Home >> South Asia >> India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal

     Email   Print 

What Form of Government would Favor Nepal?

Prakash Bom - 1/11/2012

In the midst of hibernation of the Maoist hardliner with the temporary arrangement for the future revolt, it is the issue of what form of government will render permanent peace and stability to the nation. It is for sure the nation cannot afford another Maoist-conflict.


In my opinion, the Parliamentary system of government is the most appropriate for the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-lingual nations. The most of European nations with multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-lingual population have succeeded with the Parliamentary system of government.


However, Nepal cannot succeed with its existing political conflicts without a stable cabinet for the parliament proceedings and administration of the state. The current practice of the Parliamentary system in last two decades has proved that Nepal has failed to run a cabinet for its full term. It seems as if at this moment it is in term of making all the senior political leaders of major political parties the Prime Minister of Nepal!


Had there been a political party with full majority in the Parliament under the current Parliamentary system the cabinet could have hardly survived its full term. There could have been multifaceted revolts that would dissolve the Parliament for another election. The current trend of politics reflects the fact that for a long period of time none of the political party can win the national election with the full majority to form a government for its full term.



The nation is destined to form a coalition government for many decades in the future. No single political party has evolved yet to dream to form a cabinet with the full majority of its own. This is the bitter fact for main political parties. But, in my opinion, it is the best for the nation because it lays a platform for the consensus politics. The nation needs to be built together, but not by one political party and its vested interest. It would be better for the nation if the major political parties prepare their mindset along this political circumstance.


This is how the current political development has empowered with the active participation of its diverse ethnic population. The form of government has to address this development under the new constitution. A presidential system with a directly elected president as the head of state of all party government with a unicameral system of Parliament, for example, cannot address this and is dangerous for Democracy at this point in the history where the Maoist hardliners are still threatening the nation for another revolt.



The form of government that makes the president executively more powerful than the prime minister or equally powerful, who forms the cabinet under the Parliamentary system, can be dangerous for Democracy because it can create a parallel power structure in the government. The prime minister under the Parliamentary system of government is primarily responsible for introducing new government bills in the Parliament and executing bills that have been legislated through the cabinet. But, if the president is given with similar executive power then it will create a parallel power structure in the government.



Therefore, the form of government where there is a prime minister with the execute power the president is elected as the head of state with the responsibility to honor the nation and in case of emergency to protect the sovereignty of the nation. On the other hand, where there is a president as a head of the state with both emergency and executive power, there cannot be another executive with the same state power structure.



The fair and best way to balance the state power in Democracy is through the elected body of legislation, but not through the elected executives. The existing political development in Nepal demands the formation of a stable government within its term limit for the sake of socio-economic development. In my view, the most appropriate form of government for Nepal is the Parliamentary system of government with the Prime Minister directly elected for the term of four years with the executive power to form a consensus government.



The president as a head of the state with the emergency power can be elected for the term of six years through Electoral College as Nepali Congress party has recommended – with the votes of nation’s Federal Houses, state assemblies and municipality mayors. Such Electoral College can render a great honor for the nation.


In this case, the prime minister of the Federal Government with executive power must be elected directly through national election for the term of four years to form a stable national consensus government for its full term. If not the prolongation of the existing Parliamentary practice to elect prime minister with the votes of lower house will not serve the nation with the stable and accountable government cabinet. As a result, Nepal’s old culture of impunity and corruption in the government will not come to a fair-halt.


Nepal cannot abandon the Parliamentary form of government that it has practiced periodically for a half a century. Instead, it is an opportunity for Nepal to adapt a modern form of the Parliamentary system that can address the existing political circumstances with the stable and accountable government.

In my humble view, Nepal needs a directly elected Prime Minister in the Federal Government with the executive power to form a consensus government to address the diverse ethnic political development. Nepal must keep the head of state with the emergency power free of politics to honor the nation for its centuries’ independence of sovereignty.