The Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007

I have been reading the constitution, trying to get a sense for just what the hullabaloo might be regarding the actions of the Prime Minister and the President.

My opinion: President was wrong to send the letter to Katwal directly. He should have sent it through the Prime Minister. President Yadav can be blamed only after an interpretation of provisions in the constitution, after taking a certain line

However, the Prime Minister was unconstitutionally wrong in firing Katwal, because he simply didn't have the authority to do so.

These are assessments made from decisions taken by Yadav and Dahal, not from the consultations they had regarding the reading of provisions int he constitutions that affected their respective roles.

The Maoist party seems to have erred, or kept a strategic silence, twice: When a new Army Act was created in 2063, it provided for the COAS in office to have a guaranteed tenure of three years, meaning any decision taken to fire him would automatically have to be referred to the Supreme Court, which has been the case;

and, when they didn't heed President Yadav's caution that it was necessary to amend that particular provision through the Constituent Assembly before proceeding with any action against Katwal. They actively chose not to honor the "laws in force," which then renders them untrustworthy.

In a later post, I intend to lay out, point by point, the particular articles in the interim constitution that define/describe the roles of the President, and of the Prime Minister.

Trivia:
In Nepal, there is no constitutional guarantee that you may practice a religion of your choosing, especially if you have converted to it. I couldn't expect to convert to any other religion than Hinduism, which is the 'religion handed down to me by my ancestors," and expect the constitution to defend my right to pray, congregate with persons of shared faith.

I have no right to convince another individual to convert to my religion.

The legislative body can pass a law requiring me to participate in compulsory service/labor for the "public good."

The constitution does not vest the Prime Minister with executive authority. Executive authority is with the Council of Ministers, which must be formed through consensus under the chairpersonship of the Prime Minister elected by the legislative body.

The President is the only person provided by the Constitution to "adhere" to, and protect, the constitution. The vice president begets this role in the president's absence. It can be defined that the President is the only person who can "interpret the constitution through example," which is my clunky way of saying he can attempt to define certain clauses in the constitution through his actions. In the present scenario, this would be his attempt to:
Force the unconstitutional decision taken by the Prime Minister to be referred to the Supreme Court; and,
Forcefully abort an unconstitutional move by the Prime Minister to sack the COAS by sending an order to Katwal to stay until further deliberations are made by the SC; and,
Force the Maoist party to recognize the constitutional mandate given to it to follow a politics of consensus by entertaining the request of the 18 political parties to revoke the retirement of Katwal; etc.

Okay. Back to teenage romance.

I wrote a fart joke into the script yesterday. Really proud of myself.