Political stability remains elusive in our country, good governance continues to falter, and public confidence has yet to take root. These persistent challenges are issues we still grapple with today, and their causes remain a matter of urgent reflection and concern.

The word “change” is not inherently progressive; it can also be regressive. Our changes have not been transformative. Change has occurred to some extent, but it does not appear sufficient. The regular, minimal, and natural changes alone are not enough to address the current aspirations of the people. What we have demanded is transformation in social, cultural, and economic spheres—we have sought change that addresses people’s aspirations.

A new road has been constructed, but how many people walk on it? New industries have opened, but how much paddy, rice, or fruit is processed, and how many have gained employment there? The road has reached my house on top of the hill. I was happy, but what was the cost? What return is it giving? Without meticulously examining such issues, change cannot be truly transformative.

In the past, Nepal’s per capita income ranged between four to five hundred U.S. dollars. Today, it stands at approximately fourteen hundred dollars, with the current exchange rate at about Rs 140 per U.S. dollar. Earlier, with a monthly salary of Rs 400, I could buy a tola of gold for about Rs 250. Today, the price of a tola of gold has surged to Rs 200,000. Change must be examined from multiple angles, not just one.

Now, the debate needs to focus on the contribution of so-called material change to national prosperity. Change occurred in power; power was gained by those who rose, but no change was made for the condition, welfare, security, or justice of the people.

It is not that efforts for change were absent, but the goals for which they were intended were not achieved. Because transformation did not happen, our work remains unfinished. For this reason, the path to restructuring the country is still open. Yet, just because a federal democratic republican system has recently been established, people are being told to be content with it as it is. The moment someone raises a question, they are labeled regressive. In a democracy, questioning cannot be prohibited. Laws cannot be broken, but one can refuse to agree with them.

Questions upon questions

The debate can begin like this—when were we ever truly democratic? When was there good governance? When was there equality and justice? One class has always suppressed another; one caste has always oppressed another. Discrimination has always existed. One has always praised another; if praise was withheld, punishment followed.

Chitwan was earlier called ‘Kalapani’. Kalapani was a place where people burdened by debt, guilty of incest, in trouble, or serving punishment were sent. Initially, it was a place where one would get malaria fever and could not reside. From Charbhanjyang—the Four Passes, the historical gateways of the Kathmandu Valley—they were sent to Kalapani, traveling along four separate gateway routes. “Amlekh” implies a place considered free. It is a place where slavery was abolished and people were settled—Amlekhganj.

During King Manadeva’s reign, there were Managriha and Changunarayan. Siddhi Narsingh Malla built the Krishna Temple. Large palaces belonged to the kings, not the people. The king built temples using the property of the people. Like Singha Durbar, for example. Land was acquired from the people, no payment was made, and wages were not given; only meals were provided, and Singha Durbar was built, but later Chandra Shamsher sold it to the state for Rs 5 million. Hence, a Singha Durbar or a Krishna Temple is not a symbol of prosperity.

Change occurred in power; power was gained by those who rose, but no change was made for the condition, welfare, security, or justice of the people.

In reality, there has been no revolution in our country. There has only been the illusion of revolution. We still have to fight the ultimate battle for justice. We have never advanced toward the overall prosperity, equality, justice, and cleanliness of society. Rulers only made excuses. The basis for good governance was never established. Rather, we competed to be slaves. We became devoted.

The idea of devotion even dominated religion and culture. We competed over who would be close to whom, who would be a servant. We ran makeshift systems. We were divided. Each adopted the style of “as long as my own life goes on, it’s fine.” Nepali society never developed sufficient awareness. Indeed, the state also plays a role in this. Until the people feel ownership of the state, and until they participate in its management, the state will remain as it is.

We say that the people have awakened and the system has changed, but the Nepali people have not truly awakened. Without the awakening of the people, democracy does not awaken. Just because the so-called leaders have awakened does not mean the people have awakened. We are walking carrying a mandate that the people have not given. Otherwise, the year 1950 itself should have provided a sustainable solution, but 1960 came instead.

The year 1990 seemed like it would finally end political disputes and begin an era of development, good governance, peace, and civility. Then came 2006, creating turmoil. It seemed like the very ground was shaking, but even that did not provide any real solution. As evidence, there is proof of the king being overthrown. But whether the movement overthrew him or someone else did—that itself is a matter of dispute.

