In an effort to formalise the outcomes of the Gen Z revolution, a ten-point agreement was recently signed between the Government of Nepal and Gen Z representatives, which has also given momentum to discussions on term limits for executive heads. Among other provisions, the agreement includes the formation of a high-level ‘Constitutional Amendment Recommendation Commission’, mandated to recommend limits on the terms of office for the Head of State, the Chief Executive at all three levels of government, and members of the Council of Ministers to two full terms within ten years.
Nepal currently has no term limits for the heads of government or ministers, allowing them to remain in office indefinitely. As a federal parliamentary republic, Nepal elects its prime minister through parliament, and while the constitution does not specify a term limit for the office, no prime minister has completed a full five-year term since 2008. Term limits can be classified as lifetime term limits, consecutive term limits, or no term limits. Lifetime term limits prevent an individual from holding the same office beyond a set number of terms, regardless of breaks between terms, often seen in hereditary monarchies or self-declared autocratic regimes. Consecutive term limits restrict officeholders to a set number of consecutive terms, after which they must step aside but may run again following a break; this is commonly applied in presidential systems. No term limits, adopted by most Westminster-style political systems, impose no legal restriction on the number of terms a leader can serve, a model Nepal has constitutionally adopted for its prime minister.
Govt begins drafting Rs 1.9 trillion target budget for FY 2025/...
However, Nepal’s parliamentary system lacks fully developed democratic norms and a complete separation of powers, which are vital to the proper functioning of Westminster-style systems. The constitution was formulated by consensus among major political parties, enabling them to control state organs and rotate government power with ease. Frequent changes in government have led to political and economic instability, fragile coalitions, and recurring corruption scandals that weaken public trust and provoke street protests. Political crises in Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka have often stemmed from the continuous rule of selected leaders or a single family. After the Gen Z revolution in Nepal, debate has grown over the need for term limits to encourage generational change and address political stagnation. Young generations are demanding leadership term limits to curb entrenched power, reduce corruption, promote fresh ideas, enhance accountability, and prevent political instability. Youth-led protests in Nepal have opposed political monopolies and the lack of performance and delivery, emphasising intergenerational justice as crucial for a thriving democracy. Some experts assert that strengthening Nepal’s democratic system requires implementing an exit policy for political leaders.
Arguments exist both for and against term limits in parliamentary systems. Ultimately, whether to introduce them depends on the country’s specific circumstances, the role of parliament, and its accountability mechanisms. Proponents argue that term limits open leadership positions to younger politicians, as senior leaders often refuse to step aside despite repeated failures, and long-serving leaders have frequently misused state institutions and resources. Term limits restrict the number of terms an individual may serve, preventing indefinite officeholding. In many democratic systems, repeated re-election of the same individuals is increasingly viewed as political entrenchment, which reduces responsiveness to citizens and stifles policy innovation. Term limits are thus promoted as a mechanism for political renewal, broadening access to office and limiting the consolidation of personal power.
Experts also contend that leaders with limited time in office are pressured to achieve tangible results and build positive legacies rather than clinging to power. By imposing limits, democratic processes and institutions are strengthened, reducing the risk of democratic backsliding and empowering citizens. Term limits aim to break cycles of political inertia, self-interest, and elite dominance, creating a more dynamic, accountable, and responsive democratic system. They act as safeguards against the concentration of power and the potential use of undemocratic means to retain office, as continuous rule by a single person or party can lead to public dissatisfaction.
Nevertheless, some analysts argue that a strong democratic culture and political maturity are more important than term limits alone. They assert that voters should decide whether to keep a leader in power through elections, and that parliamentary systems traditionally do not impose term limits for heads of government. Concerns exist that term limits could prematurely remove effective and popular leaders.
Finally, implementing term limits for executive heads is not straightforward. Even after the Gen Z protests, top leaders of major political parties in Nepal have shown little willingness to relinquish their positions. If these leaders continue to dominate and block youth participation, the age profile of the new House will remain largely unchanged. Should the Gen Z movement fail to bring fresh faces into parliament, the very purpose of the protests may be called into question.
_20230226123652.jpg)
