If the Nepalese political leaders want a new constitution written within six months or a year, they should let the current bureaucratic government continue until the law of land is written.
Although it sounds anti-climactic and anti-democratic after the 19 November elections for the Constituent Assembly when the elected parties are eager to sit in the saddle of government, developments since the polls give a serious cause for concerns. It seems while the newly elected leaders fight over government, the constitution might fall, once again, by the wayside.
This was what happened in the previous Constituent Assembly. Political parties played the game of making and breaking government, neglecting the task of writing the statue, which was the main objective of the assembly in the first place. Expected to have been completed in two years, the task remained unfinished even in four years.
Well, serious issues like the form of government and nature of federalism – based on ethnic identity or viability – were there. But they could have been sorted out if the parties in government before the CA was dissolved had stuck to the last minute agreement thrashed out with the opposition. But these parties backed out of the understanding and dissolved the assembly.
The reason was their hope to prolong the government’s longevity. The parties in power that dissolved the assembly at midnight on 26 May 2012 thought that they could remain in power as long as there were no elections. And the elections became impossible to postpone, they were in the driver’s seat at the time of polls.
This time, too, it seems that politicians are up to the business as usual. Political parties have yet to nominate CA members from the proportional representation categ...
... middle of paper ...
... focus on the statute? Or do we let the political parties run the government, neglect the constitution writing, and prolong the transition?
In Economics, there is a theory of second best. It suggests that when the first best option is impossible to achieve beneficially, you go for the second best, which if not ideal, but is beneficial. The ideal situation would have been an elected government presiding over the drafting of the new constitution on time. But that seems unlikely. Hence the need to choose between the two unpleasant options.
It will be worth going for the second best option for the prolonged transition to end and new era of democratic politics under a democratic constitution begin. Continuation of the Regmi government while politicians put their heads together over the constitution without the distraction of power could be the best way forward for now.
The U.S government has operated for about 200 years on the basis of Constitution written in 1787 and since then, there have been several debates as to whether the framing of this document was an elitist or democratic process. The framers, collectively were an elite, but the reason for why they wrote the Constitution is not fully known. John P. Roche suggests the Constitution was written upon the idea to establish an effective and controlled national government that would overcome the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and not so much to limit the power of popular majorities and protect their own property interests.
Since its very conception, the Constitution of the United States has while holding great reverence, been a great topic of debate amongst the political scholars left to analyze it in all its ambiguity. Two such scholars, John Roche and Charles Beard, in their analyses of the Constitution aim to tackle a layer of the uncertainty: how democratic the Framers truly intended the Constitution to be. John Roche speaks in unquestionably high regard of the Framers in advocating that they so evidently compromised their own values in order to create a democratic document that would strengthen the US as a whole. Charles Beard conversely insists that as the economic elite of their time, the Framers were influenced primarily by their private interests to
Before the Constitution was drafted, the United States’ budding government, now independent from Great Britain, acted under a dysfunctional constitution called the Articles of Confederation. Although this constitution kept the new nation running, there were still flaws that needed to be fixed. The Articles of Confederation lacked a developed executive or judicial branch and a method for the main government to collect taxes from state governments, according to the background essay of the DBQ Packet. An assembly of fifty-five men eventually gathered for a Constitutional Convention in order to write a new constitution that would better satisfy the people’s needs. The trouble of creating another constitution lied behind creating a document
The delegates, also known as the Framers of the Constitution, didn't exactly agree on how to create a new system of government, with two sides emerging both with contrary, but comparable motives on how to keep their country running efficiently. First there were the Federalists, who favored a stronger national g...
When the new Constitution was drafted, the ratification, the official approval by the people of the United States, sparked a national debate. People were shocked by the radical changes it proposed; they expected the convention to merely amend the Articles of Confederation. They were afraid of regressing back into a state under tyranny, a form of rule where a single or small group reigns with vast or absolute power. Americans had just fought for their freedom from the tyrannical rule of the king of England. All their efforts and revolutionary ideas would have gone to waste.
In conclusion, equivalent contentions on the constitution being static or adaptable demonstrates that certain parts of looking at the constitution shows alternate points of view on whether it adjusts to the needs of the Australian public. Subsequently, the general population ought to be mindful of any alterations made or to be made to guarantee the significance and needs of the nation is fulfilled.
