‘No Right to Amend Constitution According to Own Will Even with Two-Thirds Majority’

17 Shrawan, Kathmandu – Following the submission of the report by the Constitutional Amendment Suggestions Task Force, established by the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RaSWaPa)-led government, discussions around constitutional amendments have intensified. However, the main opposition party, Nepali Congress, has expressed dissatisfaction with the government’s initiative. The Congress has raised questions regarding the task force’s formation process, representation, and scope of authority, asserting that the report should not be considered a valid basis for constitutional amendments.

The Nepali Congress is currently collecting suggestions as part of its effort to prepare an action plan and thematic outlines for broad party discussions on constitutional amendments. Through its Constitutional Amendment Study and Suggestions Committee, the party is advancing the process of gathering inputs with the goal of devising these frameworks.

The committee, chaired by Congress Vice President Pushpa Bhusal, is conducting consultations with various stakeholders across the country, and accordingly, has not yet begun drafting any constitutional amendment proposals.

Vice President Bhusal advocates for maintaining the Constitution’s fundamental framework while implementing necessary amendments. She states that practical complexities encountered in parliamentary governance, federalism, electoral systems, proportional inclusion, and the performance of constitutional bodies can be addressed through constitutional amendments.

In this exclusive interview, Vice President Pushpa Bhusal discusses internal Congress debates on constitutional amendments, preparations for the 15th General Convention, the review petition on the legality of the special convention’s revised statute, and the government’s performance.

The government’s Constitutional Amendment Suggestions Task Force has submitted its report suggesting changes to many constitutional articles. How does Congress view this?

This needs to be seen from two perspectives. RaSWaPa prioritized constitutional amendment as a main agenda in the elections and included it in their 100-point program. Accordingly, the government formed the task force.

A political party can form a study group to provide suggestions aligned with its manifesto. However, such a task force cannot initiate or drive the national constitutional amendment process.

Moreover, the issues highlighted by the task force are not a one-sided personal agenda. Constitutional amendments relate to the country’s social structure, political movements, citizen rights, and governance system. A task force formed by a single party in government cannot pass final judgments on this and does not have constitutional authority to do so.

Therefore, the task force report represents RaSWaPa or government views but cannot be accepted as a basis for constitutional amendments.

What about the notion that constitutional amendments cannot be made without near two-thirds majority?

The government can initiate efforts, but having a near two-thirds majority and arbitrarily amending the Constitution are different matters.

Votes from the people are meant to enable stable governance, good governance, development, prosperity, and parliamentary accountability. These votes should not be interpreted as permission to alter the Constitution’s fundamental structure at will.

The Constitution of 2072 BS (2015 AD) was not created on a whim nor to satisfy a single party’s desire. It emerged through the 2062/63 BS people’s movement, peace process, interim constitution, two constituent assembly elections, and almost eight years of deliberations.

The Constitution’s formation involved not only political parties inside the assembly but also civil society, experts, communities, and activist forces. It includes rights for women, Dalits, Janajatis, Madhesis, Muslims, Tharus, and other minority groups.

Therefore, it mirrors Nepal’s social structure and diversity. Any amendments require serious participation, inclusiveness, and trust.

Our stance is that amendments must only be made after identifying challenges, weaknesses, and problems experienced over 10 years of implementation. The amendment process must be credible, with impartial, neutral, and politically independent mechanisms for suggestion and draft preparation.

We have proposed forming a constitutional amendment drafting committee led by a former Chief Justice, including constitutional experts, political party representatives, civil society members, and specialists.

The Constitution is not a document of a single party or government. Hence, amendments cannot be confined to one party alone.

What are the fundamental constitutional features that should not be changed?

The Preamble envisions a federal democratic republic, parliamentary governance, proportional inclusion, a mixed electoral system, federalism, and a three-tier government structure.

These are the Constitution’s core values and framework. Any amendment discussion must occur within these boundaries, focusing on solving issues observed over a decade of practice.

The system itself is not flawed, but political culture, leadership, and institutional practices may pose problems. Such issues can be addressed through amendments without dismantling the fundamental structure.

Congress will not agree to amendments weakening parliamentary system, federalism, or proportional inclusion.

Why did Congress not participate in the government’s task force?

