Submit your Article

A group of former Maoist combatants, who were once ready to make the ultimate sacrifice for their supreme commander, Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, is now negotiating with Prime Minister KP Oli to join his faction of the ruling Nepal Communist Party. Some other ex-Maoist commanders and leaders are already with Oli. 

They are taking the side of someone who was once a harsh Maoist critic after Dahal decided to sever ties with Oli, with whom he shared the NCP chairmanship for three years.

Oli had become prime minister with unprecedented powers after the communist coalition he led garnered nearly two-thirds majority in the 2017 general elections. But Oli then gradually started losing the political support for his government. At first, the then Rastriya Janata Party Nepal withdrew its support, accusing the prime minister of reneging on his promise to amend the national charter. Then, at the end of 2019, the Baburam Bhattarai-Upendra Yadav-led Samajbadi Party Nepal left the government, whereupon Oli lost his two-thirds governing majority.

But Oli continued to be powerful in the government as well as in the party.

Differences between the two co-chairmen had started widening two years after the NCP’s formation. After failing to get Oli to abandon his unilateral ways, Dahal sought the support of Madhav Kumar Nepal, who in turn had been alienated after his demotion in party hierarchy, allegedly at Oli’s behest.

Instead of bowing out, Oli kept ignoring the pleas of the NCP dissident faction, which eventually resulted in the party split. As dissident leaders were planning to oust the prime minister by registering a ‘no confidence’ motion against him in the federal parliament, Oli decided to throw out the bathwater in the form of Dahal and Nepal while also ditching the parliament, the baby he was supposed to nurture. 

The House dissolution decision in turn brought major political forces including ruling as well as dissident NCP factions, Nepali Congress, Janata Samajbadi Party Nepal and members of the civil society on the street.

Yet political leaders and cadres are still lining up to join the political force Oli commands. 

What’s the attraction?

Oli welcomed ex-JSPN MP Shivajee Yadav into his party last week, followed by former Maoist leader Prabhu Shah who joined Oli’s team by ditching the Dahal-Nepal faction. A long-time Madhav Nepal loyalist, Satya Narayan Mandal, too, has joined the Oli faction. Sources say other influential Madhesi leaders could also join the same faction, despite the fact that Oli has always been seen as an anti-Madhesi leader.

At the time of the NCP split, former Maoist leader Ram Bahadur Thapa had taken Oli’s side after his mounting differences with Dahal, as had Top Bahadur Rayamajhi and Dawa Tamang. In a bid to attract ex-Maoist leaders into his camp, Oli had conferred ministerial berths on all senior leaders who left Dahal. Shah, Rayamajhi and Lama were all made ministers after quitting Dahal’s team.

The story doesn’t end there. Until a month ago, Shivaji Prasad Kanu, a member of the Dahal-Nepal faction, was protesting against the PM’s ‘unconstitutional’ House dissolution, and he had even burnt his right hand during a torch rally against the move. Then he switched sides, and Oli made him a member of the Land Related Problem Resolution Commission Parsa district chapter.

The government appointed 77 district chiefs as well as members of the land commission’s chapters at January-end. Bina Devi Sharma was made the chairperson of the commission of the same district after she joined Oli from the Dahal-Nepal camp. Earlier, Ramkirhor Singh Parag was made the district chairperson of Nepal Children Association Parsa for a similar switch. 

Oli’s ‘setting’

The case of House dissolution is sub-judice at the Supreme Court, and the Election Commission is weighing claims of both Oli and Dahal-Nepal factions for official recognition. Yet the late-sexagenarian prime minister appears confident he will win both these battles. Oli’s opponents therefore suspect he has already made a ‘setting’.

Chief Election Commission Dinesh Kumar Thapaliya is believed to be loyal to the prime minister. Similarly, Prem Rai, the recently appointed chief of the CIAA, the powerful constitutional anti-graft body, is also an Oli acolyte.

But political analyst Lok Raj Baral doubts Oli’s confidants who are now in key state organs will support him when he finds himself in difficulty. “During the time of the second Jana Andolan, the office-bearers of state organs didn’t support the monarch who had a 250-year legacy. Oli is just a politician,” he says.

This is why, many doubt that even the Supreme Court, which is now supposedly packed with Oli loyalists, will unquestioningly settle the House dissolution case in his favor.

What Oli can count on with greater surety is continued support of President Bidhya Devi Bhandari, who continues to be a staunch backer. Her decision to immediately endorse the House dissolution move had raised questions over her impartiality.

In fact Oli had started consolidating power right after taking office by bringing the National Intelligence Department, the Department of Money Laundering Investigation and other key state offices under the PMO’s direct watch.

He also managed to place his confidants at various state organs, which also became a major bone of contention inside the NCP.

