The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) has proposed a series of ambitious constitutional reforms in Nepal, including the abolition of provincial assemblies and the introduction of a directly elected executive. These suggestions have sparked significant debate among constitutional experts and political stakeholders about their feasibility and potential impact on the country’s federal structure.
Purna Man Shakya, a leading constitutional expert, has cautioned that scrapping the provincial assemblies is constitutionally near-impossible under the 2015 Constitution without the explicit consent of the provinces involved. The constitution safeguards the existence and jurisdiction of provinces, requiring their agreement for any boundary changes or significant amendments affecting their powers. Shakya explained that eliminating this tier of government would effectively dismantle the heart of Nepal’s federalism, converting provinces from self-governing entities into administrative units under central control. This would reverse the decentralization efforts enshrined in the current framework and could lead to a resurgence of centralization reminiscent of earlier political eras.
Shakya also highlighted a critical ethical dilemma for the RSP, which must participate in provincial elections scheduled for 2027 even as it campaigns on a platform of abolishing the assemblies it seeks to contest. He noted that if the RSP wins a majority in these assemblies, party members who become legislators or ministers may have little incentive to dismantle their own positions and powers, a dynamic that has traditionally hindered political entities from voluntarily relinquishing authority.
On the proposal for a directly elected executive, Shakya stated that such a change is legally possible under the current constitution and could enhance democratic legitimacy by empowering voters to choose the chief executive directly. However, he warned of risks associated with concentrating executive power, including the undermining of separation of powers and the potential slide toward authoritarianism. Even with a directly elected executive, an elected assembly remains essential to maintain checks and balances, legislate, and hold the executive accountable.
The RSP has additionally suggested the transformation of the National Assembly into a chamber of non-partisan experts and advocated for a fully proportional parliamentary system. While Shakya acknowledged the inclusivity and expertise benefits such reforms could bring, he expressed skepticism about Nepalese voters’ readiness to relinquish direct local representation in favor of these models.
Regarding judicial reforms, the RSP’s call to empower High Courts to ease the Supreme Court’s backlog was seen as a positive step, but Shakya noted that altering appointment procedures alone may not effectively reduce political influence over the judiciary.
Beyond structural reforms, Shakya voiced concerns about internal party democracy within the RSP, cautioning that excessive authority vested in the party chair could lead to authoritarian tendencies and limit internal competition.
In sum, Shakya urged the RSP to first demonstrate effective governance within the existing constitutional framework before pursuing radical reforms. He emphasized that sweeping changes risk destabilizing Nepal’s democratic system by undermining vital checks and balances and could unintentionally open the door to authoritarian rule.