Submit your Article

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.

The co-pilots of their self-proclaimed jet called the Nepal Communist Party now don’t even want to talk to each other. At the time of unification of CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center) in May 2018, KP Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal had promised to together safely land the jet, taking the country a step closer to the institutionalization of the new federal democratic republic. Old enmities would be buried, they told the country, and they would henceforth work to realize the new party’s motto of “Prosperous Nepal, Happy Nepalis”. People had a hard time believing these two ambitious men. 

Their suspicions are being borne out. The unity was not between two communist parties, it is getting increasingly clear, as it was a marriage of convenience for the two co-chairpersons. Leading a party with near absolute control of the federal apparatus, Oli wanted to run his government unopposed for five years. Nor would he have to relinquish party leadership. Dahal, for his part, wanted to lock-in party chairmanship going into the first NCP general convention. He had also been promised government leadership midway through this parliament’s term. Even if he didn’t get to the PM’s chair, the calculation was, he would vastly increase his old over the party. 

Sans any ideological mooring, the two communist parties’ unity was always going to be shaky. Yet while few believed the two leaders would easily set aside personal interests in favor of national interest, they had hoped the NCP government would at least serve out its five-year term—something no post-1990 government had done. Such stability would also bring prosperity. But it turns out there is only a tenuous connection between stability and prosperity. 

As badly as PM Oli has performed, most Nepalis don’t want the ruling party to split. Another unmistakable lesson of the fragile post-1990 polity is that powerful parties are a prerequisite for democratic stability. Had the big parties succeeded in resolving their inner conflicts, the country would not have had to witness decades of instability, violence, and stunted growth. The NCP can still be saved if its top leaders, starting with Oli, ditch their short-term calculations and work for the party’s long-term future. Or is that asking too much of the leaders who were at the vanguard of the movement to usher in recent democratic changes?