“The erstwhile monarchs used to question the dubious decisions of their prime ministers. But Oli faced no such constraints,” says Mrigendra Bahadur Karki, a professor of political science at Tribhuvan University.

Unconvincing opposition

Political analyst Baral says Oli’s mass rallies are aimed at retaining his core supporters as he is getting politically weaker: “He wants to create an impression among the people as well as among his rivals that he still has mass support”.

But then a sizable section of the NCP, comprised of former CPN-UML leaders and cadres, had never accepted Dahal, a Maoist, as their chairman. They are now celebrating the party split and openly supporting Oli.

Similarly, Oli’s stance during the Indian blockade and constitution making is still popular among a section of the people. On the other hand, they are not convinced with the agendas of Dahal-Nepal faction. “The situation right now is that there is no one to challenge Oli. People see that both Dahal and Nepal have become prime ministers and both have failed to deliver,” says Baral.

Satya Narayan Mandal, who is among Oli’s confidants, claims it is Oli’s honesty that attracts grassroots support. “He is the only leader committed to the country and its people. No other leader can challenge him on this issue,” Mandal says.

He points to the “hundreds of thousands” people who joined the recent rally of the Oli-led faction in Kathmandu. Pushpa Kamal Dahal, however, has termed Oli’s rallies bizarre.

Never before has the country witnessed a sitting prime minister organize a protest rally, Dahal said during a briefing to correspondents of international media in Kathmandu this week. Even as Dahal said this, Madhav Nepal, who as prime minister had strongly retaliated against the Maoist mass protest in Kathmandu in 2010, was sitting by his side. The then head of the UML’s Youth Force, Mahesh Basnet, who had led the retaliation against Maoist encirclement of Kathmandu at the time, is now among Oli’s closest confidants.

Silent foreigners

The Dahal-Nepal faction is now seeking the support of the international community even as the country's close friends have kept mum on House dissolution.

Dahal expressed his discontent over the international community’s silence while addressing a mass rally in Kathmandu on Feb 10.

“Democracy is being murdered in Nepal,” he said. To save it, “we expect support and solidarity from all international community members who support democratic values, especially our neighbor who claims to be the world’s largest democracy”.

Oli too has already approached Kathmandu-based diplomats and briefed them on House dissolution.

In Karki’s words, the US is positive towards Oli given his commitment to the Millennium Challenge Corporation compact. Similarly, Oli has made China happy by opening trade and transit routes with the neighbor. “Moreover, he has tried to woo the BJP base by taking up the Hinduism agenda.”

A journalist who met US ambassador to Nepal Randy Berry last week informed that Berry was waiting for final Supreme Court verdict before commenting on recent developments in Nepal.

Neighboring India and China have thus far not been involved in this saga, having only noted developments here.

Adds Baral, who is also Nepal’s ex-ambassador to India, “The international community may be sitting on the fence for two reasons: Nepal’s future political course is unclear because the issue is still sub-judice; nor is Oli’s calling for an election an undemocratic move in itself”.

Even if the parliament is restored, some see Oli holding on to his premiership with the support of Nepali Congress and other fringe parties. Oli has the backing of at least 83 lawmakers of the dissolved parliament, according to a leader of Dahal-Nepal faction. But it is unclear whether Oli would be able to appease the NC and the JSPN.

But Professor Karki argues that Oli won’t be able to retain his position in the reinstated parliament. “In my understanding, the current street protests are not aimed at overthrowing Oli. Those protesting rather want to show they too enjoy a level of public support,” Karki says. “But if the parliament is restored the opposition forces will be able to easily overthrow Oli.”

Political tensions in the country are simmering. Prime Minister KP Oli seems determined as ever to hang on to power, elections or no elections. His NCP rival faction appears as determined to oust the obdurate prime minister. Meanwhile, the civil society is coalescing against the government. Amid all these developments, the agenda of Hinduism is creeping up political charts.  

Until a few months ago the Kamal Thapa-led Rastriya Prajatantra Party was almost alone in openly and strongly campaigning for the restoration of Nepal as a Hindu state.

Now, many others have joined the fray. There was a pro-Hindu state protest in the Far West in January. Mass rallies have been organized by various loose youth forums in all the country’s major urban hubs, again asking for the restoration of monarchy and/or Hindu state. 

Seeing a sizable youth involvement in these protests, none of which had a direct connection with the Thapa-led RPP, many senior leaders in major parties are having rethink: did they jettison the seemingly popular Hindu state agenda in haste?