The task force lacked effective representation of political parties, civil society, experts, and stakeholders involved in constitution-building. The process was unreliable, so Congress did not send representatives.

Some topics discussed relate to the Constitution’s basic structure, over which a task force formed by one party has no political or moral authority.

We have urged the government to hold open dialogues, form a joint mechanism, and address practical issues.

What is the purpose of the Congress-created Constitutional Amendment Study and Suggestions Committee?

The party formed an 18-member committee under my leadership to study problems encountered during 10 years of constitutional implementation. This includes lawyers and subject matter experts.

Our committee does not draft amendments but studies and provides suggestions to the party, which will make final decisions.

We are engaging constitutional experts, political scientists, civil society members, and youth in consultations. The majority recommend no changes beyond the Constitution’s fundamental structure.

Why were rights not implemented as written? Why has the parliamentary system not stabilized? Why did the three-tier government fail to yield expected results? Why are constitutional bodies ineffective? Our amendment debate will focus on these issues.

The committee has already presented preliminary suggestions to party leadership. Party President Gagan Kumar Thapa has publicly spoken about possible amendments within core values.

Next, Congress plans to dialogue with other political parties, civil society, experts, and provinces to form a common perspective.

What are the main areas identified by Congress for constitutional amendments?

First, maintaining parliamentary system while addressing operational issues: government formation processes, vote of confidence, no-confidence motions, and parliamentary executive accountability.

Second, electoral system improvements are necessary. Discussions about reducing the number of lawmakers are ongoing, but proportional inclusive representation must remain strong.

Even if proportional seats are reduced, provisions should ensure candidacy of women, Dalits, and marginalized communities in direct elections. At local levels, women mostly occupy deputy mayor positions; discussions should ensure women, Dalits, and other marginalized groups represent at key leadership roles such as mayor, ward chairperson, and decision-making posts.

Third, resolving issues in federalism implementation. Rights of federal, provincial, and local governments are unclear, causing duplication of duties, budget issues, and accountability challenges.

The practice of having similar ministries at both federal and provincial levels must be reviewed to reduce administrative and financial burdens. Clear division of tasks among federal, provincial, and local governments is essential.

Provinces can be simplified, cost-effective, and efficient. Discussions can also address the number of provincial parliament members and cabinet size.

Fourth, constitutional bodies must be freed from political influence. Bodies such as the Election Commission, Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority, and the Office of the Auditor General are established for good governance. Political tampering in appointments undermines their independence.

Reducing political interference in the appointment of judges and constitutional officials is an important constitutional amendment area.

Fifth, political parties must become internally democratic and inclusive, ensuring women and other communities’ representation in leadership and decision-making positions.

The government task force proposed depoliticizing local levels. What is Congress’s stance on this?

Local governments are governments in their own right. The Constitution accords them executive, legislative, and judicial powers. Proposing to make these governments party-less is philosophically inconsistent and contradictory.

Political parties are the foundation of democracy. Depoliticizing local governments contradicts the Constitution’s structure and democratic practice.

Even if a proposal sounds popular, it cannot violate the Constitution’s core principles.

Why does Congress support parliamentary system over directly elected executives?

The parliamentary system is the governance model closest to the people. Parliament represents the people, and the Prime Minister emerges from Parliament, accountable to it.

The people elect representatives periodically, and if dissatisfied, can change them in subsequent elections. This democratic control is the strength of the parliamentary system.

Given Nepal’s geographical, social, and political realities, the parliamentary system is most suitable. South Asian context and Nepal’s geopolitical sensitivities necessitate a representative and accountable structure rather than concentrating power in one individual.

We have adopted a refined parliamentary system. Weakness in practice can be corrected. However, blaming the system solely for instability and shifting towards direct executive election is not appropriate.

Currently, the mixed electoral system has allowed one party to gain near two-thirds majority, indicating that people can provide stable government as needed.

Is there consensus inside Congress regarding constitutional amendments?

At present, we are clear on fundamental principles. We agree to amendments that preserve the Constitution’s basic structure and address problems seen in implementation.

Detailed topics will be discussed in party central working committee, provincial bodies, among activists, and in the general convention. Diverse opinions on constitutional amendments are natural.

