Some say it will bring back political stability and peace. Others say there is no need. But is it really the constitution at fault here, or the politicians who have worked against its spirit?

The main opposition UML, in particular, has made changing the statute its main agenda. It is specially concerned that elections will never be free or fair unless there are all-party interim governments to oversee them. It also says reforms would be a way to bring people back from the Maoist fold.

The UML threat is clear, it will not go along with another emergency extension in mid-May unless the government agrees to the reforms. Last week Madhav Kumar Nepal actually waited until the very end to hear the government capitulate on the reform demand before standing up to vote with the ruling party. The centre-right RPP hasn't made its position official, but it favours tinkering. Sadbhavana wants changes to accommodate its citizenship demands.

The Nepali Congress also has a position on constitutional changes, but party president Girija Prasad Koirala hasn't told anyone what it is. Prime Minister Deuba doesn't seem to have any strong opinions either way, but may have to go along with his president.

Meanwhile, sections of the Congress are already saying no to any changes. Most vociferous among them is former foreign minister Chakra Bastola. "Any attempt to change the constitution for the purpose of sharing power is unacceptable, as that goes against the Westminster system where the majority rules," he says.
It looks like this is what the ruling party may say when it comes to clause-by-clause bargaining with the UML in the days ahead. Adds Bastola: "If you say you want a national government to manage a crisis, there is a danger of that being a recipe for perpetual instability and crises."
But don't we have that already?