In light of the recent Senate scandal, the public’s attention has been directed to the government’s credibility and its members’ discipline again. Mike Duffy’s 90,000 dollars scandal has put the Canadian government’s party discipline into the spotlight. While it is well-known amongst general public, there are other similar incentives and disincentives shared between the Members of the Parliament (MPs) and senators in keeping them disciplined, as well as some different ones that set them apart. In this essay, I am going to analyze the main levers of party discipline in the House of Commons and the Senate for their effectiveness. By comparing the similarities and differences, I will explain for the motivations behind the Senate, even if they have seemingly fewer incentives than the MPs, such as free of worrying about being re-elected.
The United States' Constitution is one the most heralded documents in our nation's history. It is also the most copied Constitution in the world. Many nations have taken the ideals and values from our Constitution and instilled them in their own. It is amazing to think that after 200 years, it still holds relevance to our nation's politics and procedures. However, regardless of how important this document is to our government, the operation remains time consuming and ineffective. The U.S. Constitution established an inefficient system that encourages careful deliberation between government factions representing different and sometimes competing interests.
Both supporters and opponents of the plan are concerned with the political instability produced by rival factions. The state governments have not succeeded in solving this problem; in fact the situation is so problematic that people are disillusioned with all politicians and blame government for their problems. Consequently, a form of popular government that can deal successfully with this problem has a great deal to recommend it.
The delegates working on the constitution new that they needed a stronger document, because the articles proved too weak, but it still needed to please all of the states. This was impossible. So what ended up happening was the new ducocument became more and more vague. The only way to create a document that would pass was to make a document which didn’t really solve any problems but make each state believe that there problems would be fixed. This was accomplished by making it so that it was too vague to offend anybody but you could read into it. This made for a document that would be seriously flawed because people would be able to read into it too much. It could not work.
As a representative of the Algo ethnic group, I want to say that our people would like the new state to introduce a parliamentary system of governence. Parliamentarism is a system of government in which the head of government is elected by and accountable to a parliament or legislature. One could rightfully ask: What is our reasoning for desiring this? We think it is justified because in presidential systems the populace at large votes for a chief executive, who is the President, in a nation-wide election. This is revenant as the Algo comprises the minority of the population of the Republic of Jarth, which consists of only 1.1 million representatives in the whole state, compared to that of 2.9 million Randies, 3.8 million Dorfas and 2.2 million Takas living in the Republic of Jarth. One can reasonably assume that the outcome will most likely be that the cumulation of the majority’s vote will hinder the representation (in numbers) of the members of the minority in office. Subsequently, the Algo will have to live under the control of a leader from another ethnic group again, which the Algo members tremble at the thought of because we are proud of their ethnicity and do not wished to be shamed for it. On the other hand, in parliamentarism, the first step is an election of members of parliament, which are the political parties. This is imperative since it will allow the Algo to be able to choose the party we really share interests with....
The manipulation of the over-powering, federal government has sent our country on the wrong path and has set our country up to fail unintentionally. The national government is shutting down because of the executive branch’s failure to discuss issues and policies with the opposing party, which holds a duly designated majority of one house of Congress. Instead, the branch refers to opponents as “hostage takers’ and hope to succ...
Debating which constitutional form of government best serves democratic nations is discussed by political scientist Juan Linz in his essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”. Linz compares parliamentary systems with presidential systems as they govern democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous. Linz points out the flaws as presidentialism as he sees them and sites rigidity of fixed terms, the zero-sum game and political legitimacy coupled with lack of incentive to form alliances as issues to support his theory that the parliamentary system is superior to presidentialism.
During the birth of the new nation, the Founding Fathers sought to construct a system of checks and balances which were catalyzed by the common fear of tyrannical government and based upon the ideologies of the Enlightenment. In 1787, while the infant nation was wobbling on the weak footings of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention was adjourned and disputes around power and representation mustered new plans for the future. Although the Convention intended to revise and rework the Articles, James Madison, alongside...
political theory. If a state were to decide to alter its fundamental principle, it appears it would take years