Submit your Article

A democratic culture is not something you develop overnight. Nor is it a given that it will materialize. The responsibility for its flourishing largely falls on the shoulders of the country’s top political leaders. To do so, they must abide by legal norms, realize the importance of check and balance, and commit to building strong institutions. As important is a periodic transfer of power. As in any other discipline, the competent ones need to be promoted, and the old generation paves the way for the next generation. Nepal’s current political leadership is deficient in all these fronts. 

Be it Nepal Communist Party’s KP Oli, Nepali Congress’s Sher Bahadur Deuba, the ex-Maoist supremo Pushpa Kamal Dahal, or Baburam Bhattarai—they have all at one time or other been complicit as prime ministers in playing fast and loose with democratic norms and values. Across the board, what we see is top leaders using every dirty trick to remain in positions of power and to sabotage their political rivals. They thus become ready to dissolve parliament on fictional constitutional grounds, to politically interfere in the national army, to install a sitting chief justice as the chief executive, and to plot against their party colleagues: there really is no limit to what they can do. 

What we don’t see is a party leader who loses an election quit active politics or to at least vacate the top position. We don’t see them groom successors. This is why the same cast of characters who have been repeatedly tried and been found wanting have been running Nepali politics since the 1990 change. They want to forever remain in power, literally, until their last breath. 

Prime Minister Oli’s unconstitutional house dissolution is thus hardly a surprise. Like most of his predecessors as prime minister, rather than have the guts to realize his weaknesses and see the failures of his government, he smashed the government machinery that was being taken away from him. Again, this is not to imply that his (former) party colleagues in Dahal or Madhav Nepal have in the past proven themselves to be better leaders, either of their party or their country. Yet past mistakes cannot be an excuse for present failures. The wise rather learn from past mistakes and apply the lessons in the present. Unfortunately, our incumbent all-knowing prime minister is not taking any lesson from anyone. 

Amid the shameless scramble for power in the ruling Nepal Communist Party, the communists’ electoral promise of stability and prosperity sounds like a cruel joke. Top party leaders continue to pull every trick in the book to get an upper hand in the bitter struggle for the control of both the party and the government it leads. Meanwhile, Nepalis, their health and wealth under imminent risk from a dangerous virus, are reckoning with the choices they made in the 2017 federal elections: Did they really elect this bunch of jokers to serve them?

KP Oli’s opponents in the NCP must share some blame for this seemingly never-ending party drama. But as the party’s co-chair and, more importantly, the country’s prime minister, the reckless and irresponsible Oli deserves most of the blame he is getting. To save his government, he has tramped on the principle of separation of powers, made a mockery of the ‘ceremonial’ presidency, and tried to rule by diktat. He seems determined to stop his opponents in the party from prevailing, even if it entails doing harm to the democratic process.

If Oli had handed over government leadership to party co-chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal, as promised, the NCP would be a more united force today. Short of that, he could have given Dahal control over party functioning, which too would have done the trick. But when the time came to relinquish one of the two chairs, Oli got greedy. He threw the gentleman’s agreement with Dahal out of the window, and is now desperate to hang on. This despite the fact that he is in a clear minority in the nine-member NCP Secretariat as well as the 45-member Standing Committee.

Oli’s refusal to face up to the truth and his tramping of democratic norms are troubling. He keeps talking about the sacrifices he has made over the years for the cause of democracy in Nepal, especially all those torturous years he spent in jail fighting the autocratic monarchy. But he now acts no different to the freewheeling monarchs he fought against. Oli had won the backing of millions of Nepali when he stood up to Indian highhandedness over the new Nepali constitution, which in turn propelled him to power in 2017. In his under three years in office, he has let most of them down.  

There are four main currents in Nepali politics right now, represented by four different political parties: the Nepal Communist Party (communists, socialists), the Nepali Congress (liberal democrats), the Janata Samajbadi Party Nepal (regional, identity-based party), and the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (monarchists, Hindu-state proponents). Each of the four has well-defined voter bases. Three of the four are forces that recently consolidated, partly because of restrictive new laws that bar small political forces from being recognized as national political parties—with all the concomitant benefits of such recognition. The new union of Bibeksheel Nepali and Sajha Party, now to be called Bibeksheel Sajha Party, aims to be the fifth established force.

An earlier unity between Bibeksheel and Sajha had dissolved after the united party bungled the 2017 federal and provincial elections, winning just three seats in Bagmati provincial assembly and none in the federal parliament. A bitter personality clash among the party’s top brass ensued. Now, having realized the futility of pursuing separate paths in a polity that encourages consolidation, they have come together again. But to what end, people are again asking? The latest merger was announced on Dec 9, the International Anti-Corruption Day, to send a powerful message. During the merger, party bigwigs also said they were committed to improving the sectors of health and education to build a more resilient democratic Nepal. Again, nothing wrong with any of this.

Nepali political actors consolidating is good news, too, which in turn will add to the vibrancy of the democratic process. Yet health, education and anti-corruption don’t a political ideology make. The new party wants to be seen as a grouping of thorough professionals committed to clean and efficient public service delivery. But as the party discovered in the 2017 elections, that is not enough to get people to vote for them. The party was largely trounced outside Kathmandu, where it got some support from young, first-time voters. It is also hard to see in Nepal the emergence of techo-populist movements like Italy’s Five Star Movement or Alternative for Germany in near future. Notably, the AAP in India has also struggled outside Delhi. It will be a struggle all along for Bibeksheel Sajha unless it can come up with a more compelling narrative to attract the youth and white-collar professionals from all across the country.    

Freedom of peaceful assembly is an inalienable democratic right. The logic for this is self-evident—or it should be. When people are denied their right to protect peacefully, often, they don’t meekly back down. They rather take up more violent means of protest. Suppression of peaceful assembly, however odious the personal and political beliefs of its participants, also tends to backfire. For instance, by preventing the royalists and Hindu state proponents from protesting peacefully, the federal government is, arguably, adding to their popularity.

The logic on offer for the suppression of these protests is credible enough. It is unsafe for hundreds of people to assemble, often without adopting any safety measures, in the middle of a raging pandemic that has already claimed over 1,500 Nepalis. But by the same token the mass gatherings of other political parties should also have been banned. Yet opposition parties like Nepali Congress and JSPN have been holding similar political gatherings unhindered. Even Prime Minister KP Oli has been photographed in recent times addressing mass gatherings around the country. Singling out the monarchists, who are every bit Nepalis as most dedicated Congressis or communists, is thus hypocrisy.  

If the Nepal Communist Party-led government wants to regulate such pandemic-time mass gatherings, the ruling party should begin with its own gatherings. The better strategy is to ensure proper Covid safety measures are being followed in these protests, not to ban them outright. There have also been reports in credible media outlets that while a section of the NCP is for allowing the pro-monarchy protests, another faction wants to crack down on them. In other words, the government handling of these protests is based as much on internal NCP political calculations as it is on public interest.

Monarchy and Hindu state are historical relicts out of tune with the changing times. It is best not to give them any room for revival. Make no mistake. Millions of Nepalis are frustrated, even angry, with the Oli government’s wasted two and half years in power. As the main opposition parties have also failed to hold the government to account, public discontent is on the rise. It is only natural for many disappointed and disillusioned Nepalis to seek alternatives. The federal government’s recent display of insecurity will make them question their past electoral judgements even more.