By Our Reporter
After a period of political uncertainty, Nepal’s constitutional system has started functioning normally again. With the election completed and a new government formed under Balen Shah, the basic institutions of the state, parliament, government, and courts, are now working within the framework of the Constitution of Nepal 2015. This return to routine has helped bring back a sense of order after weeks of confusion.
Start with the basics. A constitution works well when three things hold steady, respect for process, balance of power, and public trust. Laws alone do not run a system. People in power must follow them, even when it is inconvenient. Institutions must check each other, legislature, executive, judiciary, each staying within its role. And citizens must believe that the system, despite flaws, still works in their interest.
That balance was shaken during the unrest linked to the Gen Z movement. Anger over corruption and poor governance spilled into the streets. The government led by KP Sharma Oli fell under pressure. What followed was a stretch of uncertainty. Parliament could not offer a quick solution. Political parties failed to find common ground. Protest leaders rejected the existing setup. The constitution did not clearly spell out what to do in such a moment.
In that vacuum, decisions were made that sat outside the usual framework. Ram Chandra Poudel appointed Sushila Karki as head of an interim government. The House of Representatives was dissolved soon after. These steps were taken in the name of necessity, to prevent a deeper crisis. Yet they raised serious concerns. Appointing someone outside parliament as prime minister and dissolving the House without a clear constitutional path broke from established norms.
Some saw it as bending the rules to save the system. Others saw it as a dangerous precedent. Both views carry weight. When rules are stretched once, it becomes easier to stretch them again. That is how systems slowly lose their grounding.
What pulled the country back was the decision to hold elections. Voting gave people a say again. It reset the political field. With a new House of Representatives in place, the constitutional order regained its footing. The three arms of the state can now function as intended. Laws can be passed, the government can be held to account, and courts can review actions without the cloud of uncertainty hanging over them.
The scale of the electoral outcome also matters. A strong majority for one party brings stability. It allows quicker decision making and reduces the constant bargaining that often slows governance. At the same time, it brings a different risk, concentration of power. When opposition voices are weak, oversight becomes thinner. Parliament works best when debate is active and scrutiny is sharp.
Looking back, what went wrong was not just a legal gap. It was a failure of political handling. Parties did not engage early enough with public anger. Institutions did not respond quickly to growing unrest. Once the crisis deepened, leaders ran out of options and turned to extraordinary measures.
That lesson should not be ignored. A constitution cannot predict every situation. It relies on political actors to act with restraint and good sense. When that fails, even the best written document struggles.
Now that the system is back on track, the responsibility shifts to those in power. The new parliament must focus on lawmaking that addresses governance issues raised by the protests. The executive must deliver services without falling into the same patterns that triggered public anger. The judiciary must remain firm in interpreting the law, especially when future disputes test constitutional limits.
Political parties also need to reflect. Power struggles and short term gains have often taken priority over institutional stability. That approach has a cost. It weakens the very system that gives them legitimacy.
At the same time, protest movements and civil groups carry responsibility too. Dissent is a part of democracy. It keeps power in check. But pushing for change should not come at the cost of tearing down the constitutional framework itself. Once that structure weakens, rebuilding it becomes much harder.
Moving forward, all sides need to draw a clear line. No individual, no party, no group should place itself above the constitution. Disagreements will happen, protests will continue, governments will change. That is normal. What should not change is respect for the system that holds everything together.
The recent phase has shown both fragility and resilience. The system bent, but it did not collapse. Elections brought it back into line. That recovery offers a chance to do better. Not by rewriting rules in haste, but by following them with care.
Getting back on track is one thing. Staying there will take steady effort from everyone involved.
Login to add a comment