Constitution Day Promises Must Be Tested Through Government Action
Editorial
On Constitution Day, Prime Minister Balendra Shah reaffirmed his government’s commitment to both the letter and spirit of Nepal’s Constitution. His message addressed good governance, corruption control, merit-based appointments, administrative impartiality, social justice and public services that reach citizens directly. He also emphasized disaster preparedness and early warning systems in light of the recent Bhotekoshi disaster. Yet if a gap persists between declarations made at national ceremonies and the government’s everyday conduct, these commitments risk becoming another addition to the long history of unfulfilled political promises. The Prime Minister’s message must now be translated into measurable action.
The government bears the primary responsibility for respecting the Constitution. Upholding its letter means following legally prescribed procedures, while respecting its spirit requires protecting citizens’ freedom, equality and dignity in the exercise of state authority. A government cannot demonstrate constitutional commitment by embracing provisions that serve its interests while showing intolerance toward criticism, disagreement or public scrutiny. The Prime Minister has identified multiparty competition, human rights and the rule of law as foundations of national life. The practical test of those principles lies not in how the state treats its supporters, but in how it treats those who disagree with it.
Promising good governance is relatively easy. Institutionalizing it is considerably harder. A commitment to combating corruption becomes credible when investigations are conducted without discrimination based on position, influence, political affiliation or personal relationships. Announcing merit-based appointments is equally insufficient unless selection procedures, decision-making criteria, conflicts of interest and accountability mechanisms are transparent. Reducing the number of ministries may be one aspect of administrative reform, but a smaller government does not automatically mean better governance. Citizens will judge reform by how long they must wait for a certificate, medical treatment, justice or disaster relief.
The Prime Minister’s Constitution Day message should be converted into a government action plan with measurable objectives. Citizens deserve to know which laws are required to implement constitutional rights, which institutions are responsible, what resources are necessary and when specific commitments will be fulfilled. A system that announces decisions without deadlines, allocates budgets without evaluating results and leaves failures without clearly assigned responsibility cannot deliver effective constitutional governance. Government performance must be assessed through demonstrable improvements in citizens’ lives, not the number of ceremonies organized or commitments announced.
The implementation of federalism presents another important test. Nepal’s Constitution envisages cooperation, coexistence and coordination among federal, provincial and local governments. Yet local authorities cannot meet public expectations when powers, personnel, resources and responsibilities remain unclear. The federal government cannot retain decision-making authority at the center while holding local institutions solely responsible for outcomes. Questions about the effectiveness of provincial governments must also be addressed alongside the constitutional responsibility to make them functional. Where reform is necessary, it should proceed through lawful debate and established constitutional procedures. Weaknesses in implementation should not simply be presented as defects in the Constitution itself.
The recent Bhotekoshi disaster has raised serious questions about the state’s preparedness, early warning capacity, rescue operations, relief distribution and rehabilitation arrangements. The Prime Minister’s commitment to confronting risks before disasters occur must be reflected in the identification of vulnerable settlements, reliable communication systems, adequate rescue equipment, trained personnel, interagency coordination and clear rehabilitation plans. Announcing relief does not complete the government’s responsibility. The state must also be able to explain when affected families can return to safe housing, livelihoods and essential services.
The Prime Minister’s message also addressed technology, artificial intelligence and digital governance. Technology can make public services faster, more transparent and more accessible, but digitization should not be mistaken for good governance in itself. If personal information remains insecure, people in remote areas cannot access services, or citizens have no effective means of challenging automated decisions, new systems may reproduce existing inequalities in a different form. Investment in technology must therefore be accompanied by safeguards for privacy, cybersecurity, public oversight and equal digital access.
The government should make its constitutional commitments open to public examination. Publishing periodic progress reports, explaining delays and treating criticism as an opportunity for improvement would turn political declarations into practical accountability. Parliament must be able to question the government, constitutional bodies must operate independently, and citizens must remain free to express dissent without fear. Neither the popularity nor the determination of an executive leader can replace the constitutional role of these institutions.
Constitution Day comes once a year, but constitutional obligations apply every day. The challenge before the Prime Minister is no longer to deliver an impressive message. It is to connect every significant commitment with decisions, budgets, deadlines and verifiable results. Citizens should experience the meaning of the Constitution through accessible healthcare, quality education, impartial justice, safe communities, dignified employment and administration free from corruption. The measure of constitutional commitment is not the force of a leader’s speech, but the conduct of the state.
