In a democracy, sovereignty rests with the people. Elections are the means to exercise it. The people send their representatives to parliament. This is not just to form a government. It is also to use their rights and voice through parliament.
Therefore, parliament cannot be an institution that rubber-stamps government proposals. Parliament is not a rubber stamp. It is a representative institution of the people’s sovereignty.
A strong parliament does not just mean strong MPs. It means strong political rights for citizens. It means a strong voice for the people in lawmaking. It means strong democratic control over state power.
Currently, we are only calculating how many laws we have made. We must also ask why we made the laws. What was the basis? What were the alternatives? How much consultation was done with citizens? What impact will it have on the economy and society? Did parliament get enough opportunity to test it?
In Nepal’s traditional lawmaking framework, the executive branch is responsible for developing the initial concept of a law, determining its policy basis, and preparing the initial draft of the bill. This has been centered in the relevant ministries, departments, and, as needed, commissions and government mechanisms. The formal role of MPs begins only after the bill is registered in parliament. After that, MPs discuss the bill, propose amendments, and vote. While this process is constitutionally valid, it is not the natural expectation of modern representative democracy. Why shouldn’t elected representatives participate not only in the final clauses of a law but also in the stage where the initial idea and draft of the law are formed?
In current practice, the conceptualization and drafting of laws are mainly done by government ministries, departments, and other government mechanisms.
Nepal must now move from making many laws to making quality laws. The entire system of lawmaking needs to be reformed.
We talk about establishing ‘order’. Order is not about following rules only when it suits us.
It is about accepting the rights of the minority when in the majority. It is about respecting the independence of parliament when in power. It is about accepting democratic decisions when in opposition. It is also about ensuring consistency between policy and law formulation and their implementation.
Therefore, if we are to establish order, it must begin with lawmaking. Laws determine what citizens can and cannot do. Laws also define what the state must do. Laws also provide the basis for how public resources are used. In such an important matter, parliament’s role in the lawmaking process itself must be strengthened.
In current practice, the conceptualization and drafting of laws are mainly done by government ministries, departments, and other government mechanisms. The formal role of MPs begins only after the bill is registered in parliament. MPs discuss the bill. They propose amendments. Finally, they vote. This is a constitutionally valid process. But why should elected representatives only participate in the final clauses of a law? Why shouldn’t they participate in the stage where the initial idea of the law is formed?
- Why is Parliament needed before a law is made?
The process of making a law does not begin only from the day a bill is registered in parliament. The process begins much earlier.
First, the problem is identified. Then the government seeks a solution. Policy alternatives are discussed. Studies are conducted. Stakeholders are consulted. Then a decision is made to give it the form of law. However, parliament’s role is weak in this initial stage. This creates a democratic imbalance.
Elected representatives reach the stage of discussing clauses only after the policy has been largely decided. This practice must change. In important laws, parliament’s participation should begin from the stage of policy conceptualization, not just after the bill is registered. When the government deems an important law necessary, it should make the concept public.
The government is the executive body that proposes policy. Parliament is the institution that tests it democratically. This balance strengthens democracy.
What is the problem? Why is a law needed? Can the problem be solved by other means? What are the alternatives? What impact will it have on citizens and the economy? Does the state have the capacity to implement it? The answers to all these questions must be made public. Then the relevant parliamentary committee should be able to conduct preliminary discussions.
Experts should be consulted. Citizens’ opinions should be sought. Affected communities should be consulted. The views of the provinces and local levels should be taken. The voices of the private sector and workers should also be heard. Only then is it appropriate to prepare the draft of the bill.
This does not take away the government’s authority. The government is the executive body that proposes policy. Parliament is the institution that tests it democratically. This balance strengthens democracy.
- How do other democratic countries make laws?
Nepal must develop its system according to its own needs and constitution. However, lessons can be learned from the experiences of other democratic countries.
In the UK, there is a practice of public consultation at an early stage on important legislative proposals. In some cases, parliamentary committees examine draft bills even before they are formally registered in parliament.
This gives MPs an opportunity to influence the policy and draft of the law even before the final vote.
In international practice, laws are not made only by voting. Laws are made through research. They are made through consultation. They are made through public hearings. They are made through testing and amendment. Ultimately, they are made through democratic decisions.
In America, a bill can be introduced by a member of parliament. Then the relevant committee conducts public hearings. Experts, civil society, and representatives of affected communities are invited.
In Sweden too, research is done before making laws. Its report is made public. Relevant organizations and citizens are given an opportunity to provide suggestions.
In Germany, parliamentary committees play an important role. Committees can invite experts and stakeholders to public hearings. They study the impact and alternatives of proposed laws.
In international practice, laws are not made only by voting. Laws are made through research. They are made through consultation. They are made through public hearings. They are made through testing and amendment. Ultimately, they are made through democratic decisions. Nepal should also develop this spirit according to its needs and constitutional structure.
- What should our parliament change now?