Prime Minister KP Oli is one of them. He has in recent times tried to project himself as a guardian of all the protesting youths dissatisfied with the country’s secular status. His interview with an Indian TV news channel outlining Nepal’s historical and religious connections to Hinduism, his recent worship at Pashupati Temple, his decision to build a Ram temple at Chitwan in his bid to establish it as the birthplace of the mythological god—there seems to be a pattern to what he is doing. 

Nepal’s public debate spheres including social media are thus abuzz about whether the communist prime minister is actually thinking of leading a national campaign to restore Hinduism as state religion.

Surendra Pandey, a leader of NCP’s rival Dahal-Nepal faction, has gone so far as to predict that Oli would soon announce restoration of Hindu state as his electoral agenda. (In the mass rally of the NCP Oli faction on Feb 5 Oli kept mum on the agenda.)

Some civil society members who have been demonstrating against House dissolution are also accusing Oli of plotting to reinstate the Hindu state.

Oli’s confidants refute the allegation, saying that Hindu state is a dead agenda. Says Rewati Raman Bhandari, a leader of the NCP Oli faction: “People can assume what they like. But it is not happening. The prime minister’s critics come up with such baseless allegations as they don’t have any other substantial agenda”.

80 percent-Hindu votes?

Oli became not just the first incumbent communist prime minister to worship at Pashupatinath. In the process he also pledged Rs 1 billion from state coffers to install a golden article of worship there.

Many see Oli’s recent tilt to Hinduism as a strategy to draw votes in a country that is 80 percent Hindu. He is doing so as the discredited RPP, they argue, is in no place to cash in on the Hindu agenda.

So Oli has been marketing his decision to avail 101 kg of gold to Pashupatinath. He termed his decision to provide gold to Pashupatinath temple a break in tradition. “My father was not a prime minister, and he used to plow the land. But I became the prime minister. So I am in a place to break with the tradition to do something good,” he said, defending his decision.

Separately, there have been speculations about a tactical alliance between the NCP Oli faction and the RPP and other religious forces. Amid such speculations, Mohan Shrestha, an RPP leader, says he sees Oli’s respect for Hindu sentiments as something positive.

“We welcome his worship at Pashupati. He may have realized that the sentiments of nearly 84 percent Hindus can’t be ignored. Our party sees his new pro-Hindu sentiment as course correction,” he adds.

However, the RPP won’t trust Oli in a rush. “We must wait and watch if his activities are political stunts to draw votes or a long-term strategy to restore the faith of Hindus,” Shrestha adds.

A section of Nepali Congress (NC) leaders has long been campaigning for the restoration of Hindu state. Congress General Secretary Shashank Koirala has in the past asked for a referendum over secularism. As many as 820 of 1,500 NC general convention members had signed a petition demanding a referendum or constitution amendment over the issue two years ago.

One strong Hindu state advocate in Congress party, Laxman Ghimire, says he will back anyone who supports the issue if such support is genuine.

“We will support the cause even if Prachanda jee backs it,” Ghimire says. “And we can only hope that right now Oli jee is genuine about it, or it will spell a disaster for the country.”

Whatever sells

Political Scientist Krishna Pokhrel sees Oli’s loyalty to Hinduism purely as a strategy to draw votes. “Oli and his faction are about to leave mainstream politics as the major political forces are already out on the street protesting his House dissolution move. Hinduism seems to be his survival card,” he says.

According to Pokhrel, Oli’s Hindu tilt goes against the political conviction of someone who took oath of office in the name of people instead of god.

“Oli has a track record of cottoning to issues that sell. For instance he accepted federalism even though he was against it,” Pokhrel says. He suspects a big section of Nepali Congress, including its President Sher Bahadur Deuba, could also back the Hindu state agenda if it starts gaining traction.

Nepali communist leaders traditionally don’t adhere to any religion, just like most of their communist brethren abroad. Modnath Prasrit, an ex-CPN-UML leader, is an exception. Prasrit once lobbied for a Hindu state and chose to distance himself from his party when his agenda was ignored.

“Our tradition and culture are based on Hindu system. We cannot be neutral in such a country. That said, religion shouldn’t be mixed with politics,” Prasrit says now.

Guru Khatiwada of Morang, who claims to have voted for the communist alliance in the last election, doubts a religious agenda will get Oli many votes in the upcoming elections.

“If Oli embraces Hinduism, his critics may provoke indigenous people and people from non-Hindu communities to stand against him.” However, he does admit that the agenda of Hinduism may attract some swing voters.

Keshav Jha, Executive Member of the Janata Samajpati Party, Nepal, which has a hold in Province 2, says Oli may benefit from the Hindu agenda if he dares to push ahead with it into the next elections.

“There is a pro-Hindu sentiment all across the country. Even the Kamal Thapa-led party received a good number of votes in the first Constituent Assembly elections. So KP Oli could benefit from the strategy but the country certainly will not,” he says.

