KATHMANDU: Thirty years ago today, on Falgun 1, 2052 BS (February 13, 1996), Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda, then 40 years old, announced the armed rebellion. Today, at 70 years of age, Prachanda continues to shape Nepal’s political landscape.
As the supreme leader of the Maoist “People’s War”, Prachanda has set a new mission in his later years: to rebuild the Maoist Party, position it as the leading political force in Nepal, and then pass on the leadership to the next generation.
In a special interview with Khabarhub coinciding with the 30th anniversary of the Maoist “People’s War”, Prachanda shared new political insights.
The conversation focuses less on the past armed struggle and more on the future direction and strategic plans of the Maoist movement.
Questions raised include: What are the chances of cooperation between the CPN-UML and the Maoists in the future?
Will the Maoists merge with Madhav Nepal’s party? Could there be an alliance between Nepali Congress and CPN-UML in the 2084 elections?
What will the Maoists’ stance be if the Congress-UML government pushes for constitutional amendments?
Is there a possibility of an alliance with Ravi Lamichhane’s Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) in the 2082 elections?
Does Prachanda want the KP Oli-led government to fall, or should it continue until 2027? And why is Prachanda becoming more active in district elections at this stage in his life?
In our discussion with former Prime Minister Prachanda, we focused on these pressing political questions. The interview takes a forward-looking approach, emphasizing the future over past history.
Prachanda acknowledged: “We were leaning a little to the right, but now we have shifted to the left.”
You turned 70 on December 11 last year. Recently, you’ve been very active in politics, traveling to the east, west, Tarai, and hilly districts. Your physical activity seems to surpass that of many other contemporary leaders. What’s the secret behind this youthful energy, working tirelessly throughout the day?
First of all, my increased activity stems from my concern for the overall political situation of the country and my perspective on it.
Second, as the leader of the opposition, I now have the opportunity to go among the people and hear their views. This has naturally led to an increase in my activism.
Third, I have a responsibility to rebuild my party. To do that, I have been working to connect with party leaders and cadres across all provinces and, as much as possible, in the districts.
Listening to their views and taking their suggestions is essential for this process.
Additionally, wherever I go, I try to stay mindful of my health. For example, my morning walk has become almost like a program, and I’ve used it as a message to the youth: we should take care of our health.
I’ve been going to villages, joining the youth for morning walks, sending the message that physical fitness is both meaningful and important. These are a few reasons why I’ve become more active.
When I was in Baluwatar, I regularly played badminton, and later, I switched to table tennis.
While I’ve been in Khumaltar, I’ve continued to play both badminton and table tennis.
However, now I’ve focused more on walking—whether it’s walking up and down at home or using a treadmill. I try to reach at least 10,000 steps a day.
Have you had any issues with sugar or blood pressure?
I did have issues with both sugar and blood pressure, but everything is under control now.
I take mild medication, but after increasing my exercise and walking, my health has improved significantly.
The doctor has told me that I’m fine even if I stop taking medication, but I haven’t quit yet. So, everything is under control now.
Many Nepalis tend to neglect their health when they’re younger, only turning to physical exercise after the age of 50 or 60 when issues like high blood pressure and sugar arise. Has that been the case with you?
That’s not the case for me. I’ve been involved in sports since my school days, including football, volleyball, badminton, and table tennis.
Later, when I was teaching, I played volleyball regularly for two years. Even after that, I never stopped exercising.
During the “People’s War”, walking uphill and downhill was enough exercise. Now, I consciously plan my routine and stick to it.
As we mark the 30th anniversary of the Maoist “People’s War”, do you think those who contributed and sacrificed during the “People’s War” have received justice?
First, I would like to pay tribute to all the great martyrs on this 30th anniversary of the “People’s War”. I offer my respect to the families of the missing warriors, and I wish the injured and disabled a speedy recovery.
Regarding your question, I want to tell the public, as well as the families of martyrs, the families of the missing warriors, and all the warriors of the “People’s Liberation Army”, that some progress has been made. I consider this a great achievement.
During my last term as Prime Minister, the Cabinet declared all martyrs of the “People’s War” as national martyrs.
Not only was this declaration made, but it was also formalized by publishing it in the Gazette. This is something that hadn’t happened for many years, and I’m very pleased that it’s finally been done.
Second, this time, we succeeded in passing the bill unanimously in the House to complete the remaining work of the peace process.
