KATHMANDU: It has been a decade since Nepal promulgated its Constitution through the Constituent Assembly, following a decade-long armed struggle and a 19-day people’s movement. On Friday, the interim electoral government marked Constitution Day with a special ceremony at Tundikhel.
However, this year, the top leadership of major political parties was notably absent. Only Dr. Baburam Bhattarai attended the program in his capacity as a former prime minister. Meanwhile, parties like the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and Maoist Centre observed the day with internal celebrations within their own party structures.
Significantly, these political parties were largely absent from the public eye in the days leading up to Constitution Day. On September 8 and 9, members of the Gen-Z took to the streets in protests targeting the very political forces that had been instrumental in drafting the current Constitution. The Gen-Z movement, driven primarily by demands for an end to corruption and the introduction of direct elections for the executive head of government, managed to push political parties into retreat, at least temporarily.
Despite the passage of ten years since the Constitution’s adoption, its implementation remains incomplete. While there have been some signs of progress, issues such as weak rule of law, lack of accountability, stalled development, and persistent unemployment have continued to plague the country.
Disillusionment with party leadership and governance has only grown, fueled by rampant corruption and misuse of state power—issues that have come to the forefront through the Gen-Z movement.
This raises critical questions: Why has Nepal’s political system faced such a profound crisis in less than a decade since the Constitution was enacted? How did public trust in the major parties erode so rapidly—especially among the younger generation?
In this context, following the shift in the balance of power sparked by the Gen-Z movement, President Ram Chandra Paudel appointed former Chief Justice Sushila Karki as Prime Minister, with a mandate to hold elections for the House of Representatives on March 5, 2026.
But does the announcement of parliamentary elections alone address the core sentiments of the Gen-Z protests? Below is an edited excerpt from a conversation with former Chief Justice (CJ) Kalyan Shrestha on these pressing constitutional and political issues:
Constitution Day was observed on Friday. But what has this Constitution delivered in the past 10 years?
First of all, I would like to extend my best wishes to the honorable former Chief Justice Sushila Karki for success in her new role as Prime Minister of the interim government in these challenging times. Now, to your important question: What has this Constitution given us in the past decade?
The Constitution itself provides for a review after 10 years—and we have reached that point. So, this Constitution Day is not only a day of celebration but also a day of critical reflection.
In normal circumstances, this moment could have been a positive, legitimate, and peaceful opportunity to review the Constitution’s implementation. But instead, we find ourselves asking how to even celebrate Constitution Day meaningfully. That question itself is telling.
The past 10 years of implementation have raised a serious concern—can this Constitution actually be followed in practice? I’ve long argued that the Constitution, as it stands, has not been transformative. It suffers from deep-rooted structural, procedural, institutional, and conceptual issues. It also lacks the necessary resources and capacity for effective implementation.
It’s not enough to write down provisions in a Constitution—they must be implemented and experienced by the people. That hasn’t happened. Provisions that empower political parties and leaders were prioritized, while the needs, rights, and practical concerns of ordinary people were largely ignored.
This failure to implement key constitutional promises questions the Constitution’s legitimacy. The issue is not merely why the Constitution wasn’t implemented—it’s that it wasn’t, even after 10 years. If the spirit of the Constitution couldn’t be realized within that time, it signals something is fundamentally wrong.
That’s why I have consistently called for a serious and timely review of the Constitution. We must address the flaws now—before public frustration reaches an irreversible point. Disappointment is explosive. It doesn’t take much to ignite it. A bomb doesn’t detonate on its own—it’s triggered by someone who has lost hope.
And sadly, that disappointment is already beginning to explode. I’ve warned of this before, though those warnings went unheard. Now, here we are. So, while I am marking Constitution Day, I cannot say I’m doing so in a festive spirit. There is little to celebrate if we honestly assess the Constitution’s achievements.
When the Constitution was adopted in 2015, it was hailed as one of the most progressive and democratic in the world. But if that’s the case, why is there so much dissatisfaction just 10 years later? Was there a flaw from the beginning, or are we only seeing it now?
The truth is, the Constitution had issues from the very start. The level of public participation during the drafting process was insufficient. There should have been wide consultation with the people—provisions should have been explained and approved through public discourse. That never happened.
Instead, the process was rushed. It involved extensive international travel, borrowing ideas from many countries. But those ideas were not examined for compatibility with our national context. The Constitution didn’t align with our cultural, economic, psychological, or institutional realities.