Does he have Indian support?

Yogi Adityanath, Chief Minister of the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh adjoining Nepal, has said that Nepal “benefits while being a Hindu state. People of India, where over a billion population is Hindu, also want the same,” he had told visiting Nepali journalists in July 2019.

In early January, Professor SD Muni, a close observer of political developments in Nepal, had also hinted of such Indian support for Nepal’s Hindu movement in an article for The Hindustan Times.  

“On the sidelines of these developments, India has also fueled and fed Hindutva forces under the leadership of a discarded monarchy, possibly as a ploy in the unfolding realignment of political forces in Nepal,” Muni wrote.

Likewise, retired Indian army major general GD Bakshi, another follower of the Hindu movement in Nepal, tweeted in early December: “Massive massive protest in Nepal for restoration of Hindu rashtra. We must support our brothers and sisters in Nepal. India needs to atone for its sins of supporting the Maoists who have brought that country to ruin”.

Lekhnath Paudel, a Nepali foreign policy expert, thinks the rise of Hindu leaders in neighboring India is certain to influence the Hindu movement in Nepal as well. “The BJP’s political line is to reinstate Hindu state in Nepal. They want to push the agenda by using our political forces,” he says.

Paudel sees Oli’s recent activities as attempts both to appease Indian leadership and to draw votes in future elections.

“KP Oli has made it clear that he would lead the agenda of Hinduism in Nepal. But I don’t think the South has given him any assurance on the issue,” he told APEX.

Political analysts say Oli’s pick of Hinduism as an electoral agenda could lead to a widespread conflict in the absence of a clear roadmap on the issue’s safe-landing.

KP Sharma Oli’s political star rose in 2015 with his co-leadership of constitution-promulgation (along with Sushil Koirala of Nepali Congress). His standing up to India during the 2015-16 border blockade further bolstered his national standing. But his shine seems to be wearing off.

The leader who once vehemently defended the constitution has now been accused of abusing it, even as his decision to dissolve the parliament and call for midterm elections is being tested in the Supreme Court.

Whatever the court’s decision, it is certain to divide the forces involved in constitution-making and promulgation. If the court overturns Oli’s decision, he and his loyalists are likely to criticize the constitution for not allowing the elected prime minister to seek a fresh mandate. They could also question the court’s jurisdiction.  

“Even if the court reinstates the parliament, political forces will be divided for and against its decision. Oli loyalists will criticize the unclear provision in the statute and question the court’s supremacy,” says political analyst CK Lal. “If the apex court doesn’t reinstate the parliament, other forces will protest. Even the court has to decide based on the principle of necessity in the absence of a clear provision in the statute: this represents the constitution’s failure”. Lal is among a handful of analysts who have been proclaiming the new constitution’s death since its promulgation.

Some sections of the society already had grievances against the constitution. Division among its guardians may further encourage internal and external dissident forces that were unhappy with the constitution, according to Lal.

Another political analyst Chandra Dev Bhatta offers a different logic for the constitution’s possible failure.

“There is lack of balance between our political culture and spirit of the constitution. The political culture needed to uphold constitutional behavior is yet to evolve in our country. In such a situation no constitution can function,” he argues.

Nepal has adopted seven constitutions in seven decades, and yet they were all contentious.

Bhatta says Nepal’s power-centric political culture contributes to the constitution’s dysfunctionality. “It creates soft social violence and foments uncertainty."

Lal and Bhatta both agree that as the constitution was promulgated by top political leaders without much discussion in the Constituent Assembly, the statute had a weak foundation right from the start.

Checked constitutional history

The first and second Constituent Assembly (CA) carried intensive debates over whether the prime minister should be allowed to dissolve the parliament. After studying the constitutions of various countries with parliamentary systems, the first CA had suggested some remedies.

The 1990 constitution had given the prime minister absolute authority to dissolve the parliament. The then Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala dissolved the parliament in 1994 after MPs of his own Congress party didn’t support government policy and programs.

CPN-UML’s Manmohan Adhikari became prime minister after Koirala, but without the parliament’s majority support. When Adhikari also decided to dissolve the parliament in 1995, just a year after Koirala, the court overturned the decision. The judiciary had to face a backlash when the Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of a parliament dissolved by a popular communist prime minister.

Then, again, Sher Bahadur Deuba dissolved the parliament in 2002 paving the way for King Gyanendra’s state take-over.

“When one after another government head started misusing the power to dissolve the House, the Supreme Court started scrutinizing the provision,” recalls NC leader Radheshyam Adhikari. “The new constitution thus included conditions that prevented the prime minister from dissolving parliament when he faced trouble in his party.”

