Things are clear as crystal. Proponents of the current scheme of things being touted as a new constitution themselves admit that some or the other coalition among them alone makes their constitution workable. The fact of the matter is that the supposed coalition partners are themselves competing among each other for government. They cannot make constitutional practice of convenience an imperative in the constitution. Analysts of the failure of the 1990 constitution agree that the series of coalition governments during that period contributed to the failure of the constitution. Among the advocated of the new constitution were those that wanted that such a coalition practice was counterproductive. Unfortunately however, the new constitution almost makes coalitions imperative contributing to the making and failing of governments on the basis of mutual political convenience.
As a result, the country has already seen two governments since the implementation of a constitution that remains in complete in actual practice. The country, furthermore, saw an amendment to a constitution barely in the implementation process and the constitution itself faces further amendment demands on the basis of organized opposition and demands from other political sectors. Bother these developments have gained a fixture of permanence that does little to enhance the possibility of credible stability in the country. The myth, that the country will achieve stability after the constitution is this merely a chimera since it is not the constitution but the behavior of stakeholders that determine the quality of politics in the country. In this sense the constitution and political practice are two different things and so the plea for a new constitution was redundant at the very outset since politics must be made to abide by the constitution and not the way around.
The fall of a UML-led government and the making of a Maoist government have little to do with the constitution. It has everything to do with the politics of a country where our new masters insist that organizational conduciveness be the sole determinant. When the Maoists insist that the implementation of the new constitution necessitates that all three major promoters, the Congress, communists and Tarai parties, participate in the government to institutionalize the constitution, they are still denying the people that reality that such a constitutional necessity is only a practical feasibility as long as their interests do not collide organizationally. It is this that is not possible in Nepali politics. This is why this constitution is neither practical nor feasible; we have been saying this all along. That is why the fall of one government to the benefit of others bears hardly on the people.