By P.R. Pradhan
The government, which has a near two-thirds majority and is led by the Rastriya Swatantra Party, has formed a committee to discuss changes to the constitution. The task force, constituted on March 30, is coordinated by Asim Shah, the Principal Political Advisor to Prime Minister Balendra Shah.
There is a common Nepali saying: a donkey cannot become a cow just by washing it. In the same way, many people believe that simply amending the current constitution will not fix its deeper problems. After nearly ten years, it has not been able to fully serve the nation or its people. Repeated political instability and frequent changes in government have also raised questions about how effective the current system really is.
A constitution may be just a written document, but it should reflect the country’s culture and reality. Many feel that Nepal’s current constitution does not match its society and was influenced by outside interests. Because of this, some believe it should be replaced rather than modified. Others argue that constant amendments may only delay resolving the real solution.
The current system has also created many government positions with salaries and benefits for those elected people’s representatives that the country cannot afford. To manage its daily expenses, the government is increasingly relying on public debt. By mid-March 2026, Nepal’s total debt had reached about Rs 2,878 billion, around 47 percent of its GDP. While this is still manageable, it could become risky if it keeps increasing. Rising debt may also limit future development spending.
Nepal now has seven provinces and 753 local bodies. Maintaining all of these, along with other government structures, is expensive and beyond the country’s financial capacity. Many citizens question whether such a large administrative structure is necessary for a country of Nepal’s size.
The government says it is trying to reduce corruption and improve transparency. However, this is difficult in a system that many believe encourages corruption. At the same time, political leaders are discussing the idea of a directly elected executive chief. In a small country like Nepal, where votes can be influenced, this system could create new problems.
Looking at countries like the United States, some directly elected leaders have been criticized for becoming too powerful. There is also concern that foreign countries could try to influence such elections in Nepal. Before making such major changes, political leaders and experts should think carefully about the risks and long-term consequences.
It may seem unnecessary for a small country like Nepal to have seven provinces, especially when some states in India are larger than Nepal itself.
The main responsibility of political leaders today should be to strengthen the economy, create jobs so young people do not have to go abroad, and improve people’s living standards. The government should invest in sectors that can quickly generate income, such as agriculture, tourism, and small industries. Becoming more self-reliant should be a top priority.
In conclusion, Nepal needs a stable and practical political system that works for all its people. Some believe this may require replacing the current constitution entirely, while others support gradual reform through amendments. Since the 2006 uprising, Nepal has spent many years experimenting the present model of democracy (loktantra). The country cannot afford to waste more time. Interestingly, political leaders once called the 1990 constitution one of the best in the world. So, it may be worth asking: should Nepal consider returning to that system to solve its ongoing constitutional problems
Login to add a comment