CameraIcon
CameraIcon
SearchIcon
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?


Solution

The difference in who exercises “Executive Power” in the given two Constitutions of Nepal is that in the 1990 Constitution, this power was vested in the King and his Council of Ministers, while in the 2007 Interim Constitution of Nepal, “Executive Power” changed hands to being vested only in the Council of Ministers, thereby making Nepal a democracy from being a monarchy.

Nepal needs a new Constitution today because it is no longer a monarchy. The older Constitution vested power in the King, but when 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.


Social Science
Social and Political Life - III
Standard VIII

Suggest Corrections
thumbs-up
 
0


similar_icon
Similar questions
View More


similar_icon
Same exercise questions
View More


similar_icon
People also searched for
View More



footer-image