Lawmaking reform should not be done in fragments. Reform of the entire legislative cycle is necessary. First, a pre-legislative phase should be created for important laws. Before the government brings a bill, it should make the problem and policy concept public. Then the relevant parliamentary committee should conduct its preliminary examination. Second, public consultation and hearings should be institutionalized. Citizens should not have to wait until a bill reaches parliament to voice their opinions. They should be able to express their views even before the draft is prepared. Which suggestions were accepted? Which were rejected? Why? The government must also make the reasons public.
Third, impact assessment of important laws should be mandatory. What effect will the law have on the economy? What will be the impact on employment? How much will the expenditure increase? What will be the impact on citizens’ rights? What will be the impact on business, the environment, and federal governance? The study of these questions should be done even before the bill is introduced.
Did the law yield the expected results? Where were the problems in implementation? Did citizens face unexpected burdens? Parliament must return to these questions.
Fourth, an independent parliamentary research service should be established within parliament. The government has ministries. It has departments. It has experts. It has government mechanisms for study. Parliament, however, relies on the government’s information and studies on many issues. This imbalance must be removed.
Parliament must have the capacity to provide independent data, economic analysis, comparative studies, and policy alternatives to MPs and parliamentary committees.
Fifth, MPs should be provided with technical assistance for drafting bills. MPs who want to solve citizens’ problems through law may not have the expertise to draft legal texts. Therefore, parliament should provide such assistance. This also gives real potential to non-governmental member bills.
Sixth, the idea that parliament’s work is done once a law is made must change. After a law is implemented, it should be reviewed. Did the law yield the expected results? Where were the problems in implementation? Did citizens face unexpected burdens? Parliament must return to these questions. If necessary, the law should be amended. If it is useless, it should be repealed.
- Democracy is not complete until Parliament is capable
We talk about the rights of parliament. But along with rights, capacity is also needed.
Not providing research sources. Not providing the support of independent experts. Not providing mechanisms for impact assessment. Not organizing public consultations. In such a situation, parliamentary rights are limited to paper.
Therefore, parliamentary committees should not be seen merely as ‘places to discuss bills’. They should be transformed into specialized democratic workshops for lawmaking. Committees should consult with experts. They should listen to stakeholders. They should study facts. They should examine alternatives. Only then should decisions be made about the law. This is the most important place to improve the quality of parliament.
- How is the sovereignty of the people reflected in Parliament?
The beautiful truth of democracy is that sovereignty lies with the people. But citizens cannot make all state decisions themselves every day.
If parliament is limited to the formal decision of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to government proposals, the legislative authority derived from the people itself is curtailed.
Therefore, representative democracy has been established. Parliament is its center. Therefore, when parliament is weak, it is not just the MPs who are weak. The sovereignty of the people is weakened.
If a law is passed without adequate discussion, it is not just parliament’s time that is saved. The opportunity to hear the voice of the citizens is also shortened. If parliamentary committees are not given adequate time, it does not only affect the MPs. It affects the citizens they represent.
If parliament is limited to the formal decision of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to government proposals, the legislative authority derived from the people itself is curtailed.
Therefore, strengthening parliament is not a personal interest of any party or MP. It is about strengthening the sovereignty of the people.
- Now a new culture of lawmaking must begin
The Rastriya Swatantra Party has spoken of a new political culture. It has pledged to establish ‘order’.
Therefore, our test also begins here. We cannot prove ourselves different simply by pointing out the weaknesses of other parties.
Can institutions be placed above individuals and parties when given power?
If we are to establish order, let’s change the way laws are made. Let’s strengthen parliament.
If we have talked about the rights of parliament, then even when we have our own government, we must create an environment where parliament can question the government.
If we talk about the rule of law, we must choose the rule of law even when it is politically inconvenient. If we talk about establishing order, we must subject ourselves to that order.
Now we must move beyond the simple process of ‘the government brings a bill, parliament passes it’. Who brought the bill? Through what process was the law made? What results did it yield for the citizens? Nepal does not need many laws. Nepal needs good laws, a correct process, and a strong parliament.
Parliament is not a rubber stamp. Parliament is not a subordinate office of the government. Parliament is the supreme political institution for the representative exercise of the people’s sovereignty. Therefore, parliament must question the government. It must test policy. It must amend laws. It must listen to the voice of the citizens. After a law is made, the results must also be accounted for. The power of democracy is not only seen on election day. It is seen in every debate in parliament. It is seen in every amendment. It is seen in every public hearing. And ultimately, it is seen in how much the citizens’ interests are reflected in every law. Therefore, parliament should not be made a rubber stamp for government decisions. It should be made an active and decisive representative institution of the people’s sovereignty.
Laws should be made not only from government proposals but also from research. They should be made from public participation. They should be made from fact-based debate. They should be made from parliamentary scrutiny.
If we are to establish order, let’s change the way laws are made. Let’s strengthen parliament. Let’s translate the people’s sovereignty into practice at every stage of lawmaking, not just on paper.