Since the government under my leadership formed the final task force and the work was carried out according to the recommendations of that task force, I can proudly say that this is an accomplishment for all the warriors and the general public.
Third, I made the decision in the Council of Ministers that the “People’s War” should be recognized as a national day, not just an ordinary event.
This was done with everyone’s consent. At that time, the government under my leadership was supported by the CPN-UML.
After consulting with the UML, we decided to declare Falgun 1—the day of the People’s War—as a national day. This decision was also reflected in the government’s calendar.
However, later, the court ruled that this should not be done without the peace process being fully completed.
As a result, it has been put on hold. Nevertheless, I want to reiterate that, in the context of the 30th anniversary of the “People’s War”, I consider this initiative—taken under my leadership—to be a historic step to honor all the revolutionary warriors.
Regarding satisfaction or dissatisfaction, according to the bill that has been passed for truth settlement, once the commission is formed and finalized, I believe that all revolutionary warriors will be guaranteed recognition, respect, and compensation.
I am confident that a new environment will emerge after that, and our initiative is working toward that goal.
Now, regarding the bill to amend the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, while it has been passed, the commission has yet to be formed. How confident are you that the Congress-UML government will take the necessary steps to form the commission and finalize the peace process? Are discussions ongoing with the ruling party on this?
I have been in talks with the government. Specifically, the Home Minister (Ramesh Lekhak) has been more involved in this matter, and I have spoken with him about why this process has not moved forward and why it should.
I have also been in discussions with the President of the Nepali Congress (Sher Bahadur Deuba) about this issue. I sense they are willing to move things forward in some way.
The last time I spoke, I suggested that it would be appropriate to form a recommendation committee for the commission after the three leaders meet for a final discussion.
Otherwise, I have also expressed my concern that if the situation remains as it was yesterday, it could have negative consequences.
Since they have acknowledged this, I expect a meeting of the three leaders to take place soon, and the recommendation committee process will move forward.
However, I must admit that I do not see the core leadership of the government as very interested in this matter.
I have to say this now. Everyone knows this bill was supposed to be passed two years ago, but it was delayed because the current Prime Minister (KP Sharma Oli) did not want it.
Even now, he does not seem to be very engaged in the process. It appears to me that he views this issue as a bargaining chip rather than something to genuinely move forward.
Therefore, the role of the Nepali Congress is critical in this. The Nepali Congress needs to finalize all the remaining issues of the peace agreement, both from a political and a moral perspective.
This is part of the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA). In the conflict of the past, it’s clear that the primary warring party was the Nepali Congress, while we were the rebels.
Since the agreement was made then, I believe that the Nepali Congress should take more initiative, and I trust they will move things forward.
In this situation, there is no way that the CPN-UML or the Prime Minister can oppose it.
When I passed this bill, I thanked the Prime Minister for at least getting to the point of passing it.
Now, if he also takes the initiative in forming the recommendation committee, I would consider that a positive step.
In the previous question, you mentioned ‘people’s war and justice,’ highlighting the families of martyrs, the injured, and those who contributed to the people’s war. However, I’d like to ask, what does the word ‘justice’ mean in this context? To what extent has your vision of changing the country through the people’s war, moving towards prosperity, and transforming the situation been fulfilled? Will you feel that justice has been done when the country progresses? From this perspective, how do you evaluate the country’s progress since the promulgation of the 072 constitution? How do you review the situation today?
You’ve asked a very important question. First of all, the election of the Constituent Assembly and the declaration of a federal democratic republic were based mainly on the principles of the “People’s War”.
Democracy became more inclusive, and a constitution was created that granted rights to all classes, castes, regions, and oppressed communities of the country. This is undoubtedly a significant political achievement, and I believe all the leaders, activists, and warriors who participated in the people’s war can appreciate this progress.
However, after the constitution was promulgated, other critical tasks that should have been completed with the same urgency—such as finalizing the peace process, honoring the families of all martyrs, and providing compensation—were delayed.
Even more importantly, the journey toward political stability, development, and prosperity has not progressed as it should have.
I’ve also reflected on myself in the context of the last vote of confidence in Parliament.
We made some mistakes and had shortcomings. We should have held on to our core principles, our community, and our cause more firmly.
Instead, we leaned too much towards compromise. Rather than standing firmly with the people and our cause, we compromised with those whose views we disagreed with.
