Eight months have passed since the UML and the Nepali Congress signed a seven-point written agreement to establish a new government.
Point number 2 of the agreement, "Constitutional review and amendment”, states that the new government will assess the Constitution's performance, address its weaknesses, and make necessary amendments for political stability. These issues were stated as the main justification for amending the constitution and bringing political stability in the nation. The accord states that Sher Bahadur Deuba will succeed Khadga Prasad Oli as prime minister following the latter’s first term. Efforts are continuing to establish political stability through constitutional amendment as a narrative.
All political parties have undoubtedly been calling for changes to the constitution. With the exception of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), no other political party has called for the return of the monarchy in a republic Nepal. There is also a technical necessity for a constitutional amendment to ensure political stability in this country, to make the federal structure viable, and to make Nepal a ‘common garden of diversity.’ Despite its public claim, the present ruling coalition does not appear to have constitutional amendment as a key priority on its agenda. In the meantime, the unexpected turn with which the CPN-UML and Nepali Congress altered Nepal's political trajectory by drafting a seven-point agreement and the concept of constitutional amendment have caused a stir among other political groups.
Basically, the regional level parties are feeling somewhat afraid as long as political stability and constitutional amendment are being discussed simultaneously. ‘Madhesh based parties’ have even increased their attempts to come together. The pertinent question is whether the Nepal's current political spectrum allows bringing about political stability or will spark a new political tension?
Don’t misinterpret stability
Indeed, political stability is a unique situation which occurs when a government or political system continues to function normally and intact over an extended period of time, even in the face of major upheavals or changes. The federal democratic republican political system that exists in Nepal, the system established by the elected constituent assembly, can be regarded as the most progressive in the world.
Every Nepali has the chance to first experience the new system following the adoption of the new constitution. There have been two elections at the local, provincial, and federal levels in the last seven years. In the first election, the communist blocks (CPN-UML and Maoist alliance) came first, while the Nepali Congress came second. Technically, the reins of the country’s leadership were rotated and limited to the ‘chairmen’ of the three major parties. Owing to internal party conflicts, the left alliance's nearly two-thirds majority was destroyed.
The then government's narrative of political instability in Nepal might have been influenced by the NCP's ploys and KP Sharma Oli's act of twice dissolving the parliament. However, in the meantime, the local level and the province assembly/government emerged in Nepal under the new constitutional framework. Local development was nevertheless supported by the province and local governments. Lawmaking by the provincial assembly began. Even Province No. 2, which is today Madhesh Province, gave itself an identity through nomenclature. It introduced laws for social development in accordance with its system of governance, by bringing progressive laws and scheme like- the Dalit Empowerment Law, the Women's Empowerment Law, and the Provincial Police, province’s own public service commission, Janlokpal, universities and so on. Meanwhile, in Kathmandu, a fearful psychology began to develop among those who viewed federalism only as a political necessity, saying, "Despite limited powers, the provincial structure works."
It has been almost three years after the second election took place. Comparatively, the CPN-UML and the Nepali Congress again dominated the election in numbers, although the Maoists, who secured a mere 32 seats, remained powerful by joining forces with the congress. Regardless of this, the supposedly popular Risatriya Swatantra Party (RSP) became the fourth force in the federal parliament this time. In a remarkable turn of events, the Maoists formed a government with the UML after a brief coalition government with the congress. The RSP played the role of power sharing partners twice grappling the home ministry. And then suddenly, the UML again separated from the Maoists and signed a written agreement to run the government alternately with the Nepali Congress.
As of the second term, Nepal is once more attempting in vain to achieve political stability through the power-sharing agreement between the power-hungry political parties. None of the governments have adopted the notion that all fundamental laws ought to be drafted within three years of the constitution's implementation. Top federal leaders are well aware of the psychology of not permitting federalism to be exercised in the absence of the Education Act, Police Act, and Civil Service Act.
The leaders who have taken over core politics are engaged in an internal conflict for self-interest, which cannot be rationally interpreted as political instability.
Ground interpretation
In Nepal, there are essentially two kinds of instability. The first is the political instability mentioned above, which is mostly caused by the partisanship that has been occurring in Nepali politics and the conflicting political interests of the leadership. The numerous discontents that are dispersed throughout the nation constitute the second form of instability.
The forces that are committed to battling for control of Kathmandu—the figurative representation of the centralized entity of power—make up the second type of instability. The first of these is the Madhesh issue. Kathmandu considers the electoral system as a factor in bringing political stability and prosperity to the country. In Kathmandu's perspective, regional parties are like a roadblock to nation-building. Even after three major movements for federalism, Kathmandu was able to come together and reach a 16-point agreement to issue a constitution without federalism when the constitution was being drafted. In fact, federalism was forced to be incorporated in the constitution only by the Supreme Court’s decision. Political parties in Madhesh have come together for a new cooperative struggle after the current prime minister mocked federalism by referring to the provinces as a unit of the center. Federalism is viewed through a "political lens" by those who support it in Nepal, and it encompasses not just the decentralization of the budget but also the devolution of authority and self-governance. Identity based activists' discontent and movement in Koshi Province are still unaddressed. From a realistic perspective, the ‘Madhesh based parties’ are once again seeking a movement albeit for its electoral revival and the political forces centralized in Kathmandu are laying the foundation for it. Similarly, Gyanendra Shah, the ex-king was dethroned by the Nepali people nearly two decades ago, but he has the audacity to make provocative statements like-- "Now is the time for the Nepali people to think," posing a direct challenge to the current coalition.
Finally above all, the discomfort arising from the ordinance brought by the current ruling coalition must have increased the pulse of the current coalition government. Open objections are being expressed within the Congress-UML regarding the inadequate performance of the government. Civil society has also announced a movement against the excessive partisanship of politics in Nepal. Political parties will have to take a big portion of the blame for Nepal's political decay if they do not incorporate diverse views while addressing all the existing issues, from governance to constitutional amendments.