well, the new idea germinating is to create a federal republic. a federal republic is made of many smaller republics aka states. in most cases and for ease of governance, those states are normally created using the majority of ethnicity in that region. this has to be done in case of nepal, since symbolically, there will be no uniting ideology for their ethnicity, which in case of nepal has been the monarchy (of course after king prithvi made kathmandu the capital). now, if there isn't a central figure to suffice our need to see a unified leader, there has to be several leaders leading smaller groups of people, who are also represented in the congress (house). just like the way the indian system, or the US systems. there are states and there is a federation. the states have their own jurisdiction over the local laws according to the customs, tradition and ethnicity (in case of nepal and india), which is of course is super ceded by the federal laws. for example in the united states, it is legal for a same sex marriage in MA, and illegal in the rest of the US. now, if the US congress passes a bill to ban same sex marriage, then it will also become illegal in MA. but for now, it is upto the states to decide that. so, creating smaller republics in nepal should help progress the essense of republicanism much more easier than trying to establish one central govt in a republic to replace the current constitutional manarchy. but, i doubt it is even possible to come to consensus with the maoists (as in most cases it is mentioned that the consensus be reached between maoists and the political parties), because when is comes to communism, there is no such thing as representation. there is always a top dog, and there are his subordinates who will have more subordinates to rule over the people of the country. each time, we discuss and think about situation in nepal, the conclusion we reach is to bring about a common consensus between two or all three political forces of nepal. because one does not accept the other. the proposed constitution seems correct in terms of preserving the culture yet moving forward with essence of republicanism, however quite contradicts itself in many ways. the provision of head of state is vague, although it is left upto the referrendum. but how can the people decide when literacy is only 50%. half the people wouldn't even know the truth of what is written. they have to believe the other half to make their decision. we have experienced a referrendum - 2036BS. it is just a bad idea. instead, the three bodies should come to a unified belief and accept the facts that benefit the country, not themselves. one of the contradictions i clearly find is its approach to people's thought process. ok, the national anthem is going to be changed, because it glorifies the monarchy, but they decide to keep the flag. historically, the flag of nepal actually glorifies the Shah rulers and the Rana rulers. the flag with the moon was that of the Shree Panch, and the one with the sun was that of Shree Tin. after the marriage of jung's son with surendra's daughter, the flag was united to make one that represented the whole country. i think the flag should be changed as well, that glorifies people's movement?