If there were shortcomings, we’ve been told that we should conduct self-reflection and correct them.
Secondly, we should have sought our own model for production and development from the beginning, but we’ve fallen short in that regard as well.
This time, I presented a proposal at the Central Committee meeting that outlines a detailed plan to build a socialist-oriented economy from the bottom up. It was passed unanimously.
Soon, we will call together all 123 municipalities across the country where we have leadership, appoint experts to oversee them, and aim to drive development from the grassroots level in a way that aligns with socialist principles.
This is also the result of reflecting on our past shortcomings. Currently, we are reaching out to the people across the country, and this is part of our self-criticism.
That said, I cannot agree with the assertion that nothing has been accomplished and that the country has worsened. This view is incorrect.
If we look at the statistics in areas like physical infrastructure, education, health, life expectancy, and child mortality rates, there has been significant improvement since the republic was declared. Political consciousness among the people has also grown.
Therefore, the negative interpretation is not correct. While much has been achieved, there are still areas where we have not fully met our potential.
Hence, our party has called for a comprehensive review of the situation so we can move forward.
What is the reason development has not gained the momentum it should have?
The reason development and stability have not gained the momentum they should have is that we made compromises while drafting the constitution, particularly regarding the overall situation in the country.
That being said, there are many positive aspects in the constitution. It includes many provisions that were championed by the Maoists. Some of our opponents, who are not in favor of the Maoists, also oppose this constitution.
Wherever they look, they see the influence of the Maoists—whether it’s the orientation towards socialism or the inclusion of Maoist ideas.
Because of this, they’ve shown little interest in its full implementation. This is a significant problem.
Additionally, what was done in the name of this political change—such as the establishment of a federal democratic republic and inclusive democracy—should have also led to the creation of a clear identity for the form of government and electoral system.
Only then would there have been true stability and momentum for development in the country. However, this has not happened.
There is no harmony between the form of government and the electoral system.
At the time (in the Constituent Assembly), we argued that the parliamentary system we were adopting was a source of instability and corruption.
Both the electoral system and the form of government contributed to these issues.
We proposed a system with a directly elected executive president or chief executive, and we suggested that the parliamentarians focus on making laws, while the president could bring in experts from outside the parliament according to his vision.
This approach, we believed, would have brought greater stability and development.
The electoral system in Nepal is entirely proportional based on the population structure. However, you’ve mentioned that only if the system is made fully proportional will the electoral system and the form of government align with the federal democratic republic. Otherwise, they will remain contradictory, as they are now. As you observe the rise of corruption, it seems Nepal has become a leader in this regard. Where do you believe this corruption stems from, and what change is needed to address it?
The issue you’re highlighting is crucial. The electoral system in Nepal needs to be fully proportional for it to be in harmony with the federal democratic republic.
As it stands, there is a contradiction between the form of government and the electoral system, and that’s what we’re seeing today.
In recent years, as I observe corruption, I’ve come to realize that Nepal is at the forefront of this problem, which is deeply troubling.
This situation arises from flaws in our governance, electoral system, and overall mindset. A significant change is needed to address these issues. If we can make these changes, the root causes of the problems will also be addressed.
Let’s discuss the leftist unity or the socialist front that plays a role in the ‘political-ideological journey of socialism’. What is the current status of the Socialist Front, which includes Madhav Nepal’s Unified Socialist Party, Netra Bikram Chand Biplav-led CPN, and Upendra Yadav-led JSP? Why hasn’t this front become more active? What happened to the talk of party unity that has been discussed periodically? Madhav Nepal mentioned the possibility of party unification in a recent Surkhet program. Where does the front stand now? Does it go as far as unity? How are you presenting yourself ahead of the 2027 elections?
The Socialist Front was formed with the idea that the country needs a strong alternative political force to move the country forward on a leftist path.
We’ve held meetings across all seven provinces to reach out to the people, especially the working class, and this raised hopes.
Later, the Socialist Front formed a task force to review what has been accomplished so far and to prepare a report on how to move forward.
The delay wasn’t due to disputes within the Socialist Front or doubts about its necessity.
The political situation in the country has changed, and the shift in government has also caused some delays.
However, we have held a meeting again and conducted a public program at Pragya Bhavan, which has sent a strong message. We are preparing for a demonstration in Kathmandu, and preparations for that are ongoing. We have also planned a meeting in Madhesh and Janakpur during the first week of Chaitra.
