Historical Context of the Prime Minister's Role in Nepal
The position of the Prime Minister of Nepal, known in Nepali as "प्रधानमन्त्री" (Pradhānamantrī), has an intricate history that reflects the evolution of governance in the country. Historically, the role was filled by various titles and individuals who exerted significant influence over Nepal's state affairs. This role has transformed from the era of the Shah dynasty when titles such as Chautariya, Kaji, and Mulkaji were commonly used. Among these, Abhiman Singh Basnyat holds the distinction of being the first Mulkaji, serving from 1785 to 1794, followed by his relatives who continued to shape the contours of power in the 18th and early 19th centuries.
The transition to a more formalized executive role occurred in 1804 when Rana Bahadur Shah established the position of Mukhtiyar. This title, derived from the Nepali words "Mukhya," meaning Chief, and "Akhtiyar," meaning Authority, signified the individual who held the executive power of the state. The Mukhtiyar was effectively the head of the government and wielded significant authority until the title of Prime Minister was formally adopted in 1843. This change not only reflects the evolving political landscape but also underscores the gradual shift towards a more centralized administrative structure in Nepal.
The first individual to officially adopt the title of Prime Minister was Mathabar Singh Thapa in November 1843. Appointed by Queen Rajya Laxmi Devi, he not only held the role of Mukhtiyar but also served as the Commander-In-Chief of the Nepalese army. This consolidation of power was characteristic of the period, particularly during the Rana dynasty, where the Prime Ministership became hereditary, and the officeholder was bestowed with multiple prestigious titles, such as Maharaja of Lamjung and Kaski. This hereditary approach established a legacy of dynastic politics that would dominate Nepal's governance for decades, influencing both political structures and the balance of power within the nation until the mid-20th century when significant political reforms began to reshape Nepal’s leadership landscape.
In summary, the position of Prime Minister in Nepal has undergone a profound transformation, marked by various titles and a gradual shift towards more recognizable forms of governance. From the early roles of Mulkajis to the formal title of Prime Minister, this history encapsulates not only the changes in political authority but also the underlying currents of power dynamics and hereditary politics that have shaped the nation's governance. The evolution of this office is pivotal in understanding Nepal's contemporary political framework and the historical factors that continue to influence its development.
The historical evolution of the prime minister's role in Nepal is marked by the influential figures who shaped the political landscape in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The title of prime minister was first utilized by the British in reference to Mukhtiyar Bhimsen Thapa, who played a pivotal role in the governance of Nepal. Historian Chittaranjan Nepali notes that the Mukhtiyar position emerged as the first institution that consolidated all state powers. This establishment occurred following King Rana Bahadur Shah's return from Varanasi, symbolizing a significant shift in the administrative structure of Nepal.
However, the role of prime minister is often credited to Kaji Damodar Pande, who many historians argue was the first to wield this power effectively, heralding the inception of a modern system of administration in Nepal. Damodar Pande rose to prominence during a turbulent period, especially after the downfall of the regent Chautariya Bahadur Shah in April 1794. His ascendance was characterized by a strong grip on governmental affairs, especially during the minority of King Girvan Yuddha, when he assumed the title of Mulkaji, commonly understood as the prime minister, from 1799 to 1804.
During his tenure, Damodar Pande exercised substantial influence, controlling both domestic administration and foreign relations, thereby setting important precedents for future governance. His fundamental policy aimed at safeguarding the young king from the unpredictable machinations of his father, encouraging a political dynamic that pitted the interests of the former king and his royal spouses against one another. This strategy ultimately led to an intricate web of power struggles that persisted in Nepal's political narrative. However, by 1804, Pande's political maneuvers came to a pivotal halt as the former king successfully orchestrated his return to power, reclaiming the Mukhtiyar position. This event encapsulates the ongoing tension between the monarchy and the prime ministerial office, a theme that continues to resonate throughout Nepal's complex political history.
The period from 1768 to 1806 in the Kingdom of Nepal marked the establishment of a unique governmental structure that derived its legitimacy from the traditional consultative state organ of the preceding Gorkha hill principality, known as Bharadar. These Bharadars were elite members drawn predominantly from high caste, politically influential families, with the nobility heavily represented by the Chhetri lineage. This era was significant as it set the foundation for the politics of Nepal, encompassing the roles of royal counsel, administration, and foreign diplomacy, which were primarily occupied by members of these prominent families.
