By P.R. Pradhan
The present situation of the country is largely the result of poor governance and the absence of a strong system of checks and balances. Corruption and misuse of state resources have weakened the country, and the existing constitution has contributed to the problem by adopting an expensive political structure that the country’s revenue cannot sustain. As a result, the government has been forced to depend heavily on foreign and domestic loans to meet its expenditures.
The new government led by Balendra Shah has begun discussions on amendment of the constitution. However, minor changes alone will not create a truly nation-friendly constitution. A significant section of the population remains dissatisfied with the current federal, secular, and republican system. The replacement of the monarchy with a parliamentary president has not produced leaders who stand above party politics. In the meantime, the draft of the discussion paper on constitutional amendment has focused on adopting the concept of a directly elected president. This is an attempt to introduce the American model. However, even in the United States, many believe the system has not always functioned effectively. In several other countries as well, the presidential system has either encouraged authoritarian tendencies and instability or increased foreign influence in domestic affairs.
In a country like Nepal, such a system could prove counterproductive, particularly given our weak internal security situation and the strategic and geopolitical interests of foreign powers. If such a system is introduced, Nepal could witness foreign powers competing to back their preferred presidential candidates. Therefore, this appears to be a foreign-driven design imposed against Nepal’s national interests.
A political system must be suited to the nation’s own soil and realities. Given Nepal’s limited room for maneuver in foreign policy, we also believe the country cannot move forward effectively under any system other than one based on a Hindu kingdom with multiparty democracy.
The seven provinces have failed to justify their existence except by increasing administrative expenses and expanding opportunities for political appointments. Nepal, a small country, even smaller than several Indian states in both size and population, making such a large federal structure is difficult to justify. Similarly, many constitutional bodies and institutions appear to have been created mainly to accommodate party workers and retiring politicians. The National Assembly, for example, has largely become a platform for aging political leaders, while the size of Parliament itself is disproportionately large and expensive for the country to maintain.
The proportional representation system has also been misused. Instead of empowering marginalized communities, political parties have often selected relatives, loyalists, and wealthy individuals capable of financing party leaders’ interests. Provincial assemblies have similarly become centers of factionalism, horse-trading, and power-sharing politics rather than effective governance.
Nepal also requires major economic reforms. Industrialization is essential for creating employment opportunities for young people, yet investors continue to face countless obstacles. The lack of industry-friendly long-term policies, combined with high taxation, discourages investment in manufacturing and production. As a result, investors prefer trading businesses, importing foreign goods and selling them in Nepal for quick profits.
Other countries are strengthening their economies by protecting domestic industries and promoting local products. The United States under Donald Trump promoted “Make America Great Again,” while Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the “Make in India” campaign. In contrast, Nepal often treats industrialists merely as tax defaulters instead of encouraging them as partners in national development.
Without comprehensive reforms in both politics and the economy, Nepal cannot establish a sustainable and nation-friendly system. The constitution must create a political structure that the country can realistically afford while allowing greater investment in development, education, health, and employment generation.
Constitutional amendment is therefore a serious and essential national issue. The government should not approach it lightly or only in the interests of existing political parties. Instead, it must focus on building a sustainable system that truly serves the nation and its people.
If the government plans to amend the constitution solely in the interests of political parties, it will not help make the nation prosperous. Instead, the government should form a team of noted constitutional experts, economists, and political scientists with a strong sense of patriotism and commitment to national interests. At the same time, it must avoid relying on so-called experts who promote foreign agendas for their own petty personal benefits.
Login to add a comment