By P.R. Pradhan
The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) held its first national convention in Chitwan last week. The party, established just before the 2022 general elections, won 20 seats in Parliament and secured an almost two-thirds majority in the March 5 elections. Yet, despite its electoral success, the party’s fundamental principles remain unclear.
During the convention, RSP Chairman Rabi Lamichhane, while presenting the party’s political document, said that the party favors a directly elected executive chief and a federal structure without provincial assemblies and provincial governments. More categorically, the party’s vice chairman and Finance Minister, Swarnim Wagle, argued that the federal system should be abolished because the country’s revenue cannot sustain the financial burden of maintaining the existing federal structure.
Following these remarks by the RSP’s senior leaders, a section of political figures—whom many regard as representatives of foreign deep-state interests—has raised a hue and cry, insisting that the federal structure must be preserved.
Be that as it may, these remain the aspirations of the RSP leadership. Amending the constitution is not an easy task. Without the support of the traditional parties, which maintain a strong presence in the National Assembly, constitutional amendment is virtually impossible, as any amendment requires the Assembly’s approval.
The Gen-Z movement of September 8 and 9, 2025, was a costly uprising in which more than 76 young people lost their lives and thousands were injured. In similar revolutions in the past, the existing constitution was suspended and replaced by an interim constitution. However, in the name of preserving the already failed constitution, an agreement was signed between President Ramchandra Paudel and the Gen-Z representatives on the night of September 9. Because of what many regard as a serious blunder committed by the Gen-Z representatives, the Sushila Karki-led government was unable to fulfill the aspirations of the movement supporters. Now, the Balen Shah-led government also appears determined to deliver on those aspirations but continues to face legal constraints at every step.
Balen Shah himself appears dissatisfied with the present constitution. Accordingly, a constitutional amendment commission has been formed under his close aide, Ashim Shah, whose team is currently collecting public suggestions.
Be that as it may, neither Balen Shah nor Rabi Lamichhane or Swarnim Wagle can amend the constitution on their own. Nevertheless, it is evident that the present constitution does not enjoy public acceptance, except among certain representatives of foreign deep-state interests.
The RSP’s intentions are also not entirely clear. Why the party advocates a directly elected executive chief remains uncertain. Does it intend to replace the Westminster parliamentary model with an American-style presidential system? In a country like Nepal, situated between the two Asian giants, China and India, such a system could prove counterproductive. Experience from several countries shows that directly elected executive leaders often govern in an increasingly authoritarian manner.
While we support abolishing the federal structure—which would significantly reduce non-productive public expenditure—we also support transforming the National Assembly into a body of non-political representation and making local governments non-partisan. However, we strongly disagree with the proposal to introduce a directly elected executive chief.
There should be no restriction on debating constitutional amendments. However, we believe that another popular movement would be necessary to suspend the present constitution and draft a new one that accommodates all segments of society. In our view, the 1990 constitution remains the best constitutional framework Nepal has had. It accommodated everyone—from the monarchy to diverse political ideologies—while also recognizing the nation’s religion and preserving the identity of Nepal’s Sanatan civilization.
Login to add a comment