During this time, all prime ministers of Nepal, with a notable exception of Ranga Nath Poudyal, who was a Brahmin, hailed from Chhetri families. The Bharadars acted as a consultative body, playing pivotal roles in the most critical functions of the state as advisers, ministers, and diplomats. However, the political landscape was marred by intense factional rivalries, leading to conspiracies that often resulted in violent outcomes, including assassination, rather than more amicable political disputes. The political instability was further exacerbated by the minority of the king between 1777 and 1847, which gave rise to a form of anarchic governance controlled by regents, Mukhtiyars, and powerful political alliances.
By the end of the 18th century, two prominent factions—the Thapas and the Pandes—dominated the political scene. As highlighted by historians and contemporary writers like Francis Hamilton, the government structure included specific roles such as Chautariyas, Kajis, Sirdars, Subedars, Khazanchi, and Kapardar. Though Hamilton detailed the presence of two Chautariyas, four Kajis, four Sirdars, two Subedars, one Khazanchi, and one Kapardar, historian Dilli Raman Regmi provides slightly different numbers indicating four Chautariyas, four Kajis, and four Sirdars/Sardars.
The dynamics shifted following the abdication of King Rana Bahadur Shah in 1799, resulting in changes to the governmental structure as it adapted to the new circumstances surrounding a young monarch. The adjustments made during this transitional period laid the ground for further developments in the political framework of Nepal in the years to come, shaping the course of its governance and influencing the trajectory of its national history. The conflicts and revolutionary spirit of this era would significantly impact the evolution of Nepal's political landscape well into the future.
Political Shifts in Late 18th-Century Nepal
The political landscape of Nepal underwent dramatic changes between 1794 and 1804, marked notably by the fall of King Rana Bahadur Shah and the rise of Damodar Pande. In 1794, upon reaching maturity, King Rana Bahadur Shah took decisive action to consolidate his power by re-structuring the government. He effectively marginalized the influence of his uncle, Prince Bahadur Shah, who had previously held significant sway. Rana Bahadur appointed Kirtiman Singh Basnyat as Chief Kaji, while Damodar Pande emerged as the most notable Kaji during this new era of governance, succeeding Abhiman Singh Basnyat. The judicial and executive powers of the state were, from this point onward, largely held by these kajis following the disempowerment of Prince Bahadur Shah.
The political climate shifted significantly over the subsequent years. Kirtiman Singh Basnyat's tenure as Chief Kaji was cut short when he was assassinated on September 28, 1801, a plot orchestrated by supporters of Raj Rajeshwari Devi, who had been vying for power. Following this assassination, Bakhtawar Singh Basnyat assumed the role of Chief Kaji. Under his leadership, a significant diplomatic step was taken as the Treaty of Commerce and Alliance was signed between Nepal and the East India Company on October 28, 1801—an agreement that would shape the economic interactions of the region. By December 17, 1802, Queen Rajrajeshwari was reinstated as regent, reinstating a degree of stability in governance.
Damodar Pande's ascension as a prominent political figure can be traced back to the tumultuous relationship between Rana Bahadur Shah and his uncle, which deteriorated to such an extent that Rana Bahadur imprisoned Prince Bahadur Shah and ultimately orchestrated his murder in 1797. The king's personal life, marked by scandal, included a controversial marriage to Kantavati Jha, a widow of lower caste origins. This relationship resulted in the birth of a son, whom Rana Bahadur attempted to legitimize, placing him in contention for the throne against the legitimate heir, Prince Ranodyot Shah. This decision, rooted in the complexities of caste and lineage, stirred resentment among the court and the populace, particularly within the Brahmin community, leading to increased opposition to Rana Bahadur's rule.
As Rana Bahadur spiraled into mental instability following the death of his wife, his reign faced widespread revolt from the courtiers loyal to the legitimate heir, Girvan Yuddha Bikram Shah. The political strife escalated into what could be described as a civil conflict, with Damodar Pande emerging not only as a military leader but as a symbol of resistance against the king's despotism. By May 1800, it became evident that Rana Bahadur's authority was irrevocably compromised, prompting him to flee to Varanasi, a British stronghold, leaving behind a rapidly changing political landscape characterized by the assertion of Damodar Pande's influence and the reconfiguration of the royal hierarchy. This period marked a critical transition in Nepalese politics, ultimately setting the stage for the country’s evolving governance in the years to come.