Our priority is to engage external experts, youth, constitution participatory forces, and other parties to establish a common agenda before broad internal deliberations.

Nepali Congress led the constitution drafting process and bears the historic responsibility of promulgating the Constitution under Sushil Koirala. Congress must also guide consensus building during amendments.

As the 15th General Convention approaches, internal disputes have emerged in Congress. Is this just normal disagreement or a serious crisis?

The General Convention should not be made an issue of conflict. It is an opportunity for democratic competition within the party.

There is a constitutional obligation to hold the 15th Convention within the stipulated time. Preparations are underway.

Efforts are ongoing to digitize membership, renew it, and open it to youth. We are building connections between offices and the grassroots.

The Convention must be free, fair, and transparent. No one should be denied membership, representation, or contesting rights. The party has not restricted anyone.

Differences between leaders may exist but must not turn into factionalism or splits. The Convention should strengthen the party.

Outside, there are rumors that Congress is close to splitting—what is your view?

Congress will not split. It is a historic, democratic, and activist party. History, organization, and values do not break it.

However, if leaders politicize disputes unnecessarily, it sends negative messages to the younger generation. We say ‘Congress has changed,’ but behavior must show it.

If leaders stay entangled in conflicts, it does not send a message of leadership renewal. I am confident the 15th Convention will include all leaders and be successfully held.

Some dissatisfied leaders accuse party leadership of failing to initiate unity efforts. What is your response?

The President is actively engaging in dialogues at various levels, with individuals and groups. It is incorrect to claim the leadership is unwilling to communicate. Actions will demonstrate this.

Membership has been opened, renewals and updates are underway, and the Convention process is advancing.

The President aims to be inclusive, making the 15th Convention a tool for organizational strengthening and agenda-setting.

What can form the basis for consensus between factions?

A fair, transparent, and credible Convention is the main foundation for agreement.

Membership renewal and updating must be complete. Everyone should have the right to participate. Elections must be clean and fair. Leadership selection must be done by Convention representatives.

All factions agree on this. The process and schedule are underway. Under these conditions, focus should be on ensuring a successful Convention, not disputes.

Post-Convention, local and provincial elections will follow. Millions of leaders and activists who have worked long at village, ward, and municipality levels should have opportunities to contest and lead. Central leadership must prioritize the party’s future over personal interests.

Outgoing President Sher Bahadur Deuba and Vice President Purna Bahadur Khadka have filed a review petition on the legality of the special convention. What is your perspective?

The Supreme Court has upheld the special convention and its leadership. The party contested the House of Representatives election under that leadership’s signature, and leaders campaigned.

After the court ruling’s implementation, calling the special convention illegal is inappropriate.

Review petitions are a legal right but risk closing dialogue, increasing disputes, and weakening the organization.

This should not be used as a political tool to divide the party. Now all leaders should focus on the 15th Convention and party unity.

The goal should be fresh leadership with the new generation, ensuring youth representation below 35 years, and making the party more inclusive and stronger.

A strong Congress means a strong democratic system in the country. This is the expectation of all political forces and democratic communities in Nepal.

Finally, how do you evaluate the government’s performance?

RaSWaPa entered elections promising change, good governance, prosperity, and corruption-free rule. They received votes with hope and trust not only from their traditional supporters but also from other party voters.

People expected stable governance, good governance, and change. These expectations must be respected. Citizens must feel safe to live and work without fear. Industrialists, businessmen, journalists, and the public should not feel threatened.

The media serves as the fourth pillar, warning both government and society. Attempts to pressure, intimidate, or silence journalists are unacceptable in a democratic system.

Confidence in the economy has not yet been fully restored. Stability and security are essential for investment. The government needs to foster an environment that encourages entrepreneurs and investors.

The government must be serious about incidents that threaten social harmony. Political parties have pledged cooperation. Congress supports good work and will monitor and oppose misconduct as an opposition party.

We support a full five-year government term. Stability is necessary, but it must not mean freedom from accountability.

The artificial scarcity of chemical fertilizers despite markets, uncontrolled price hikes, and growing public frustration are warning signs for the government.

Though the government has done some good work, I would not say the environment fully meets the public’s hopes. My expectation is that voters should not face disappointment again.