries where the president is the chief executive. Countries such as the United States and China have a republican system of government with many powers. We shouldn't even talk about them because they are not practicing parliamentary like us.
There are republics in the world like ours that have constitutional presidents with a parliamentary model. Just look at the list of countries that have adopted a model republic like ours, there are poor countries like Ethiopia, Fiji, Estonia and there are rich countries like Italy, Austria, Finland. Therefore, the republican system of governance is not bad in itself.
How can the system of people being the head of state be bad? Instead, how are we practicing the republic? That can be a topic of discussion. We left the monarchy, the symbol of the feudal system, but the neo-feudal style and tendencies seen in our rulers can be the subject of discussion. But in the present relativity, the alternative to the republic is the republic and not any other state system.
Third, is the nature of our 'system of governance' problematic? The form of government we have adopted now is the 'federal system of government. Elsewhere in the world, this type of governance system is adopted. There are also developing countries, such as Nigeria, Syria, and Myanmar, which have adopted a federal system. And there are developing countries like Germany, Spain, Belgium.
This is the first time we are practicing federalism. So it is natural to have some confusion. Federalism in itself is not a bad system of governance. Instead, how are we practicing federalism? That can be a topic of discussion. The governing attitudes of the new rulers in the name of federalism may be the subject of discussion.
But looking for an alternative to federalism in the current relativity is only to push the current constitution, to push the country towards more instability. It is now our responsibility to make the necessary laws for the implementation of federalism in line with the essence of federalism and to create an environment in which the people can see, touch, and feel the state governments while practicing federalism. In this situation where the constitution has just been promulgated and is being implemented, looking for alternatives to federalism and seeing problems in the federal system of governance is not only inconsistent but also unconstitutional.
Fourth, is there a problem in our judiciary? According to the basic tenets of democracy, our constitution also envisions an independent judiciary. The judiciary has been provided in the constitution in the dimension of the principle of separation of powers. Accordingly, the final right to interpret the constitution has been given to the Supreme Court in Article 128, Sub-Article 2.
In principle, there is no problem in the establishment of the judiciary, its jurisdiction, and the concept of an independent judiciary. It is the responsibility of all to implement the decisions made by the esteemed Supreme Court. But the problem is that some of the decisions made by the Supreme Court in the meantime are creating complications instead of untying the political knot.
The Supreme Court does not rule on the black letters of the law. The court has to pay attention to the essence of the constitution. Judging is based on the principle of justice. The whole judicial system is called 'judiciary' based on the belief that the court should not look only at the letter of the law but should decide on the essence of the constitution and the concept of justice.
The court is respectfully referred to as the 'Court'. If only the black letters of the law were the basis of the decision, then the judiciary would be called 'legal body' and the court would be called 'legal court' instead of 'court'. There is no problem with the theoretical concept of the whole judiciary. Instead, it is necessary to discuss the root causes of the problems associated with the decisions.
In the end, our constitution and the state system and governance we have adopted are not in crisis. The problem is not with our constitution, the state system we have adopted, and the system of governance or our judiciary.
The problem is in apolitical activities with nefarious interests in the name of politics. The problem is with the rulers. It is in the ruling tendencies of the rulers. The problem is in the intentions of the leaders affiliated with different parties. The problem is the inability of other organs of the state, especially the army, the courts, the police, and the bureaucracy, to make meaningful restructuring.
There is a problem in the tendency to protest if the decision is in your favor and if the decision is against you. The problem is the tendency to seek a solution from the courts. Ignoring the fact that the preamble of the constitution adopted the rule of multi-party competition, citing the articles of the constitution, it is looking for independent practice. The problem is that the parliament, which has representatives of the sovereign people, is unable to elect a prime minister and seeks a court appointment. Talking about 'democracy' by word of mouth and deliberately seeking a solution from the courts is a waste of time building 'law and order'.
The problem is that Khil Raj is ready to repeat the character. The problem is not the strengthening of the system but the development of individual initiatives. Instead of addressing all these causes of the current political complexity, we are looking at the problem in the constitution, the state system, and the system of governance. We are looking for a 'knee treatment for headaches'. And we are just shouting, there is a crisis over the constitution and the law.
