By Our Reporter
Constitutional amendment has returned to the centre of Nepal’s political agenda, but the process already shows how complex it can become. During the election campaign, the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) included a commitment in its manifesto to revise certain provisions of the Constitution. After forming a government with a near two-thirds majority, it announced a 100-point action plan on March 13. Among them, point number four promised a task force within seven days to prepare a “constitutional amendment discussion paper” based on cross-party consensus. Within 13 days, the government did manage to form a multi-party task force, although it remains incomplete.
On March 25, the task force decided to collect written suggestions from political parties on possible constitutional changes. This step matters because any meaningful amendment process must begin with clearly mapped political positions. But the absence of the main opposition, the Nepali Congress, has created a visible gap in the exercise. Parties such as CPN-UML, the Nepal Communist Party, Rastriya Prajatantra Party, Shram Sanskriti Party, and others are participating, while the Congress has stayed out, citing conditions. Those conditions may be debated, but they do not appear insurmountable. In practical terms, bringing the country’s largest and oldest democratic party into the process is not just desirable, it is necessary for legitimacy and durability.
The Constitution is not a fixed document. In the decade since its promulgation, it has already undergone two amendments. The first, in February 2017, strengthened social justice provisions and adjusted electoral constituencies to better reflect population distribution. The second, in June 2020, updated the national emblem to include the revised map covering Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura, and Kalapani, reinforcing Nepal’s territorial claim. Both changes were driven by clear political and national priorities rather than routine politics. That history offers an important lesson: amendments succeed when they respond to shared national needs, not narrow party calculations.
The current process, therefore, sits at a crossroads. If guided by broad agreement and national priorities, it can move forward without major friction. But if it becomes a tool for political positioning or for isolating rivals, it risks creating the kind of instability that constitutional reform is meant to prevent. In that sense, the amendment process itself becomes a test of political maturity.
To keep the process on track, certain practical steps stand out. First, the Nepali Congress should be included in the task force under workable conditions. Exclusion of a major political force limits the credibility of any outcome and weakens parliamentary prospects later. Second, all political parties that secured more than one percent of the popular vote in the last election should compile and submit the constitutional reform proposals included in their manifestos. That would provide a structured baseline instead of fragmented demands.
Third, as already discussed by the task force, all proposals should be brought into a single framework and categorised systematically. Shared proposals across parties should be placed in one category. Widely supported but not universal proposals should form a second group. Issues that require deeper debate or carry high sensitivity should be placed in a third category. This kind of structured classification would prevent confusion and help focus discussions on areas of convergence first.
The last decade of constitutional practice already offers enough experience to guide this exercise. Implementation has revealed gaps in governance, economic management, anti-corruption mechanisms, and administrative efficiency. Most political parties have encountered these challenges directly while in government or opposition. That shared experience can serve as a foundation for targeted reforms if used carefully.
However, the risks are equally visible. Nepal’s political environment remains deeply polarised on core constitutional questions. Secularism continues to face competing interpretations, with one side demanding fuller implementation and another calling for reconsideration of the state’s religious identity. Federalism is also contested, with some viewing it as incomplete and others calling for its reversal. Even issues like governance models and electoral systems divide both parties and the wider public.
In such an environment, constitutional amendment cannot move forward without sustained dialogue and consensus-building. Any attempt to push contested issues without agreement is likely to stall the process and deepen political uncertainty. The government must also take into account the arithmetic of the National Assembly, where its strength is limited, which could affect final passage of any amendment.
Ultimately, constitutional reform is not just a technical exercise. It is a political negotiation that requires restraint, inclusion, and long-term thinking. The goal should not be to maximise partisan advantage, but to strengthen institutional stability and governance. If handled carefully, this moment can lead to constructive reform. If not, it may add another layer of complexity to an already divided political landscape.
Login to add a comment