It’s easy to import ideas, but difficult to implement them. Even good ideas fail if they don’t resonate with local conditions. The quality of a constitution isn’t determined by its text alone—but by how it is experienced by the people, how it’s felt, how fairly it distributes benefits.
So we can’t keep boasting that the Constitution is excellent just because it looks good on paper. Its true worth is measured by the lived experience of the people—and by that measure, we still have a long way to go.
We should have been more concerned about whether the Constitution would be practical and workable once implemented—not just whether it was well-written. There’s often a self-congratulatory tone in calling it “excellent.” But which party or leader today can proudly stand up and defend its actual implementation?
Nobody writes books about this Constitution anymore—no analysis, no critique, no engagement. It has fallen into a state of indifference, neglect, and disinterest. Had there been meaningful criticism or public discourse, it could have generated greater interest among the people. Constructive debate could have helped minimize its flaws and promote its strengths. But that never happened.
So, the fact that no one writes about it, researches it, or critiques it—that silence itself is telling. It is a dangerous silence. And as expected, that silence has finally exploded into the open.
Let me be clear: I do not defend the explosion. I had hoped such a situation would never arise. I wanted the Constitution to be transformed and improved through legal, peaceful, and democratic means. I wanted it to serve the people and fulfill its promises. But instead, it fell victim to either non-implementation or distorted implementation. That has made the situation more desperate and complex than anyone anticipated.
Is the current unrest, then, a result of the Constitution’s weaknesses?
The issue isn’t just with the words written in the Constitution. A constitution isn’t alive simply because it’s written well—it comes alive through effective, sincere implementation. Over the past 10 years, the government failed to apply the Constitution in a way that upheld its positive spirit or minimized the damage of its flawed provisions. It wasn’t implemented wisely, responsibly, transparently, or competently.
Instead, politicians viewed the Constitution through a lens of self-interest. They treated it as a document of convenience—enforcing parts that served them while ignoring provisions that reflected public interest. The people never developed a true sense of ownership over it. That’s the core of the problem.
The people were never properly informed about the provisions of the constitution. How many copies were actually distributed to the general public? And among those, how many were truly read and understood? In a country as diverse as Nepal—with different castes, religions, genders, classes, and communities—wasn’t it essential to reach every group to build a sense of ownership?
Initially, the Nepali people did feel a sense of ownership. They stood united, like Goddess Durga—untouchable and protective of what they believed was theirs. But as time passed, the benefits of the constitution were enjoyed by a narrow, privileged class, while many others were left behind. As a result, the constitution was not defended or upheld the way it should have been. Over these 10 years, it became a victim of serious neglect and a lack of true public ownership.
Political parties were prepared to review the constitution, but the Gen-Z movement has disrupted that agenda. In this context, what do you see as the best way forward—amendment or a complete rewrite?
This is not an easy issue to debate. I believe in constitutionalism. A state without a constitution is not an option. Whether it’s this constitution, an amended version, or an entirely new one—I firmly believe that some form of constitution is absolutely essential.
Regarding the review process, if a constitution fails to deliver results after its promulgation, it should be open to amendment even within two or three years. This isn’t about clinging to ego or insisting that what we’ve made is untouchable. If it works, we continue with it. If not, we must revisit and revise it. Politicians, in particular, must maintain an open mind and a clear conscience to revise and adapt the constitution as needed.
This constitution belongs to all Nepalis—not to any one leader, party, or group. Some parties may be larger or more powerful, but that does not give them ownership. The constitution belongs to the people.
Yet, where amendments, revisions, or even a rewrite are necessary in the people’s interest, parties are not even prepared to engage in serious discussion. This hesitation and resistance expose their unwillingness. And if we keep waiting for them to act on their own, they never will.
They’ve said, “Let’s wait and improve things gradually,” but they’ve done nothing. I am not here to justify the Gen-Z movement. It happened today—but had it not, some other form of public discontent would likely have emerged. This is the natural consequence of deep public frustration caused by political indifference, arrogance, and insensitivity.
Now, as we look for a way forward, we need to think with a new mindset. I’m not arguing whether this constitution will survive or not. It does hold some legitimate values, and those must be preserved. Even if we draft a new constitution, those core principles of constitutionalism must not be discarded. Constitutionalism carries foundational values that must be protected under any system.
My original recommendation was to start with a review—identify what needs fixing, and then make amendments where necessary. If that doesn’t suffice, we may reach a point where a rewrite becomes necessary—ideally within the existing framework. But any such step must be based on national consensus. We need a healthy, intelligent process of reform—one that builds trust and minimizes harm, while serving the national interest.