The Front has moved forward, and we are committed to making progress.
Within the Samajwadi Morcha, there has been a split in the JSP. They have legal issues pending in court, so it’s difficult for them to participate until the decision is made.
However, other groups have joined the Morcha, including the Nepal Samajwadi Party led by Mahindra Yadav and Ganganarayan Shrestha. We are making continuous progress.
Discussions about party unity are ongoing, especially with the NCP led by Netra Bikram Chand Biplav and the Nepal Samajwadi Party.
It seems that unity is possible soon. Before the elections, Madhav Nepal and others discussed party unity and even talked about taking concrete steps towards it.
Now, with the election approaching, we’re focusing on coordinating during the election.
After the front organizes a program, it will create a positive environment within the parties, and we can make discussions about unity more concrete.
So, will you go under the banner of the Socialist Front or a unified party in the 2084 elections?
That is certainly possible. There is a real possibility of coordinating with the Socialist Front or even forming a single party. This is something I am working towards, and I hope it will happen.
Why not unite with fellow travelers of the “People’s War”, Mohan Baidya (Kiran) and Dr. Baburam Bhattarai? What do you say to them on the “People’s War Day”?
First of all, today marks the thirtieth anniversary of the “People’s War”. I want to say that everyone should unite, looking at the situation of all the countries that participated in the People’s War and the current state of the leftist/communist movement. I appeal to everyone for this unity.
However, the reality is that due to ideological, political, and cultural differences, there is no immediate possibility of unity with everyone.
But that does not mean there is nothing we can do. We also have ongoing discussions with Kiran from time to time.
Currently, he is ill. I went to visit him and, since it was said that Chinese treatment methods would be beneficial for his health, I contacted the ambassador to discuss the matter.
Kiranji’s health has worsened a bit, so I took the initiative and spoke with him, emphasizing the need to save him at all costs.
We share this kind of emotional bond. However, we have not yet had any discussions about forming a single party with an agenda. There are indirect and direct talks with friends, and I am open to the idea.
As for Baburamji, he has distanced himself to some extent. I do not fully understand his anger, but it seems that he is becoming more extreme in his stance.
All the communists of Nepal have expressed that they will now reach socialism, and the constitution is also oriented towards socialism.
Therefore, to achieve this goal, the socialist forces should unite the leftist forces or form a front. In this context, do you see the possibility of unity or a front with the CPN-UML in the future?
First of all, as you mentioned, I have always believed that for the stability, development, and prosperity of Nepal, there should be polarization and unity among the leftists. I have felt this since the beginning of the peace process.
This requires a detailed explanation, and I will keep it brief. I agreed to a 50/50 coordination with the CPN-UML during the first Constituent Assembly elections of 2064 BS.
At that time, Madhav Nepalji was the General Secretary of the UML. I had proposed to Madhavji that we should come together.
However, they thought we were too strong and that the Maoists were only making quick moves with the help of guns, so they rejected it. Even when I made a flexible proposal, they did not accept it.
I would like to thank Madhav Nepal for this decision. Because of his refusal to cooperate, the first party emerged in the 2064 BS elections.
Otherwise, the situation would have been different, and there would have been no test for the Maoists.
What this means is that from the beginning of the peace process, I have been an advocate for leftist unity.
Later, during the 2074 BS elections, I proposed that we should contest the elections as a left-wing alliance and form a single party, which would benefit Nepal’s communist movement and national independence, unity, and development.
The alliance was formed with the UML. We all know the people supported us, and the party was united with leaders and workers enthusiastic about the elections.
However, this unity deteriorated, and I don’t need to explain why; everyone knows the reasons.
The president himself repeatedly dissolved the parliament, created contradictions within the party, and went against the constitution. After all these issues, the unity collapsed.
Later, after the 2079 BS election, the race for equality began again. For the first time when I was Prime Minister, I supported the UML.
However, when I left last time, I was forced to leave, despite having the UML’s support.
Having said that, I have always believed in the need for left-wing unity from an ideological, political, moral, and cultural perspective.
However, the UML leadership, particularly its chairman KPG, has always approached things with a conspiratorial mindset.
Whenever left-wing unity or party unity is seen as eliminating everyone else, it was never going to succeed.
Therefore, today, I believe that left-wing unity will only happen if the Maoist Center becomes stronger in Nepal and emerges as the number one party.
Experience has shown time and again that a left-wing unity with KPG will not happen.
