CameraIcon
CameraIcon
SearchIcon
MyQuestionIcon
MyQuestionIcon
Question

Look at the wordings of the two documents given below. The first column is from the 1990 Nepal Constitution. The second column is from the more recent interim Constitution of Nepal.

1990 Constitution of Nepal

Part 7: Executive

2007 Interim Constitution

Part 5: Executive

Article 35: Executive Power: The executive power of the Kingdom of Nepal shall be vested in His Majesty and the Council of Ministers.

Article 37: Executive Power: The executive power of Nepal shall be vested in the council of Ministers.

What is the difference in who exercises ‘Executive Power’ in the above two Constitutions of Nepal? Keeping this in mind, why do you think Nepal needs a new Constitution today?

Open in App
Solution

The difference is given below in two separate points:

  • In the constitution of Nepal that was adopted in 1990, the executive power of government was vested in Nepal's monarchy and thus everything done and to be done used to come under the ambit of autocratic monarchical body.​
  • In the interim constitution of Nepal that was adopted in 2007, the government of Nepal transitioned from monarchical form to parliamentary democracy. Thus, the executive is now under elected prime minister and his council of ministers and responsible to parliament negating the role of monarchy.

Nepal needs a new Constitution today because the country is now a democracy. A new Constitution is needed to reflect the“democratic” ideals of Nepal that the peoples’ movement desired and fought for. In order to achieve this, all its constitutive rules must be changed in order to serve the will of the people.


flag
Suggest Corrections
thumbs-up
44
BNAT
mid-banner-image