The illusion and reality of the new constitution
At this time, the discussion of Nepal’s constitution is at its peak. The Constitution of Nepal has been discussed inside and outside the country, inside and outside the party, from the President’s Office to the Prime Minister’s Office, from the courts to the military bases, and Article 76 (5) has also been discussed. At the heart of this discussion are some illusions and some realities. The purpose of this article is to discuss those illusions and realities.
Consensus point of the constitution:
At the time of drafting the constitution, Nepal’s politics was basically divided into seven parties and the Maoists. The historic responsibility of drafting the constitution was on the shoulders of these parties. The consensus model adopted by the Interim Constitution was dissolved after the election of the Constituent Assembly and returned to the majority model. The government was formed by a majority, but the provision of an interim constitution, which required a two-thirds majority to form a constitution, was retained, making it necessary to seek consensus to draft a constitution. In terms of content, the UCPN (M) was in favor of a directly elected executive president and the Congress was in favor of a traditional parliamentary system. However, Article 76 (5) has been identified as a point of agreement to address the concerns of both the Maoists who do not like the parliamentary system due to instability due to the compulsion to draft the constitution and the Congress who do not like the presidential system due to fears of autocracy. The main purpose of Article 76 (5) was to ensure that Parliament was not dissolved under any pretext. The basic premise of this article was that the country should not have to bear the burden of unnecessary mid-term. The parliament will not be dissolved as long as the government is formed. Even if the parties cannot form a government, the basic belief of this article is to protect the parliament even if a parliamentarian can form a government as a last resort. Again, there was disagreement on many articles of the constitution. But this section is such a section that no one was dissatisfied with it and no one had registered a different opinion. It can be said that this article, which has been instrumental in fulfilling the desire of the Nepali people to make a constitution from the Constituent Assembly for the last seventy years, is also a new development in terms of Nepali constitutional history and constitutionalism. This is why it was called the reformed parliamentary system at the time of promulgation of the constitution. At the same time, the most discussed issue of the new constitution was that the parliament would not be dissolved due to famine or anyone’s interest or whim. The common conclusion was that the country and the people would never have to bear the burden of an unnecessary mid-term. This is the reality of Article 76 (5) of the Constitution.
Illusion of 047 constitution:
As an illusion No. 1 on Article 76 (5), this article of the constitution axed the party system. A situation was created where MPs did not have to stay under the party. The illusion that it has given the impression of independence in a different way has become entrenched in a circle of Nepali politics and that party has been spreading its propaganda as much as it can. This was a completely different provision from the 047 constitution regarding the dissolution of the parliament. The old constitution envisaged a constitutional provision for the dissolution of parliament, but this provision was envisaged to prevent the dissolution of parliament. Even if the parties fail to form a government or the parties are reluctant to fulfill their own interests by dissolving the parliament without allowing the government to be formed, the lawmakers can protect the parliament. The whip-free system is not meant to create chaos, but to protect parliament.
Confusion with the court:
A self-imposed notice was leaked on the eve of the dissolution. There were fears that the psychological impact of this would be felt in the court on the one hand and on the other hand there was also the issue of court examination. In the light of this, after the decision of the court, this section has also become due to the request and outrage towards the court. It is clear that the court is a very conservative institution and it focuses on preserving the status quo, not change. Interprets the constitution with measures to avoid the status quo. This is only the sum of the court’s interpretation this time. The court has explained the letter written in the constitution without having to enter into the essence and spirit of the constitution. The written letters go so far as to declare that every member of parliament has been given this right as a last resort if the parties cannot provide a government for the defense of the parliament. The reality today is that this interpretation establishes the constitutional system of improved parliamentary recognition through judicial decisions, going beyond the traditional parliamentary norms, by establishing the belief that the parliament, which is the place to exercise sovereignty, cannot be dissolved in time, impulse or whim. The insatiable aspirations of some party or individual may have been thwarted by saying that ignoring the reality of the constitution, misinterpreting it and targeting the court without any basis will only lead to the cultivation of momentary delusion.
Confusion in the neighborhood:
As soon as the constitution of Nepal was promulgated, the race for recognition of other countries started in Nepal. Especially in the light of the complaints of Madhesis, women and Janajatis within Nepal that their demands have not been adequately addressed, the Indian establishment has come to accept Nepal’s constitution. When this constitution was violated, his activities were seen to the extent that he was happy. So dissolution is not crafted by Prime Minister himself. When the incompetent parliament was dissolved twice in a span of six months, he committed suicide as an internal matter of Nepal. He was not interested in forming a government for the last time. India, which at other times hastily greeted and invited him, continued to ignore it until it received a vote of confidence. The main reason for doing so was his view of Article 76 (5) on the basis of thinking based on traditional parliamentary norms, that is, the lack of proper understanding of the article on the adoption of an improved parliamentary system with Nepali characteristics. What is strange is that in addition to what is seen as a political urge, even those who know the constitution not only ignored this article of the essence of the improved parliamentary norms adopted by Nepal, but also advised their rulers accordingly and practiced their intellect in the midst of such confusion. The provision of Article 76 (5) is not in the traditional parliamentary system and even the experts who could not get rid of the same hangover are singing their own old delusion which has not only broken the Indian tradition of congratulating the competition this time. Even became wild.
Resolving the crisis of faith
After a long failed parliamentary exercise, the people of Nepal were convinced that after the new constitution, the parliament would now function full-time and achieve political stability. But when that confidence was shattered in the first term of parliament, public confidence in the new constitution, the new system and the new politics had generally waned, and the confidence in the judiciary had plummeted due to recent activities and rumors of a settlement. Now the general public was very worried about whether the court could regain its trust. It is in this interest that the Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the constitution has been a means of resolving a one-stage crisis of confidence, but that alone is not enough. If all the organs, bodies and officials of the state do not show their commitment to fulfilling the expectations of the people reflected in the spirit and letter of the new constitution through continuous practice, it cannot be said that a bigger crisis will not arise than this.