During the constitution-making process, parties and lawmakers carried out intensive debates on ensuring government stability through various measures. The Maoists wanted a directly elected executive president, the NC proposed parliamentary system without giving the prime minister the power to dissolve the House, while the UML lobbied for a directly elected executive prime minister.

The Maoists were the largest party in the first CA, but the assembly failed to deliver a new constitution. In the second CA, Congress emerged the largest party and dominated constitution-making process with its agendas.

The second CA agreed to adopt a parliamentary system with strict conditions on when the prime minister could dissolve the parliament. According to former CA members, the prime minister has the right to dissolve parliament only if the House cannot offer an option for an alternative government.

Against social contract

Over 200 advocates have lined up to argue against House dissolution at the Supreme Court.

Defending the writ petitions registered against the dissolution, advocates argue that if Oli’s move is not overturned, it could lead to a collapse of the new constitution.

Lawyers argue that House dissolution is not just against the spirit of the constitution but also against its preamble which states that the country’s sovereignty rests with the people and the prime minister as such cannot act on his own. PM Oli on the other hand argues that he has called for mid-term polls to let people make their choice.

Legal eagles argue that elected representatives must abide by the social contract theory that lays out obligations of people’s representatives to their voters. If the people are the final source of power, says the theory, the executive elected by people’s representatives can’t use executive authority without their consent.

“New conditions were added on parliament dissolution to give the government more stability and to bar the prime minister from being an autocrat. The recent decision on House dissolution undercuts both motives,” says NC leader Adhikari, a member of the two Constituent Assemblies.

“As one of the signatories to the new constitution, Oli was expected to safeguard the constitution and own up its spirit. Yet he has done the exact opposite,” he adds.

The issue of constitution failure has resurfaced also because of division among forces involved in constitution promulgation.

Nepali Congress is expected to benefit electorally from the ruling party’s split. But it too has been demanding parliament reinstatement. NC leaders say that if the court approves of the prime minister’s move, it could herald another cycle of instability. The precedent would allow future prime ministers to act likewise.

“Oli jee dissolved the parliament without allowing the House to exercise its authority to form an alternative government. He has attacked the main spirit of the new constitution. If Oli’s move is endorsed, this constitution’s life could also be short-lived,” Adhikari says.

Addressing a mass rally in Kathmandu last week, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, leader of dissident Nepal Communist Party (NCP), said: "The prime minister, by dissolving the parliament, has tried to undo the constitution, throw out federalism and derail the peace process."

Constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari has a slightly different take. “The ongoing debate is limited to whether the prime minister has the power to dissolve the parliament without testing the options of forming an alternative government in the House. I hope the court will define it in line with the spirit of the new constitution.” But he disagrees that this represents constitution’s failure. “The majority power in the country is still in favor of this statute”.

Indian hand?

Some suspected the southern neighbor, which had just ‘noted’ the promulgation of Nepal’s new constitution in 2015, of instigating Oli to dissolve the parliament. India had been alienated as Nepali leaders supposedly failed to address its concerns in the new constitution. India then resorted to the infamous blockade.

The prime minister’s House dissolution decision coincided with Nepal visit of Indian Army Chief Manoj Mukund Naravane, and chief of its external intelligence agency the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW), Samant Goel. This buttressed the argument of India’s direct hand in House dissolution.

“India had just noted the constitution as it had certain reservations. Internally there were dissenting voices and externally our neighbor was not happy about it,” analyst Bhatta adds. “Third, as I said earlier, our political culture and constitutional spirit don’t match. All these factors are causing constitutional problems”.

A section of intelligentsia was already suspicious after Oli decided to incorporate Lipulekh, Limpiadhura and Kalapani in the country’s constitution without holding any talks with India. Even if there were to be a negotiated settlement with India tomorrow, which Nepali government would now dare to amend the constitution to ‘break Nepal’?

CK Lal says: “India may not be involved in fomenting further political instability in Nepal. But it will look to secure its interest whatever transpires next."

The rise of pro-Hindu leaders in India has been interpreted as a threat to secularism. When asked if India could try to revive the Hindu state in Nepal, Lal says instability could give a boost to such illiberal political impulses. “Hindustan may want to reinstate Nepal as Hindu nation while at the same time Nepal’s bureaucracy and conservative forces want to scrap federalism,” Lal says.

Ex-Constituent Assembly (CA) member Khimlal Devkota says he decided not to contest the 2017 parliamentary election from his party, CPN (Maoist Center), as he simply didn’t have enough money to finance his campaign.  

“I couldn’t sell my honesty just to put together money to contest a seat. I would have had to offer money, first, to get candidacy, then to buy electoral votes,” says Devkota, recalling his decision. “If I was elected, I would perhaps have had to buy a ministerial birth too."