The Political Turmoil in Nepal (1804)
The year 1804 marks a significant turning point in Nepalese history with the fall of Damodar Pande and the subsequent rise of Bhimsen Thapa. As news of political turmoil reached the ears of Rana Bahadur, he swiftly mobilized his followers and returned to Kathmandu. Although the Kathmandu Durbar had attempted to send forces to curb his advance, these troops soon shifted their allegiance upon confronting the ex-King, showcasing the deep fractures within the ruling structure. In a dramatic turn of events, Damodar Pande and his supporters were ambushed and captured at Thankot, where they had intended to welcome Rana Bahadur back to power with ceremonial honors. Following his reinstatement, Rana Bahadur embarked on a campaign of retribution against those who had conspired against him during his exile.
In the aftermath of Rana Bahadur's ascendancy, the consequences were dire for Damodar Pande. His execution on March 13, 1804, alongside that of his sons, was a brutal demonstration of the new regime's resolve to eliminate dissent. Many of Pande's faction faced similar fates, tortured or killed without fair trials, while others managed to escape to India to avoid similar reprisals. Not fulling satisfied with punishing the conspirators, Rana Bahadur also targeted those who had remained neutral during his exile, including Prithvi Pal Sen, the king of Palpa, who was deceitfully imprisoned. However, there were those who profited from Rana Bahadur's return, as supporters like Bhimsen Thapa were elevated in rank and status, with Bhimsen becoming a second Kaji, marking the beginning of a substantial rise in his political power.
Bhimsen Thapa’s Ascendancy
The power dynamics took a further shift as Rana Bahadur appointed himself Mukhtiyar, which allowed Bhimsen to operate through him in a bid to implement his far-reaching plans for the burgeoning nation. His political machinations became more visible when he uncovered a conspiracy aimed at ousting Rana Bahadur. The conspiracy implicated several high-ranking officials, including those in Rana Bahadur’s inner circle. The situation escalated dramatically during a midnight meeting at the home of Tribhuvan Khawas, a member of Sher Bahadur's faction. Tensions ran high as Rana Bahadur began to openly challenge Sher Bahadur, prompting an eventual confrontation that spiraled out of control, resulting in Rana Bahadur's assassination at the hands of his own supporters.
The brutal aftermath saw a sweeping massacre of Rana Bahadur’s enemies and perceived threats, with Bhimsen orchestrating this purge to solidify his power. The bloodshed lasted for two weeks, claiming the lives of ninety-three individuals, a substantial casualty toll that underscored the violent nature of political transitions in this period.
A New Era Under Bhimsen Thapa
In a distinct display of political opportunism, Bhimsen maneuvered events to rise to the position of Mukhtiyar while also managing the affairs of a young king. Shortly before the tumultuous events, Rana Bahadur had married Tripurasundari, bringing forth another layer to the power dynamics as she became Queen Mother and regent for the young King Girvan Yuddha Shah. This unique arrangement allowed Bhimsen to operate with unprecedented authority not traditionally afforded to courtiers outside the royal lineage.
Bhimsen’s consolidation of power extended beyond merely titles; he systematically dismantled the previous courtiers' influence, replacing them with individuals loyal to him, effectively establishing a regime that anticipated little resistance. He obtained a royal mandate that reinforced his authority while ensuring that old allies and dissenters were exiled to distant provinces, ensuring their influence remained diminished. In a gesture of commemoration, Bhimsen erected a temple at the site of Rana Bahadur's death, a move steeped in symbolism, representing both his triumph over adversaries and the solidification of his power within the halls of Kathmandu Durbar. The events of this period stand as a testament to the often violent and tumultuous nature of leadership and governance in Nepal.
Bhimsen Thapa's Reign and Reforms
Bhimsen Thapa served as the Mukhtiyar of Nepal for an extensive period of 31 years, a tenure marked by significant reforms in various sectors. His leadership was characterized by a vigorous approach to modernizing agriculture, enhancing forestry practices, and promoting trade and commerce, which collectively contributed to economic development. Thapa also made substantial improvements in the judicial system and military, which strengthened national defense capacities. His initiatives extended to communication and transportation, laying the groundwork for better connectivity within the country. Addressing social issues, Thapa intervened against slavery and human trafficking, attempting to eradicate these ingrained societal evils that plagued Nepal during that era.