When everyone is eliminated and a strategy is formed to be the only one, there will be no unity. There will be no coordination. This is the current problem.
I believe there is a large group of leaders and activists within the UML who understand this issue.
They are concerned about their political future and know that it is their own leadership that has ruined all this. I believe that one day, the situation will change.
I have faith that KPG’s somewhat autocratic, conspiratorial style of leadership and self-centered thinking will eventually be overcome.
So, is it true that there is no issue from Prachanda’s side regarding unity or cooperation with UML?
The issue lies with the core leadership of UML, not from my side. Even though I have consistently proposed it, and continue to do so, we have stated in our party center and office meetings that we should not lower the flag of left unity. We should not abandon it.
Our stance and decision are clear: we should not abandon the need for communist unity in the country because of what KPG did or didn’t do, and we should keep pushing it forward.
Recently, there has been talk of a discussion between UML General Secretary Shankar Pokharel and Maoist Deputy General Secretary Barshaman Pun. Can you elaborate?
Barshaman hasn’t told me that he met Shankar Pokharel. He is currently out, and we will understand once we meet him.
Discussions happen in one form or another at various levels with our friends. For instance, I met Ishwor Pokharel when I was in Janakpur recently.
Is a left alliance, including UML, possible in the 2027 elections?
I don’t see that happening by 2027. As long as KP Oli emains in the core leadership of UML, I won’t say it’s impossible, but I do say it’s highly unlikely. That alliance isn’t feasible.
It is said that the Maoists will return to the position of the first party in the 2027 elections. Is this possible?
Yes, it is possible. We have about two and a half to three years left. During this time, if we can unite our party and reconnect with our core values, issues, and communities, as I’ve mentioned before, it is very possible.
What I’ve observed while traveling across the country is that people have once again expressed, “No, the Maoists are the true carriers of change. The Maoists are the ones who love the country, solve problems, and fight against corruption.”
The awareness that the Maoists are fighting an honest battle for good governance, social justice, and to end discrimination has once again taken root among the people.
I see that people appreciate our self-evaluation. Wherever I go, even though we acknowledge some shortcomings, we are committed to correcting them.
We were born for the people and the nation, and we want to die for them.
This message has resonated with the public, and people are starting to show trust and confidence everywhere. If our entire party unites, this can become a reality.
The appeal I made in Parliament when I left the government has been heard nationwide. It’s clear that the people have taken it positively and responded accordingly.
We’ve seen signs of this in the by-elections. For example, in the eastern Koshi region, we ranked number one both in terms of results and votes.
This demonstrates that it’s possible. This isn’t just based on one by-election, but on five or seven. We won two in Udayapur, claimed victory in a village in Morang, and saw an increase in our votes elsewhere.
These are all signs that we can become the number one party. If we perform well, it is certainly possible.
But what if both Nepali Congress and CPN-UML contest together in the 2027 elections?
Even if Nepali Congress and UML fight together, I believe we will win even more.
The awareness that all these corrupt people are coming together after Congress and UML unite has already taken root with the people.
Moreover, if they announce their unity in the elections, the people will oppose it even more, which will make it easier for us to win.
Therefore, I have no fear at all, even if Congress and UML unite. I believe that if we come together in the elections, we will win even more.
If we can keep our party united and reconnect with the people properly, then I don’t believe Congress and UML will be able to win, even if they unite.
You saw it in the Rapti by-election – they united, and even with that, we won. Not only did they unite, but they also exchanged each other’s election symbols.
Even with that, they lost. That’s why I hope they don’t unite in the 2027 elections.
Will the Maoist Party contest the elections alone in 2027?
Yes, the Maoist Party will contest alone. It will not form an alliance with Nepali Congress or UML now.
Is there a possibility of an alliance with the Socialist Front? Is this an exception?
We will align with the Socialist Front. However, no, we will not form an alliance with Congress and UML.
This is absolutely determined. We will contest alone. We won first in 2064 by contesting alone, and we’ve realized that we made mistakes by compromising too much in the meantime.
Therefore, we will collaborate with the Socialist Front and cooperate with other patriotic, friendly forces, civil society, and so on.
But we will not coordinate with those who are now defending the corrupt, including the so-called big parties, in 2084. This is absolutely clear. We will not.
One question remains: Is there a possibility of electoral cooperation or coordination with the Rastriya Swatantra Party?