Devkota says he would then have had no choice but to try to recoup not just his electoral expenses but also make some more money for the next election.

Also in 2017, vice-chairperson of the then CPN-UML Yubaraj Gyawali was another leader who relinquished a party offer for a direct election seat under the First-Past-The-Post system. “I didn’t have a contractor, a businessman or a smuggler to finance my campaign,” Gyawali had at the time told his party comrades when queried on his choice.

The situation doesn’t seem to have changed much in three years. Aspirants for representation in the federal lower house are already worried about their electoral finances even though the election announced for April-May is mired in doubt.

A lawmaker in the recently dissolved parliament, who is now with the Nepal Communist Party Dahal-Nepal faction, said he is in a dilemma over whether to contest the next election.

Due to neck-to-neck competition against his Nepali Congress (NC) rival, he had spent over Rs 10 million in the 2017 federal election. When donations from well-wishers and party cadres proved inadequate to cover his expenses, he borrowed from businesspersons.

“KP Oli dissolved the parliament and called for a midterm election even before I had paid back my loans that were due from the last election,” he says, requesting not to be named considering the sensitivity of the matter.

A legislator earns around Rs 70,000 a month in salary, plus allowances. But, according to the outgoing MP, almost all their salary is spent on travel, food, donations to various clubs and campaigns as well as in party levies. 

Up, up and away

Election-related expenses of both the state and the election candidates have skyrocketed over the past decade. The Election Commission spent Rs 2.75 billion on the 1999 general election. In comparison, the upcoming election of the federal House of Representatives is expected to cost the commission around Rs 10 billion.

Compared to 1999, the EC’s expenses increased by over two-fold to Rs 7.6 billion in 2008 when the country held the first Constituent Assembly elections following a decade of insurgency and transition. The expenses reached Rs 11.25 billion in 2013 and Rs 20 billion in 2017, including the money spent on security management, according to electoral records, including one obtained from the Office of the Auditor General.

With expenses increasing in successive election campaigns, spending caps on candidates have also been changing. In the 2017 election, the election body fixed the cap at Rs 2.5 million for a FPTP candidate. But real campaign spending would have been as much as Rs 10 million for some candidates, says Devkota.

The candidate spending threshold was Rs 65,000 in 1991 when the country witnessed its first democratic election following the abolition of the single-party Panchayat system. The EC allowed candidates to spend up to Rs 500,000 in 2008 and Rs 1 million in 2013. Coming to 2017, the threshold was Rs 2.5 million, which was considered absurdly high.

“Elections in Nepal are becoming more and more expensive, with election-related expenses of both state and party candidates increasing at rates higher than market inflation,” says former Chief Election Commissioner Neel Kantha Upreti while talking to APEX. This poses a challenge for the sustainability of democracy in a poor country like Nepal”.

Missing paper trail

Although the state’s election spending is transparent enough, the splurge of political parties has never been so. Government expenses on the election body and security management should follow certain rules of procurement and maintain transparency. But the commission has been facing public criticism for not following public procurement process while spending during elections.

Spending on ballot boxes, ballot papers, voter education, procurement and transport as well as on allowances and incentives for staff and security personnel is done via government channels, and such expenses are transparent to an extent.

For example, the government allocated Rs 10 billion each for the Election Commission and the Ministry of Home in election expenses in the 2017’s national budget. The EC ended up using less money than had been allocated.

But the money spent by political parties during the election never became public. Nepal’s election law has a mandatory provision whereby political parties have to submit details of their election expenses to the commission right after the polls. But many political parties and candidates fail to do so, even after the commission’s repeated warnings.

Candidates seldom disclose their actual election expenses before the election body. “Expenses from candidates are opaque all the times. They are ready to spend any sum to win. But we never hear of a candidate ever breaching the commission’s expense threshold,” says Upreti, the former CEC.

Proportional proposal

According to experts, various measures can be taken to minimize the state’s election cost. Starting with the 2013 CA elections, the EC asked the political parties to use banking channels for all campaign-related businesses. The commission also made it mandatory for donors to the parties and candidates to use banks.

Unfortunately, the new provisions were openly flouted. “After the 2013 elections, we tried to trace the source of funding for candidates as well as areas of their expenditures. Our plan back then could prove useful in studying ways to minimize election expenses,” Upreti says.

The EC had also proposed state funding to cover political parties’ expenses, but lawmakers rejected the proposal as “impractical”.

Similarly, the commission had proposed that candidates make public their property as well as the property of their family members while fielding their candidacy, but the parliament turned down this proposal as well.

“These measures could have helped make the expenses of candidates transparent and minimized election costs,” Upreti says.