Under Thapa's administration, the Gurkha Empire reached its zenith. Nepali territories expanded dramatically, stretching from the Sutlej River in the west to the Teesta River in the east. This remarkable territorial growth was a testament to Thapa's military strategies and diplomatic maneuvers. However, the peak of his successes was soon overshadowed by the disastrous Anglo-Nepalese War against the East India Company, which lasted from 1814 to 1816. The conflict ultimately culminated in the Treaty of Sugauli, a humiliating agreement that resulted in the loss of almost one-third of Nepal's territory. This substantial setback not only diminished the country's geographical footprint but also signified the advent of British influence in Nepalese affairs, heralded by the establishment of a permanent British Residency.
In the aftermath of the war, the political landscape in Nepal underwent a drastic shift. The untimely death of King Girvan Yuddha Bikram Shah in 1816, who passed away before reaching maturity, further complicated the situation. With the ascendance of his young heir, King Rajendra Bikram Shah, and the backing of influential figures such as Queen Tripurasundari—who was the junior queen of the late Rana Bahadur Shah—Bhimsen Thapa managed to retain a significant foothold on power. Despite the national defeat in the Anglo-Nepalese War, Thapa's political acumen and support from the young monarchy allowed him to navigate the turbulent political waters of post-war Nepal, solidifying his influence during a critical transitional period in the nation's history.
The Rana regime, which lasted from 1846 to 1951, marked a significant period in Nepal's history characterized by autocratic governance and entrenched power structures. Founded by Jung Bahadur Rana, the regime established a feudal system that consolidated power in the hands of the Rana family, effectively sidelining the monarchy. Jung Bahadur's ascendance to power following the Kot Massacre allowed him to implement sweeping reforms that centralized authority, typically at the expense of democratic governance and civil liberties.
During the Rana regime, the political landscape was defined by a lack of political representation for the general populace. The Ranas abolished any semblance of democratic institutions, effectively ruling without a formal constitution. Opposition parties were suppressed, and dissent was met with harsh repercussions. This totalitarian rule stifled freedom of expression and created an environment where the citizens were largely deprived of their rights. Despite this, the period also saw advancements in certain sectors, including education and infrastructure, though these developments primarily served the interests of the ruling elite.
The regime's oppressive nature and disregard for popular aspirations eventually led to growing discontent. The rise of nationalistic movements and calls for democracy became more prevalent by the mid-20th century. After years of agitation, political upheaval, and the influence of ideas from India’s independence movement, the Rana regime faced increasing pressure. The culmination of this dissatisfaction resulted in the 1951 People's Movement, which ultimately led to the end of the Rana rule. This pivotal moment in Nepal's history ushered in a new era that sought to redefine the relationship between the monarchy, the government, and the citizens, laying the groundwork for the democratic aspirations that continue to evolve in the nation today.
Democratic Beginnings and the Panchayat Era
The political history of Nepal has been marked by significant transitions between democratic governance and periods of authoritarian rule. The era of democratic rule began in the early 1950s, culminating in the first-ever elections conducted under a democratic framework. B. P. Koirala emerged as a transformative figure, becoming the first elected prime minister in 1959, symbolizing a new hope for democratic governance in a country that had long been under autocratic rule. His election was a significant milestone in Nepal's political history, demonstrating the aspirations of the Nepali people for a government based on popular will and representation.
However, this fledgling democracy faced immediate challenges. In a dramatic turn of events in 1960, Koirala was removed from power and imprisoned by King Mahendra. This marked the end of the democratic process and the onset of the Panchayat system, a party-less political structure that allowed the King extensive powers while sidelining democratic principles. During the Panchayat period, which lasted for three decades until 1990, political parties were banned, and political dissent was suppressed. This consolidation of power in the monarchy stifled the democratic spirit of the nation and left a void in political representation and accountability.
The period between 1960 and 1990 was characterized by limited political freedom and economic challenges, which sparked discontent among various sections of society. The people's yearning for democratic governance never ceased, ultimately leading to a significant political movement in the late 1980s. This movement culminated in 1990 when King Birendra, learning from the unrest and the demands for democracy, reinstated multiparty democracy, marking the end of the Panchayat system. The shift was a testament to the resilience of the Nepalese people and their unwavering commitment to establishing a government that truly represented their interests and aspirations.