The Rastriya Swatantra Party has emerged as the fourth force. We have sympathy for them, and as an opposition party, we do cooperate with them.
We are on the same page in many matters. We have not yet discussed whether we will coordinate in the elections or not; this issue is still open.
However, after the recent Rabi Lamichhane issue, there is a possibility that the RSP and the Maoists or the Socialist Front could have a somewhat positive relationship going forward.
Since you’ve already commented extensively on the current government in public programs, we won’t ask much about that. Let us ask this instead: Do you think this government will continue according to the seven-point understanding until the 2027 elections, or will it face a crisis in the meantime? In such a scenario, would the Maoists intervene?
The Maoists are not in the mindset of increasing interference with the aim of joining the government right now.
We will go directly to the people. Some media outlets may try to suggest that we’ve done a lot to overthrow the government, but that’s not the case. We stand with the people.
The current government has aligned itself wrongly. Their arrangement is neither constitutional, nor democratic, nor transparent, nor in favor of the people, and we have made that clear. This is being proven day by day.
The situation has become even clearer regarding the ordinance. Their focus is not on democracy, the nation, or the people, but on their own self-interest.
That’s why I’ve said that the people are growing more dissatisfied and disappointed because of them.
Eventually, they will reach a point where they cannot bear their own burden. I believe this will happen before the 2027 elections.
If they manage to avoid it, that’s fine. To add to the point you asked earlier – it’s actually better for us if both Congress and UML contest the elections together. So, we have no tension about the government at the moment.
However, what if there is a conflict between Nepali Congress and UML, and one of the parties seeks help from Prachanda? What would you do in such a case?
We haven’t yet decided on a concrete course of action in case such a situation arises.
However, if the country needs to be managed and if the political situation risks heading toward accidents and chaos, then we must play a role. In that case, we are not confused.
We will focus on what will help manage the country’s politics and allow democracy to gain momentum. We are not the ones who want the country to sink irresponsibly.
Our role is to ensure that the situation does not spiral into chaos, and that the constitution and the system continue to move forward.
The seven-point agreement made by Nepali Congress and UML when forming the government includes the issue of constitutional amendment. You’ve mentioned in public programs that the government’s focus is not on constitutional amendment. If the coalition government brings a formal proposal for constitutional amendment as promised in the seven-point agreement, what will be the position of the Maoists? Will they help the government?
We created this constitution through consensus. We’ve already amended it twice in the past, albeit for small matters.
I’ve even proposed amendments in Parliament twice to slightly adjust the identity and rights of the Madhesi people. Therefore, we are not against amendments.
However, it’s important to understand what the amendment is about and why it is being proposed.
The amendment is being presented as a political move, rather than a step toward maintaining political stability. There are different opinions on what will truly bring stability.
We believe that making the electoral system fully proportional is a step forward.
Additionally, we think that creating a directly elected chief executive will bring stability and development.
Others may have different views. However, if the government or the major parties seriously bring up the issue of amending the constitution, we are open to discussing it.
We are ready to discuss it once we see the content of the proposal. However, it is already clear that this government is not focused on that objective.
A two-thirds majority is required for a constitutional amendment. Can this government even pass an ordinance, law, or budget that requires only a simple majority? If the JSP, with only three seats in the National Assembly, was not taken into confidence, would the law not pass?
This is clearly visible, isn’t it? In such a situation, I don’t believe there will be an immediate agreement on constitutional amendment.
I don’t think they will even attempt to reach an agreement. If their real intention was to amend the constitution, the two parties wouldn’t have discussed it secretly at midnight.
When I was Prime Minister, they could have talked to me directly. Even after I became the opposition leader, have they approached me to discuss this? Not at all.
This shows that their intention is not really to amend the constitution. Therefore, they have no intention of bringing a proposal. If they do, we are ready to discuss it, as I’ve said before.
I would like to add something to this: Constitutional amendment should not be like opening Pandora’s Box.
It is more difficult than drafting a new constitution. The constitution was made in a specific context, and public opinion also demanded its swift completion.
After eight years of preparation, despite various challenges, we succeeded in declaring the constitution.
Now, the amendment is the real challenge, even more difficult and complex.
Political leadership, parties, and parliamentarians must approach this with seriousness.
Otherwise, everything could collapse like opening Pandora’s Box. For this reason, we must proceed with caution and serious discussions to move this forward.
Comment