The deliberations in Nepal’s second Constituent Assembly have proved to be no different from the discussions in the first one when it comes to some of the contentious issues of the new Constitution.
The ongoing debate on the form of governance, one of the two issues that dominated the first CA — the other being the debate on federalism — that the MPs took part in on Thursday was carried along party lines.
“The MPs, members of the CA Committee for Studying Constitutional Archives (Record) and Determination of Disputes and Consensus, spoke about three models of governance — Westminster type parliamentary system, the executive President style government and a mixed model combining a directly elected Prime Minister and a ceremonial President.
“Lawmakers from the Nepali Congress stressed the importance of the Westminster model, saying such a form of governance would be able to meet aspirations of people in as diverse a country as Nepal.” Nabindra Raj Joshi of the Nepali Congress argued. Mr. Joshi said that a President directly elected by people could lead to “dictatorship” and future generation again would have to fight to restore democracy.
“However, MPs from the UCPN (Maoist), Madhesi Janadhikar Forum Nepal and Federal Socialist Party spoke in favour of the directly elected executive President.”
UCPN (Maoist)’s Krishna Dhital said the Westminster style was anarchic, adding that the presidential system would lead the country to political, economic and cultural prosperity.
Mr. Dhital said. CPN-UML’s Yuvraj Gyawali said his party was in favour of mixed style of — a directly elected Prime Minister and Parliament-elected head of state to ensure political stability.