As we approach Constitution Day next month, it’s timely to reflect on the practice of coalition government and its implications for constitutional implementation.
Currently, at the threshold, we must address whether the coalition government supports the existing constitution or if it feels constrained by it.
This raises questions about whether our electoral system is conducive to forming a clear majority government, or if this situation is a result of our own choices.
Since the last election, coalition governance has become prevalent, leaving few parties outside the coalition.
The government now represents a broad consensus. Did we aim for this kind of governance, or did it develop by default? Have our elections clearly determined who holds the mandate to govern, or has the mandate become ambiguous?
It’s essential to understand the clarity of our electoral mandate and its impact on governance.
A key point of debate is Article 76 of the Constitution, which significantly influences both union and state governments.
This offers multiple options for government formation, from a clear majority to leadership by an individual.
It is crucial to clarify what kind of parliamentary system we are operating under and whether we are transitioning towards a single-person leadership or remaining multi-party.
We need to assess whether our parliamentary system is functioning as intended.
Leaders often describe it as a reformed parliamentary system, yet practical issues arise, such as the inability to bring an impeachment motion for two years.
This raises questions about whether such conditions align with the principles of a parliamentary system.
In a parliamentary democracy, is it feasible to function without parliamentary confidence even for a short period?
We must evaluate the stability of our government structures and whether they are conducive to long-term policy implementation.
It is crucial to scrutinize how well coalition governance aligns with democratic principles and constitutional expectations.
Frequent changes in government often lead to instability, affecting the continuity of policies and reforms.
This instability undermines public trust and the effectiveness of governance.
The interest in short-term programs is limited, impacting the pursuit of long-term reforms and good governance.
The frequent turnover of finance ministers also raises concerns about equitable resource allocation and justice to the constituency.
Finally, we must consider whether coalition government fosters the ‘Rule of Law’ or if it veers towards ‘Rule of Convenience.’
The temporary nature of coalition arrangements might lead to ad hoc decisions and a lack of accountability.
It is crucial to scrutinize how well coalition governance aligns with democratic principles and constitutional expectations.
Based on the views shared by former Chief Justice Kalyan Shrestha during the dialogue program on ‘Practice of Coalition Government: Governance Impact,’ organized jointly by the Constitution Watch Group and Institute for Strategic and Socio-Economic Research)
Comment