Posted by: Kiddo May 16, 2012
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
Nepali_American
This is what I understand:
Is it a new constitution or just an agreement among the political parties?
>The agreement amongst the parties is for the provision in the new constitution.
President gets nationally elected while the Prime Minister gets appointed by the the party which has the majority in the parliament. Is that right?
>Partially right. Yes, President will be directly elected. PM will be elected by the parliament. There could be a case (like it has happened so many times earlier) that a PM could be elected from non-majority holding party (if there are enough support from other parties).
will the Executive Branch rest with the President or the Prime Minister?
>It seems it will be shared by both President and PM. PM will be a part of the legislative branch as well (since he/she is a MP as well) if he is one of the elected MP.
Will the President have a cabinet of ministers (secretaries) and the PM functions much like Speaker of the House, like in the United States?
>Yes and No. There will be a cabinet of ministers but the PM will have a equivalent, if not stronger, role compared to the President.
Or, will the President's role stays ceremonial and the country is run by the PM and his ministers?
>See above.
does it make sense?
> Depends how you look at it. There are few other countries which have similar structure. Many countries like France and Poland have powerful Presidents and Primeminister coexisting; One would focus more on foreign affairs and other on national affairs. The issue could come up when PM and President are from different parties.
President can rightlfully assert power over the PM given that s/he was elected by the nation to the position while the Prime Minister is there just because of his/her standing in the party?
> It really is not clear yet who gets what power. If Maoists have their way, President will be more powerful. If Congress/UML alliance prevail, PM will be more powerful. Right now it is stated that President cannot dissolve a government, but Prachanda has already come out to say that President will have more executive power than PM.
President can rightlfully assert power over the PM given that s/he was elected by the nation to the position while the Prime Minister is there just because of his/her standing in the party?
>Again, this is yet not finalized and contradicting statements area already surfacing.
Also, if the country is to have 6 zones, so to speak, then how is it sliced? Will each of these zones have its own government?
>You corrected yourself. There will be 11 states. A rough outline can be found on the newsites, if you're curious about Kathmandu, it will be part of the state along with Lalitpur, Bhaktapur and Chitwan.
Conflicting statements are made here as well. They first said that the states themselves will decide upon their name and constituents after the general election. Prachanda is now saying it will be done by a committee. The division of the state seems to be decided by a committee.
This is what I understand:
Is it a new constitution or just an agreement among the political parties?
>The agreement amongst the parties is for the provision in the new constitution.
President gets nationally elected while the Prime Minister gets appointed by the the party which has the majority in the parliament. Is that right?
>Partially right. Yes, President will be directly elected. PM will be elected by the parliament. There could be a case (like it has happened so many times earlier) that a PM could be elected from non-majority holding party (if there are enough support from other parties).
will the Executive Branch rest with the President or the Prime Minister?
>It seems it will be shared by both President and PM. PM will be a part of the legislative branch as well (since he/she is a MP as well) if he is one of the elected MP.
Will the President have a cabinet of ministers (secretaries) and the PM functions much like Speaker of the House, like in the United States?
>Yes and No. There will be a cabinet of ministers but the PM will have a equivalent, if not stronger, role compared to the President.
Or, will the President's role stays ceremonial and the country is run by the PM and his ministers?
>See above.
does it make sense?
> Depends how you look at it. There are few other countries which have similar structure. Many countries like France and Poland have powerful Presidents and Primeminister coexisting; One would focus more on foreign affairs and other on national affairs. The issue could come up when PM and President are from different parties.
President can rightlfully assert power over the PM given that s/he was elected by the nation to the position while the Prime Minister is there just because of his/her standing in the party?
> It really is not clear yet who gets what power. If Maoists have their way, President will be more powerful. If Congress/UML alliance prevail, PM will be more powerful. Right now it is stated that President cannot dissolve a government, but Prachanda has already come out to say that President will have more executive power than PM.
President can rightlfully assert power over the PM given that s/he was elected by the nation to the position while the Prime Minister is there just because of his/her standing in the party?
>Again, this is yet not finalized and contradicting statements area already surfacing.
Also, if the country is to have 6 zones, so to speak, then how is it sliced? Will each of these zones have its own government?
>You corrected yourself. There will be 11 states. A rough outline can be found on the newsites, if you're curious about Kathmandu, it will be part of the state along with Lalitpur, Bhaktapur and Chitwan.
Conflicting statements are made here as well. They first said that the states themselves will decide upon their name and constituents after the general election. Prachanda is now saying it will be done by a committee. The division of the state seems to be decided by a committee.