question_answer 2)

 Look at the wordings of the two documents given below. The first column is from the 1990 Nepal Constitution.The second column is from the recent Interim Constitution of Nepal.  

1990 Constitution Nepa1 Part 7 : Executive	2007 Interim Constitution Part 5: Executive
Article. 35: Executive power: The executive power of the kingdom of Nepal shall be exercised exclusively by His Majesty.	The executive power of    Nepal    shall, pursuant   to   'this Constitution     and other laws, be vested in  the  Council  of Ministers The executive functions of Nepal shall be taken in the name of  the Prime Minister

  What is the difference in who exercises 'Executive power' in the above two constitution of Nepal?Keeping this in mind,why do you think Nepal needs a new Constitution today? 

Answer:

Nepal was a. monarchy. The previous Constitution of Nepal, which had been adopted in 1990, reflected the fact that the final authority rested with the king. A people's movement in Nepal fought for several decades to establish democracy and in 2006 they finally succeeded in putting an end to the powers of the king. In 2007, Nepal adopted an Interim Constitution. According to this Constitution the executive power of Nepal shall be pursuant to this constitution and other laws of Nepal, be vested in the Council of Ministers. It means the Parliamentary democracy will function in Nepal. The all executive functions of that land will be taken in the name of the Prime Minister. (The Council of Ministers will be responsible to the Parliament of Nepal). Keeping the above mentioned points 1 think Nepal is in need of a new Constitution today to decide the position of the Monarch as well as powers and functions of three organs of the Government-i.e..the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. In the new Constitution the Fundamental Rights, Fundamental Duties and Ideals of-the land can be mentioned or written clearly.