Transition to Constitutional Monarchy
In 1990, Nepal underwent a significant political transformation marked by the Jana Andolan, also known as the People’s Movement. This grassroots uprising was a response to the authoritarian royal regime that had been established in the late 1960s, wherein political parties were banned and civil liberties were heavily restricted. The Jana Andolan united a diverse coalition of political groups, activists, and citizens who demanded the restoration of democracy and human rights in Nepal. Crowds filled the streets, calling for change and a more representative government.
As a result of the overwhelming public pressure and civil unrest, King Birendra of Nepal agreed to reinstate the multi-party system and adopt a new constitution. By the end of 1990, the country transitioned into a constitutional monarchy, where the king retained a ceremonial role with limited powers, while political sovereignty was shifted to an elected parliament. This constitution recognized fundamental rights and freedoms for the citizens, allowing for political pluralism and the establishment of various political parties, leading to a more democratic governance structure.
Challenges and Developments
Despite the initial optimism surrounding the constitutional monarchy, Nepal faced numerous challenges between 1990 and 2008, including political instability, internal conflict, and social inequity. Political parties struggled to govern effectively, leading to frequent changes in government and a lack of consensus on key national issues. Moreover, the rise of Maoist insurgency in the late 1990s exacerbated the tensions, resulting in a decade-long civil war that caused significant loss of life and displacement.
The protracted conflict and its socioeconomic impacts led to widespread disillusionment with the monarchy and the political establishment. In 2005, King Gyanendra attempted to dissolve the parliament and assume direct rule, further alienating the citizens and political parties alike. This move ignited renewed protests, culminating in a second wave of Jana Andolan in 2006, which ultimately restored multiparty democracy.
As a direct outcome of the persistent struggles for democratic governance, the monarchy was abolished in 2008, paving the way for the establishment of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal. This shift marked a significant milestone in the nation’s journey toward democracy, emphasizing the importance of people's sovereignty and representation in the governance of the country.
The transition from a monarchy to a federal democratic republic marked a significant turning point in Nepal’s history. On May 28, 2008, the 1st Constituent Assembly of Nepal took a bold step towards modern governance by officially abolishing the monarchy that had dominated the country's political landscape for centuries. This pivotal decision not only symbolized the end of royal rule but also reflected the aspirations of the Nepalese people for a more inclusive and democratic form of governance.
The establishment of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal was a result of extensive political struggles and public demands for democracy, particularly after years of civil unrest and conflict. The Maoist insurgency, which lasted from 1996 to 2006, catalyzed these changes by highlighting the need for political reforms and representation for marginalized communities across the nation. In the aftermath of the civil war, a peace process was initiated that culminated in the second constituent assembly elections, which played a crucial role in drafting a new constitution.
In 2015, Nepal adopted its new constitution, further solidifying its status as a federal democratic republic. This constitution not only delineated the separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches but also recognized the rights of various ethnic and indigenous groups, promoting equality and inclusivity. The federal structure, consisting of multiple provinces, aimed to decentralize power and enhance governance at local levels, thus allowing communities to have a greater say in their administration.
As the country continues to evolve post-monarchy, it faces ongoing challenges, including political stability, economic development, and social cohesion. However, the establishment of a federal democratic republic remains a cornerstone of Nepal’s efforts towards achieving a more prosperous and equitable society. The journey towards democracy is ongoing, as citizens and leaders alike strive to navigate the complexities of governance, ensure human rights, and uphold the democratic ideals that emerged from the monumental changes of 2008.
Enhanced Constitutional Role of the Prime Minister
The Prime Minister of Nepal holds a unique position within the country's political system, characterized by an enhanced constitutional role compared to other parliamentary democracies around the world. This distinction arises from the provisions established in Section 75 of the Nepalese Constitution, which explicitly assigns the executive authority of the federal government to the Council of Ministers, a body led by the Prime Minister, rather than the president. This system marks a significant departure from the common practice seen in many parliamentary republics, where the president typically serves as the nominal chief executive, albeit with the obligation to act in accordance with the advice provided by the cabinet.
In Nepal, the Prime Minister's leadership of the Council of Ministers, as delineated in Section 76, empowers them to exercise executive power collaboratively with other ministers. This collective decision-making framework not only reinforces the Prime Minister's authority but also underscores the importance of teamwork within the government. By functioning through a collective of ministers, the Prime Minister ensures that the diverse voices and expertise within the cabinet contribute to the governance of the country, which is vital for making informed and comprehensive policy decisions.
