The new Nepali Constitution represents a milestone, but it has many problems of principle and interpretation that have to be overcome through amendment by the future Parliament.
The eight-week-long Nepali movement for the restoration of human rights and democracy which culminated in mid-April has fundamentally changed the nature of the Nepali political order. Earlier, the king was regarded as the repository of all executive, legislative and judicial powers. In theory and practice, he was the only source and centre of state authority. This is now history, as the new Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 2047, promulgated by the king on 9 November, explicitly states in its preamble that sovereignty resides in the people. It guarantees their fundamental rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association and the right to the rule of law. Article 116 (1) lays down that fundamental rights, multi-party democracy, and constitutional monarchy are to be henceforth regarded as inalienable.
As to the question of popular legitimacy of the Constitution, the fact remains that it was not drawn up by elected representatives of the people, nor by a constituent assembly. The 2047 Constitution is also, technically speaking, a gift of the king to the people. But its redeeming feature is that it can always be amended by the elected representatives of the people.
Two serious questions have been raised: Does the king still retain the right to revoke the present Constitution? Can he declare a state of national emergency and suspend fundamental rights, even if temporarily?