The correct option is (b).
Explanation
A Constitution serves as a set of rules and principles that determine how a country is governed. It lays down the "constitutive rules" that define the fundamental nature of a society. The political history of Nepal serves as a significant case study in understanding why a country may require a new Constitution when its political system transforms from a monarchy to a democracy.
Statement-wise Analysis
- Statement 1 is Incorrect. The 1990 Constitution of Nepal reflected the principle that the final authority rested with the King, not the Council of Ministers. While it introduced a multiparty system, the monarchy retained ultimate executive power and control over the military.
- Statement 2 is Correct. The people of Nepal fought for decades to establish democracy. Following the success of the people's movement in 2006 which ended the King's direct rule, Nepal adopted a new Constitution in 2015. This document was adopted specifically to establish the country as a federal democratic republic, replacing the previous monarchical framework.
- Statement 3 is Incorrect. The transition from a monarchy to a democracy required a fundamental change in the constitutive rules of the state. The previous rules (under the 1990 Constitution) were designed for a system where the King held power. To usher in a democratic society where power is vested in the people, the fundamental rules had to be rewritten to reflect these new democratic ideals.
Key Takeaway: A change in the fundamental political nature of a country (e.g., from monarchy to democracy) necessitates a change in its constitutive rules (the Constitution) to reflect the new ideals and structure of governance.