I’ve said this to top political leaders and in public speeches as well. But it seems the parties remain stuck in their old ways. “Politics is what we are,” they say—but even within that, there is space for alternatives. The party system allows room for new parties, new ideas. One cannot claim that only their opinion matters, and no one else’s does.
This is why, in the early days of the Gen-Z protests, I didn’t hear much said directly about the constitution. The protests were more about corruption and general dissatisfaction. But when the movement escalated into violence and caused damage to national property, it was no longer a simple law-and-order issue. It reflected a deeper public frustration with the political system.
If we continue to treat this solely as a matter of policing, security, or public order, we will not arrive at a solution. We must go deeper—integrating constitutional, political, and procedural reforms. This movement emerged from a systemic failure. If we dismiss it as merely a law-and-order problem, we risk repeating our past mistakes and triggering further unrest.
Now that a new government is in place, we must provide constructive support—encouraging it to pursue sustainable peace and offer real, acceptable solutions to society. From a constitutional perspective, the current mandates are not clearly defined. We cannot afford to delay exploring the possibilities that lie ahead.
The question has also been raised about the process of forming the current government. To what extent has the interim government harmed the constitution?
If the issue could have been resolved through regular constitutional procedures and proper implementation of existing provisions, we wouldn’t have seen the kind of political negotiations that led to the formation of the current government.
For example, after the resignation of Prime Minister Oli, the President could have initiated the process of forming a new government from within the constitutional framework. But that didn’t happen. Political parties also didn’t step forward with a majority claim, saying, “We are ready to form a new government.” Neither the one responsible for calling the process took initiative, nor did anyone come forward to claim leadership. It seemed as though no one had even read the constitutional provision related to government formation.
When constitutional provisions don’t need to be read or are ignored altogether, that alone suggests a serious flaw. Why didn’t they read it? Why didn’t they dare to act on it? I’m not going to comment on the legality of those decisions—that’s for the relevant authorities to decide—but my question is: why were the constitutional provisions not utilized?
There is no constitutional vacuum when it comes to forming a new government after the resignation of an existing one. So, has the due constitutional process been followed? If not, why not? If the solution wasn’t applied, there must have been some difficulty—either technical or political—that prevented it.
The fact that parties began searching for alternatives and still couldn’t arrive at a solution within the system indicates that our constitution may lack the flexibility and clarity needed to resolve such political deadlocks. If the provisions had been sufficient and practical, we wouldn’t have reached a point where informal negotiations and workarounds became necessary.
So yes, it was ultimately this same constitution that the President used as a reference to form the new government. But if it had offered enough clarity and feasible alternatives, we wouldn’t have had to search for solutions in such a chaotic manner.
Therefore, the issue is not whether the constitution is entirely wrong or unusable. The real concern lies in how we interpret and apply it—whether the constitutional practices we adopt are fair, transparent, practical, and aligned with the spirit of constitutionalism. That is how it should be viewed.
However, in the new situation created by the Gen-Z movement, could a system be established to form such a government?
This is fundamentally a political question. Those of us who study the constitution must read it carefully and highlight its relevant articles. The officials responsible for implementing the constitution at the highest levels should thoroughly assess the situation and explore the possibilities within the constitutional framework. They should be able to explain what could have been done through proper procedure—or why it was not done.
What I am saying is that under normal circumstances, law and order can be maintained, even if it requires some use of force. But when there is a crisis or conflict, such as a war or rebellion, the law is often ignored. There are laws governing war, but war itself inherently defies the ordinary rule of law. Who can lawfully rebel according to the law?
Therefore, this kind of movement that took place is fundamentally a resistance against the law. The violence, shootings, and killings happened by violating the law—that is a direct conflict with the legal order. When law and movement come into direct conflict, such outcomes are unfortunately inevitable.
For this reason, we should not view the situation solely from a strictly legal perspective. Laws endure only as long as people respect and obey them. The moment people rise in rebellion, the question arises whether the law can continue to hold. The current crisis cannot be simply handled by a law-and-order approach.
What should be done in extreme situations? What if movements like this arise during the constitution’s implementation that it did not anticipate? What if the law cannot be enforced? What if circumstances fall outside the bounds of law? The constitution itself should have provisions for such exceptional situations.