According to him, legal changes are a must to minimize election costs as well as expenses of candidates. Monitoring should be strengthened and voter education on values and importance of democratic process be carried out as a long-term solution.

Electronic voting systems could also cut costs after a one-time investment on Electronic Voting Machines. But neither political parties nor the commission seems to have much faith in these machines.

“Costly elections are barriers to our goal of prosperity, and they promote corruption. We have no option to minimizing the election cost if we are to protect our democracy,” Upreti says.

Seconding the proposal of some political parties for a fully proportional representation (PR) election system, Upreti says the current mixed-election system needs to be changed. “PR elections should be promoted so that all voters cast their ballots for the parties, not individuals. That will help minimize election expenses of candidates,” he adds.

Although research on political parties’ expenses is scant, a 2017 study conducted by a civil society group with the support of the International Foundation for Electoral System suggested the majority of candidates in Kathmandu valley had exceeded the threshold of Rs 2.5 million in parliamentary elections that year. The research report says some candidates spent as much as 136 percent more than the threshold. Interestingly, the study also concluded that the candidates who exceeded the threshold received more votes than those spending less.

According to Upreti, a rule of thumb is that state expenses make for just 25 percent of all electoral costs, with the remaining 75 percent is spent by candidates and political parties.

Where is the money?

Political parties and candidates get campaign money mainly from the business community in donations and loans. Parties pile pressure on industries, corporate houses and businesses for donations during elections. They also receive money from contractors, party cadres and Nepali expats.

Economists say an election could have a positive impact on the economy as it helps channel money from informal to formal economy. An election also increases mobility of money and bank loans. Hotels, restaurants and liquor businesses get a boost. However, an election always results in inflation.

The Ministry of Finance is struggling to put together the money for the upcoming election as no such election had been planned during the budget-making process for the current fiscal. With state coffers short in cash, the government has been appealing for donations to buy Covid-19 vaccines.

Now, the finance ministry is mulling whether to transfer budget from various projects or to introduce a supplementary budget in order to finance the scheduled election. The state’s expenses alone are expected to cross Rs 20 billion in the upcoming parliamentary election, whenever it is held. Adding the expenses of candidates and parties, the total electoral cost could exceed Rs 100 billion.

The per-voter state spending in the upcoming polls will be around Rs 1,000, with the EC expecting at least 14 million to cast their ballots. The corresponding figure for 1991 election was Rs 71, which then increased to Rs 203 in 1999, Rs 425 in 2008 and Rs 913 in 2017, according to the Office of the Auditor General.

Hundreds of thousands of Nepal Communist Party (NCP) cadres are struggling to pick sides between Prime Minister KP Oli-led faction and the one jointly led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Madhav Kumar Nepal. For some guidance, they are waiting for the Election Commission’s (EC) decision on election symbol and party name.

Each of the two rival factions has staked its claim on the old party name and election symbol. Both want the sun, which had been the election symbol of the then CPN-UML starting with the 1991 general election. The symbol—which UML had borrowed from left leader Padma Ratna Tuladhar who had used it when contesting Panchayat-era elections—became popular among voters after the 1994 UML-led government introduced various social security measures including elderly allowances.

The NCP decided to adopt the sun as its election symbol following the UML’s merger with the CPN (Maoist Center) in 2018. The combined outfit has all but split less than three years after that formal unification. But the legal dispute over party ownership is expected to be long and arduous, say observers.

It has been nearly a month since former Maoist commander Dahal severed ties with Oli after the prime minister decided to dissolve the federal lower house and call for fresh election at the end of April and early May. Each side held its separate factional meeting after the House was dissolved. Dahal-Nepal faction expelled Oli as party chief. In Oli’s place, former UML leader Madhav Nepal, who joined Dahal camp after the division, was appointed co-chairperson. In response, the Oli faction took away Dahal’s executive power as co-chairperson and amended the NCP statute to give Oli more rights.

The Dahal-Nepal faction summoned the Election Commission to legitimize its claim over the NCP, arguing that it had the support of the majority of the party central committee members. After submitting the signatures of 287 central committee members to the commission, Dahal said he could even invite all signatories to the commission if it so desired. Oli, meanwhile, formed an 1,199-member general convention organizing committee incorporating many new central committee members, which in turn gave him two-thirds majority support in the party.

Burden of proof

Although neither faction accepts the accusation of instigating the party split, leaders from rival camps have claimed their own outfit as official, putting the commission in a fix. The NCP statute has a provision whereby a party decision is validated only when both party chiefs—who, on paper, are still Oli and Dahal—endorse it.

In the past the election body used to officially recognize the outfit with the majority support of central committee members at the time of split. But the ruling party’s strange dispute has complicated the process. Neither faction says the party has split and the effort of each is focused on showing it has majority support.

