NATIONAL 1 (Spotlight Weekly)]

Ritualistic Respect

It is time to discuss concrete programs of social and economic transformation rather than dwell on abstract ideas on amending the constitution

By KESHAB POUDEL

At a time when the country is facing manifold challenges in the field of social and economic transformation, Nepalese politicians and intellectuals are involved in an unending debate on the Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal1990 which has nothing to do with the overall development drive of the country.

The Maoist insurgency broke out in 1996 following a decision by the Supreme Court to reinstate the House of Representatives. In the first five years under the new constitution, the country saw only two prime ministers. But after the Supreme Court's decision, Nepal has seen six prime ministers. "If efforts to amend the constitution are made, the country will be plunged into further chaos," says a political analyst. "As there is a mechanism to internally improve the constitution, touching the constitution is not going to fulfill the interest of any party," he says.

Demonstrators: What do they want?

After a few years of relative stability and peace, controversies have been arising regularly following the Supreme Court's misinterpretation of constitution in 1995. The decision also paved the way for seemingly unending

political uncertainty as well as chaos and violence. Although the decision has been accepted by all, it has stripped the prime minister of his ability to discipline members by dissolving the House of Representatives, which is a leading cause of today's political instability.

The Nepali Congress, which secured an absolute majority in the last election, has seen three prime ministers in its two and half years in power. When a small misinterpretation by the court can bring such unbearable instability and chaos, amending the constitution would open a Pandora's box.

"The constitution must be allowed to evolve and develop," said Taranath Ranabhat, speaker of the House of Representatives, addressing a program organized by the Society for Constitutional and Parliamentary Exercises (SCOPE) on the 11th anniversary of the promulgation of the constitution. "There is no need to go for amendment."

During its 11 years of existence, the constitution has set many norms and values and evolved itself into a well-accepted document. The executive, judiciary and legislature have been exercising the roles and duties assigned by the constitution. Although there are many shortcomings in the functioning and decision-making process of these institutions, they have been able to improve their performance with the passage of time.

Although the pace is too slow, the constitution is taking Nepal towardpolitical stabilization and the consolidation of rule of law. After the mysterious killings at the Royal Palace that convulsed the nation, the constitution proved its resilience by functioning normally. A new king has been enthroned and a new crown prince has been proclaimed under the provisions of the constitution. Several prime ministers, chief justices and members of parliament have been replaced.

"It is too early to evaluate overall performance of the constitution," said Ranabhat. "We are yet to practice and implement all the articles of the constitution."

But other senior leaders are in favor of an amendment. "If improvements are required, then the constitution should be amended," said Madhav Kumar Nepal, general secretary of CPN-UML, who was a member of the panel that drafted the constitution. "The process of amending the constitution is nothing new in a democracy."

This is not the first time that politicians have been raising questions about the constitution. In fact, such questions began to be raised from the day after His late Majesty King Birendra promulgated it in 1990.

Despite the sense of cynicism gripping the political environment today, it is clear that the constitution has been successful in developing a system of democratic governance through the institutions under it. Three national elections and two local polls have been held under the constitution. "The constitution is a document based on certain principles of checks and balances," said Purna Man Shakya, president of SCOPE.

In developed countries like the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Germany and developing countries like India, no one indulges in needless debates over the constitution, as it is regarded as a document capable of refinement through effective practice. Although the United Kingdom has no written constitution, it is regarded as a model democracy in the world.

Politicians from almost all Nepalese parties, most with little or no understanding of constitutional practices, have been leading the debate on amending or abrogating the constitution, citing the larger interest of the country. As long as it functions properly, the constitution does not need to be amended. Where certain improvements are required, it is capable of developing its own mechanisms. What would really be in the national interest is a healthy debate on ways of accelerating the social and economic development the constitution envisages.