All our movements have been incomplete, partial, and futile. That is why the real construction of our nation has never taken place. Nation-building means ownership by the people. It means the people’s average capability, awareness, participation, supervision, and control.

The greatest fault for this lies with the leaders themselves, though we might not even want to use the word “leader.” They are activists who attempted to become leaders. I do not want to dismiss leaders, but in reality, we have never had true leaders.

Leaders were never born, or they never received the “space” to emerge due to the qualities required. Nowadays, people with integrity, capability, vision, or ethics do not enter politics. Even a few capable people avoid working in the bureaucracy. Here, a prohibitive process exists.

Let us look at the electoral process—someone may be popular, capable, but do they get a ticket based on these merits? Even if they contest independently and win, what is the result? They may remain in opposition, but they have no real influence. If leadership sees potential, it will “clear” the path for them.

The year 1990 seemed like it would finally end political disputes and begin an era of development, good governance, peace, and civility. Then came 2006, creating turmoil.

Politics is supposed to be a field of rebellion, but here obedience prevails. In the Maoist armed conflict, 17,000 people died. But those who died were not the rebels; only those who killed were considered rebels. The dead have already been forgotten.

The Constitution that failed to deliver

In reality, a constitution is drafted based on some imagination, some capability, some understanding of reality, some aspirations of the people, and some recognition of historical truths. When we cast our votes, did the people we sent suddenly acquire the capacity to draft a constitution? The assumption that all capability comes from voting is wrong.

In principle, it is correct for a Constituent Assembly to draft a constitution, but what kind of people went there? How many knew what was written in the constitution? Apart from what should or should not be included, how much time was spent on each provision? How much discussion occurred on each clause? Doubts must be raised even here.

A constitution is not about winning or losing; it is about consensus. It is about national consensus, a very high level of agreement. It is not personal; it is about general consensus. If a constitution is promulgated with 90 percent agreement, then among the 601 members of the assembly, how many are currently defending the constitution, interpreting it, or explaining its essence? At this time, the protection of the constitution must be done from outside the Constituent Assembly.

The situation is such that in every sector, the people are being sidelined, while those who claim to be the people’s representatives are enjoying privileges in the mainstream. Political parties should have worked as the main instruments to empower voters, but instead, they have engaged in brokerage and patronage.

Problems have also been seen in federalism. The federal government ignores the provinces, while local authorities resist directives from higher levels. The federal government sends small amounts of money here and there, and the provinces fritter it away in bureaucratic tinkering.

Ministers are just as idle—no programs, no invitations. Provinces are essential for federalism; local levels have always existed. Even in the Lichhavi period, there were local bodies called “Gana.” During the Panchayat system, there were village panchayats.

Federalism is a system that regulates the expression and division of power between the center and the provinces. What we did was create local levels and then add the provinces on top of that. This caused “duplication” in the division of power. With authority written in three places, the central government became the stronger entity. Hence, this is a centralist form of federalism. It has created a complete contradiction and has also frustrated the people.

The bureaucracy is not without blame in this disorder. The education system also contributes to this problem. The curriculum does not meet the needs of the bureaucracy. A person educated in a good school does not enter the bureaucracy; they cannot even pass the public service commission exam because the questions asked are completely different.

The pass rate of community schools is very low, yet many who enter the bureaucracy come from those schools. It is not that they cannot come, and there is no question of their rights. But if better talent had been attracted, there would have been more competition. With only average students being drawn into the bureaucracy, the country has seen limited talent capable of addressing its needs, possibilities, new visions, and new horizons. Since the bureaucracy is permanent, knowledge, skills, and capacity are expected from it. In reality, only obedient and opportunistic individuals appear.

Both politicians and the bureaucracy have ruined each other. Both have cultivated tendencies to please each other. This has increased maladministration. Recently, the fraud during the “cooling-off period” exemplifies the shameless collusion of this coalition.

Political parties should have worked as the main instruments to empower voters, but instead, they have engaged in brokerage and patronage.

Currently, some are waiting for the 2027 elections. They think that will provide a solution. But what kind of “brick” comes from this same system and mold—it is the same as it is now. One root of instability has come from the electoral system in the constitution and from the organization of parliament.