Furthermore, the structure of Nepal's government reflects a commitment to democratic principles and the idea of accountability. The Prime Minister, as the head of the Council of Ministers, is responsible for steering government activities and policy initiatives while being answerable to the legislature and, ultimately, the citizens. This relationship fosters a sense of transparency and enhances democratic governance as the Prime Minister must maintain the confidence of the parliament to remain in power. As such, the role of the Prime Minister is not only one of authority but also of responsibility, requiring a balance between executing government plans and responding to the needs and aspirations of the population.
In conclusion, the constitutional powers granted to the Prime Minister of Nepal provide a robust framework within which effective governance can take place. This enhanced role compared to peers in other parliamentary democracies allows for dynamic leadership and collaborative decision-making, setting the stage for a responsive and accountable government.
Appointment Process of the Prime Minister in Nepal
The process for appointing the Prime Minister of Nepal is anchored in the Constitution, specifically detailed under Part 7, Article 76. This legal framework establishes a clear protocol for the appointment of a Prime Minister in the context of parliamentary governance. The president is tasked with appointing the leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives as the Prime Minister. This mechanism ensures that the head of government has the backing of the largest democratic faction within the legislature, promoting stability and a mandate for governance.
In instances where no single party achieves a majority, the Constitution stipulates that the president must appoint a member of Parliament (MP) who commands the support of a coalition of several parties. Generally, this coalition will coalesce around the leader of the senior partner, reflecting the complexities and necessities of coalition politics in a multi-party system. This aspect of the appointment process highlights the importance of negotiation and alliance-building among political factions in a diverse political landscape.
Should a situation arise where no majority coalition can be formed within 30 days following the announcement of parliamentary election results, the Constitution provides a fallback mechanism. In such a case, the president is required to appoint the leader of the largest party in the House. This appointment carries the stipulation that the individual must secure a confidence vote from the House within 30 days to solidify their position as Prime Minister. This requirement effectively mandates that the appointed leader demonstrates parliamentary support, reinforcing the democratic principle of accountability.
If the appointed Prime Minister fails to gain the confidence of the House during the vote, the president must then appoint another MP who can display the capacity to command the confidence of the legislature. This provision safeguards against prolonged uncertainties in leadership, which could paralyze governance. Ultimately, if there is still no consensus or confidence within 55 days after the final election results are declared, the Constitution mandates that new elections must be called within a six-month timeframe, ensuring that the democratic process prevails and the electorate has the opportunity to reaffirm or change their representatives. This structured process reflects the underlying principles of democracy and accountability in Nepal's political system, emphasizing the importance of coalition-building, representative support, and timely elections in maintaining governmental stability.
Circumstances for Ceasing Office
The process for the removal of the Prime Minister in Nepal is explicitly outlined in Section 77 (1) of the 2015 Constitution. Several circumstances can lead to the cessation of office. The most straightforward route is through a written resignation submitted by the Prime Minister to the President of Nepal. This mechanism provides a clear and formal procedure for a Prime Minister choosing to step down, ensuring that the process is documented and recognized at the highest levels of government.
Another critical scenario is when a vote of confidence fails to pass, as specified in Article 100. In democratic governance, such votes are essential for confirming the legitimacy and support for a sitting Prime Minister. A motion of no confidence presents a direct challenge to the Prime Minister’s authority, and if passed, it results in their immediate removal from office. This underscores the importance of maintaining legislative support for the executive branch in ensuring political stability and governance.
Additional Provisions and Continuity
In addition to the aforementioned conditions, the removal of the Prime Minister may occur if they cease to be a member of the House of Representatives, whether due to resignation, disqualification, or other legal reasons. The ultimate conclusion of a Prime Minister’s tenure can also tragically occur with their death, a circumstance that, while undesirable, necessitates a clear succession plan to maintain continuity in governance.
Section 77 (3) further outlines the protocols following the resignation or removal of a Prime Minister. During the transitional period until a new council of ministers is formed, the existing council will continue its functions. This provision is crucial for governance continuity and stability. In the unfortunate event of the Prime Minister's passing, the senior-most minister assumes the role of acting Prime Minister, ensuring that there is no power vacuum and that government functions proceed uninterrupted until a new Prime Minister is appointed. This clause reflects an understanding of the need for stability and governance continuity in any functioning government, allowing for a smooth transition within the executive branch.