Raj Kumar Shrestha, the commission spokesperson, says no one has informed the constitutional body about a formal split. “Both sides have asked us to update their decisions in party record with the commission. We have asked them to validate their decisions on legal grounds,” says Shrestha. “We can’t declare which faction is official NCP and which is a splinter party based on their current claims.”

According to its officials, if and when the commission decides a faction is legitimate, the party name and election symbol will go to that faction. The constitutional commission will thus legitimize the decisions of only one faction.

Are there chances of invalidating the claims of both the sides? An EC official, requesting anonymity, says it is one of many options on table. “If the commission finds that neither side’s decisions are in line with party statute and rules, both claims could be invalidated,” he says. The commission has given a clear message to the two factions that neither side has solid legal ground to back its claims.

The commission’s invalidation of these competing claims may technically unite the NCP. However, a de facto unity is unlikely in the bitterly divided party. What next then? Another option will be for the factions to claim support of 40 percent lawmakers or majority central committee members in order to formally split the party.

Selective Acts

Amid the dispute the commission has been following Section 51 of the Political Parties Act instead of Section 43 and 44 of the same Act; the latter two would have been invoked if the commission believed the party had formally split. But Section 51 is related only to updating political parties’ decisions on changes in party statute, name, election symbol, or office bearers.

In separate letters sent by EC to the two factions on January 7, it cited Rule 25 (4) of the Regulations on Political Parties. This rule too is limited to updating party decisions in commission records.

“We have asked the two sides to update their claims citing laws, rules and party statute provisions under the Rule 25 (4) of the Regulations on Political Parties,” says spokesperson Shrestha.

No faction has thus far claimed the official NCP status with the signatures of at least 40 percent central committee members.

The commission’s correspondence with the NCP factions also suggests a possibility of invalidating both the claims. Yet both the factions are confident of their win. If the commission is seen as doing injustice to one faction, it is certain to knock apex court doors.

How long would the EC take to reach a final decision then? The EC, interestingly, isn’t obliged to give its final decision on the issue until the end of next week.

Chief Election Commissioner Dihesh Kumar Thapaliya is considered an Oli loyalist. But the CEC is in the minority in the commission as two other commissioners are not siding with Oli. Narendra Dahal, who was loyal to Oli until a year ago, has felt alienated after Oli appointed Thapaliya as chief commissioner, informs an NCP source. Another commissioner Ishwari Prasad Paudyal, who was nominated to the EC by Nepali Congress, is also likely to stand against Oli.

Interestingly, the Oli-led Constitutional Council on Dec 30 had recommended two other EC commissioners. For the purpose, the government had amended the Constitutional Council Act through an ordinance even amid the NCP dispute. Oli recommended Ram Prasad Bhandari and Janaki Tuladhar as the two other election commissioners. They are expected to assume office after January 28: In the absence of parliamentary hearing they need not face lawmakers’ scrutiny. They nonetheless have to wait for 45 days to be appointed by the president.

After the new commissioners assume office, CEC Thapaliya is expected to have a comfortable decision-making majority. That, speculates the NCP source, could work in Oli’s favor. 

Hidden majority

There is also a possibility that lack of clarity over competing claims coupled with the EC’s desire to avoid any controversy could make it withhold the NCP name and election symbol from both factions.

But, again, the Oli faction is confident. “From the old party, we have the chairperson, the general secretary and the party institution. So the Election Commission is bound to endorse our decisions,” says PM Oli’s legal adviser Baburam Dahal.

Ram Narayan Bidari of Dahal-Nepal faction is as confident that the EC will confer official name and symbol on his faction as it had the support of a clear majority of central committee members when the House was dissolved. “There is no doubt we will get the election symbol and official name as we have on our side nearly two-thirds of the original central committee members,” he added.

The Election Commission meanwhile is struggling to establish majority either way. It seems confused over whether to make a final decision based on the number of central committee members before House dissolution or after it.

The commission’s decisions could also be affected if the Supreme Court issues a stay order on a writ challenging Oli’s appointments in the election body. Advocate Om Prakash Aryal has filed a writ against the ordinance that allows the Constitutional Council (which appointed the EC commissioners) to make decisions on majority basis. Yet another writ challenges the council’s appointments at various constitutional bodies.

The Oli-led faction has already started its election-themed programs, holding mass gatherings and cadre-training programs all across the country. Oli wants to impress on the party rank and file that he has the backing of the Election Commission.

On the other hand, the rival Dahal-Nepal faction is busy protesting parliament dissolution. It is yet to start any election-focused program as it reckons the Supreme Court will reinstate the parliament and the question of elections will be rendered moot.

However you see it, this dispute isn’t going away any time soon.