There are problems at every stage: the structure of the constitution, the processes, the development, capacity, resource management, and intentions of institutions established under the constitution. This is a “conglomeration of many factors.”

Some say instability has occurred because of the judiciary, claiming the courts politicized the country, but they rarely discuss the root cause. The appointment system of the judiciary was conducted by political parties, as mandated by the constitution. The judiciary is in the minority. Political leaders appoint judges, and then people blame politicization.

Yes, any judge entering the judiciary should ideally leave politics behind, but that is a personal matter. When someone unable to leave politics is appointed, this is exactly what happens. Ordinary people like you and me are fearful, but political parties are reassured that their people have reached the court.

Actors, institutions, and structures

Currently, we are institutionally and systematically weak. Structures and institutions exist but have not developed. The separation of powers among the executive, legislature, and judiciary exists. To further regulate, organize, and make them accountable, constitutional commissions are necessary. We have many constitutional commissions, but few have delivered. In reality, those commissions created for various purposes have failed.

The conspiracy to make commissions fail is even written into the constitution—through the appointment process. Extreme politicization is visible in appointments. Once the state politicizes the services and benefits it provides, it ceases to function as a true state. There is no disagreement with the values written in the constitution, but they have not been made “transformable.”

All these problems point to a lack of good governance. Good governance does not arise merely from the prime minister or ministers delivering speeches or rhetoric. Policies and programs must have an impact in every branch and at every level.

Good governance must reach every neighborhood, every office division. Merely claiming to deliver good governance, or writing about it, achieves nothing. It only becomes populism. Populism raises aspirations, and when those aspirations are not met, disappointment inevitably grows, leading toward conflict.

Disappointment is a prerequisite and cause of conflict. If the people are continuously made to feel disappointed, conflict becomes inevitable. Currently, we are approaching another phase of such conflict. That conflict should have been avoided. Disappointment should have been addressed.

Conflict born from disappointment is self-destructive. It destroys not only the individual but also others. Fear should not be of someone with a gun but of a desperate person. At present, against the backdrop of disappointment, constitutional systems, party politics, political behavior, administrative capacity, and economic distortions are all visible.

Some say instability has occurred because of the judiciary, claiming the courts politicized the country, but they rarely discuss the root cause. The appointment system of the judiciary was conducted by political parties, as mandated by the constitution. The judiciary is in the minority.

Some say that progress did not happen after democracy came. Whatever progress occurred happened during the Panchayat system. But this is an even more misleading argument. The economy during the Panchayat era was small. There was no globalization like today. There was no privatization. The country had to run on foreign aid.

The Birendra International Convention Center, where the federal parliament is now housed in New Baneshwor, was also obtained when the king visited China and requested it. Even obtaining a single building required the king’s intervention, which shows how limited the capacity was. Yet those who claim the king’s rule was ideal must be asked: if it truly was, why did the People’s Movement I in 1990 occur to restore democracy? Why did the People’s Movement II in 2006 follow to overthrow the monarchy? And if 2006 was also ideal, why are we still facing these issues today?

The need for a heroic leader

Many problems are visible even within the constitution. But there is doubt that political parties have the capacity to amend it. Because it is not easy. Expecting the parliament, which could not pass the Civil Service Bill and the Police Bill—brought in the name of federalism—for ten years, to amend the constitution is unrealistic.

Constitutional amendment is not impossible. The Congress-UML coalition had promised to amend the constitution even before forming the government. But what is happening now is evident. In fact, in the process of trying to make the constitution better and more secure, we are making it even more insecure and complicated. By locking everything down everywhere, we are moving toward a situation where one cannot even enter or exit a room freely.

A constitution is a human creation. No matter how much time is spent, no matter how much talent is involved, there can be flaws and weaknesses in a constitution. Provisions to correct those flaws must be sought within the constitution itself. Tomorrow, unforeseen situations may arise, and at that time obstacles must be removed and solutions applied.

The bitter but true fact is that at present, we are on a path to total destruction. To save us from this, we need courage—the courage to analyze the situation, eliminate obstacles, redraw the blueprint, and announce new strategies for transformative change.

(Former Chief Justice Shrestha is a columnist for Nepal News.)