The government's attempt to initiate constitutional amendment without securing broad political consensus risks deepening distrust rather than strengthening Nepal's democratic institutions. Constitutional reform may well be necessary after a decade of implementation, but the process must begin with dialogue, review and consensus—not unilateral action. To prepare a discussion paper on constitutional amendment, the government formed a task force led by the prime minister's adviser and invited all parties represented in the House of Representatives to participate. The effort quickly lost credibility. The main opposition, the Nepali Congress, declined to nominate a representative, while the CPN-UML's nominee never attended meetings. Representatives from the Communist Party of Nepal, Loktantrik Samajwadi Party, Janata Samajwadi Party and Rastriya Janamorcha later withdrew, arguing that the task force had exceeded its mandate. It is now effectively represented only by the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) and the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP). Constitutional amendment is not a new political agenda. Since the Constitution came into force in 2015, several parties have advocated revisions. Nearly every major party pledged constitutional amendment in the 2025 parliamentary election. Yet few explained which provisions had failed in practice or how proposed amendments would improve governance. Constitutional reform cannot become a political slogan detached from clearly identified problems and carefully defined objectives.
Constitution Amendment Bill (2nd amendment)-2073 being tabled i...
After securing a commanding parliamentary majority, the RSP made constitutional amendment one of its priorities. However, instead of first conducting a comprehensive review of the Constitution's implementation, the government moved directly toward drafting amendments. This approach inevitably fuelled suspicion. Participating parties became alarmed when the task force appeared to move beyond preparing a discussion paper and began drafting amendment proposals. Four parties formally objected, alleging that the exercise could undermine the Constitution's preamble and its fundamental principles. The issue today is not whether the Constitution can be amended. Article 274 explicitly provides a constitutional mechanism for amendment while establishing clear procedures and safeguards. Debate over constitutional reform is therefore entirely legitimate. The real concern is whether the government is attempting to bypass the consensus-building that is essential for changing the nation's founding document. A decade of implementation has undoubtedly exposed weaknesses in areas such as the electoral system, the functioning of federalism and judicial reform. These concerns deserve serious examination. But reform should follow an evidence-based review that identifies institutional shortcomings and evaluates possible solutions. Rushing into amendments before completing such a review risks creating greater political uncertainty instead of addressing genuine constitutional deficiencies. More fundamentally, the current dispute reflects a crisis of trust rather than disagreement over specific provisions. Nepal's Constitution was drafted through years of negotiation and political compromise. Its foundations were laid in the 2007 Interim Constitution before culminating in the Constitution of Nepal, 2015.
Although some Madhes-based parties opposed its promulgation, the document nevertheless represents the outcome of a long and difficult democratic transition. The painful divisions and violence that followed its adoption remain a reminder of the costs of excluding key stakeholders from constitutional decisions. For that reason, constitutional amendment should never become the project of a single government or parliamentary majority. It must remain a national undertaking built on broad political ownership. Parliament, rather than the executive, should lead the process. Under the Speaker's leadership, all-party dialogue can help rebuild trust, ensure transparency and foster meaningful public participation. Such an approach would strengthen both the legitimacy of any amendments and public confidence in the process. The government also faces more immediate challenges. Economic recovery, employment generation, good governance and financial stability demand urgent attention. None of these priorities is currently prevented by the absence of constitutional amendment. Nor does the government possess the parliamentary numbers needed to amend the Constitution unilaterally. A Constitution derives its strength not merely from legal provisions but from public confidence. Any amendment pursued without broad political and societal consensus risks weakening both. Nepal should therefore prioritise consultation over confrontation and consensus over haste. Constitutional reform, if it is to endure, must unite the nation rather than divide it.