It is not enough to rely only on our expectations or assumptions. Events beyond human imagination can—and do—occur. The constitution must include preparations and mechanisms to respond flexibly when such events happen. If such provisions exist, then decisions made during crises can be understood as appropriate and adaptable responses.
Because of the lack of such clarity, the authorities had to search for solutions on the fly. Who else but the President could fully understand the constraints and urgency of this situation?
From the perspective of constitutionalism, what is the main mandate of this government?
There does not appear to be any clear political agreement or documented consensus guiding this government. So far, only appointments have been made. Appointments themselves are not agreements—they do not necessarily reflect a political mandate. It is up to the President and the government to understand the scope of the mandate they have received through these appointments.
However, based on what has been publicly communicated, the mandate seems limited—primarily focused on holding elections. This government likely has the capability and authority to conduct elections, and the mandate it holds supports that.
So, what kind of ordinances and actions does this government have the authority to issue or undertake?
The constitution remains in effect; it has not been repealed. Whatever is written in the constitution must be followed—that is the baseline for legality and legitimacy. The government has declared its intent to implement the “spirit of the movement.” But what exactly does the “spirit of the movement” mean?
How does it relate to the constitution? To what extent can this government address or accommodate the movement’s demands? Is the government moving in accordance with the spirit of the movement?
If so, the spirit of the movement needs interpretation. Its scope must be clearly defined, the pace of implementation determined, and its justification assessed. This in itself could be a separate subject for constitutional and political review.
Technically, the matter of holding elections is straightforward and should not require much debate. But was the movement solely about elections? Or did it represent broader demands? If it was broader, would addressing only elections be sufficient?
If the spirit of the movement is not adequately fulfilled, is there a risk it could flare up again? I want to be clear—I do not support unrest or violence. Such disorder must never be allowed to destabilize the state again.
However, if the protesters feel that the spirit of the movement has been only minimally addressed, then the possibility of renewed agitation should not be dismissed outright. We should remain open to finding the most effective ways to address their grievances and concerns.
We should avoid getting lost in technicalities and instead remain open to ideological, thoughtful, and intelligent solutions. Therefore, I prefer not to delve too deeply into procedural details here.
The government appears to be focusing primarily on holding elections rather than addressing the sentiments that fueled the Gen-Z movement. Its main response so far has been to arrest participants and file cases related to arson and vandalism during the uprising. But what exactly should the government be doing at this critical time?
People came out in protest with demands—they were not simply gathering to say, “Long live our government.” Their dissatisfaction was real and deep, expressed even to the point of conflict. If we view this purely through a law-and-order lens, it will not be resolved.
That said, even during public uprisings, crimes cannot be justified or condoned. Expressing disagreement and dissatisfaction is legitimate; murder and violence are crimes. Criminal acts and political dissent are not the same. The state has the inherent right to investigate and prosecute crimes—no one can deny that.
However, if the government believes that political problems can be solved solely by controlling crime, it is mistaken. Political issues and criminal issues require different approaches. Crimes must be addressed firmly, but political concerns demand dialogue, understanding, and creative solutions.
Therefore, the search for a lasting solution must be fully pursued. The government should use the six months ahead wisely—engage in meaningful dialogue with all relevant stakeholders, welcome new ideas, and work towards a sustainable path forward. I am not suggesting tearing down the constitution; rather, we must seek wisdom and solutions within its framework.
With the Gen-Z movement, Balen Shah and others have begun advocating for a directly elected executive. In the absence of representatives elected by the people, can this government take the necessary steps to hold such an election in March next year?
If we look simply at the letter of appointment issued by the President, it speaks for itself. Whatever tasks are outlined will be carried out, and there is no need to seek anything beyond that. However, the real challenge lies in how to implement the spirit of the movement.
My concern is what happens if the spirit of the movement is disregarded or devalued. Whether the government can or cannot respond to that is not my main focus. The President has shown the way, and if the government is formed with that approval, they will understand and act accordingly.
What I am worried about is whether the spirit of the movement will actually be realized—or if the movement’s demands go beyond what is currently recognized. This is an issue that deserves separate and serious consideration.
Ignoring this is not an option—not for me, and hopefully not for anyone else. My hope and prayer remain for peace and a sustainable solution.
The Gen-Z movement represents a great sacrifice by young people whose goal is to build a healthy, corruption-free, and good-governance system. All political parties must adopt an open perspective to address this fervent desire for change and transformation among the youth. New challenges cannot be solved with old and narrow thinking. Let us move forward together with a positive outlook, seeking universal and sustainable solutions.
Comment