Submit your Article

This is the season of political parties’ general convention (GC). Both big and fringe ones are holding their conventions to elect new leaderships in the coming weeks. With the number of Covid-19 cases dwindling, parties are now rushing.

The sentiment both in and outside these parties is that incumbent leaders must go and new ones with new vigor and dynamism should replace them. Unfortunately, as parties are approaching their respective conventions, such sentiments are being sidelined. Almost the same set of leaders who have been at the helm of parties as well as successive governments after 1990 are set to continue for the next five years.  Despite their high-sounding rhetoric, youth leaders are not contesting party presidency.

Take the main opposition CPN-UML whose convention is to take place in Chitwan from November 26-28. Party leaders and cadres are projecting KP Oli (69) as an indispensable leader for the next five years, and he is likely to be elected unopposed.

Candidacy by some second-rung leaders cannot be ruled out but Oli is sure to win and lead the party for the next five years, says UML leader Deepak Prakash Bhatta. After the Madhav Kumar Nepal faction formed a separate breakaway party, Oli found himself in a position to monopolize the UML.

In Nepal Congress, there is a strong sentiment that Deuba must go due to his age and inability to lead. Additionally, there are voices that as Deuba (75) has become prime minister five times and also got to lead the party, he should pave the way for someone else. Efforts are underway to arrive at a common anti-establishment candidate to weaken and defeat Deuba. But he is still likely to hang on.

Even if Deuba goes, youth leaders are unlikely to come to the helm. After Deuba, the likes of Ram Chandra Poudel, Shekhar Koirala and Prakash Man Singh, all fast-aging leaders, are in a race for party presidency. Says political analyst Puranjan Acharya, Shekhar Koirala could emerge as a formidable challenger to Deuba this time if anti-establishment factions come together. “Shekhar has gained ground in selection of general convention representatives. But his triumph depends on Ram Chandra Poudel and others responding to him.”

Also read: Smaller coalition partners want electoral alliance. Not so much Nepali Congress 

Chances are high of Deuba winning the presidency again due to his strong hold on the organization. He is in a position to dispense favors as prime minister and the anti-establishment faction remains fragmented. So come NC convention on December 10-12 in Kathmandu, Deuba could again rule the roost. Youths are unlikely to ascend to the top from this convention. “Some youths are likely to be elected office bearers but the same old leaders would continue to dominate the party,” says Acharya.

CPN (Maoist Center) is preparing to fulfill its own constitutional obligation of five-yearly general convention. Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal (66), who has been at the helm of the party for three years, has clearly said that he will not retire. And no party leader will dare to file candidacy against Dahal.

Even in fringe parties, leadership change is unlikely. CPN (ML) led by CP Mainali held its General Convention in Chitwan, once again electing him party general secretary, a position he has been occupying since the 1970s.

CPN (Unified Socialist) led by Madhav Kumar Nepal (68) is also preparing to hold its convention, even though exact dates are yet to be finalized. As it is a new party and there are no other towering political figures, Nepal is likely to lead the party himself for the next five years.

As Rastriya Prajatantra Party led by Kamal Thapa (66) prepares to hold its own general convention in Kathmandu on November 13-16, there are demands of leadership change, which, again, is not happening given Thapa’s stranglehold on party machinery.  

All parties are holding their general conventions in the run-up to the three-tier elections, which will probably take place in 2022. And all those vying for party presidency either close to or above 70. The younger leaders will continue to have to wait for their turn, at least for the next half-a-decade.

Will the incumbent coalition government remain intact till elections? All coalition partners confidently say, yes, it will. Are there any chances of an electoral alliance among coalition partners? On this question, coalition partners are not so sure. Sustainability of the incumbent government and a possible electoral alliance are two entirely different issues but often seen together.  

Being in the same government does not mean an automatic electoral alliance. For instance, in 2017, there was a coalition government of Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN (Maoist) but the latter still forged an electoral alliance with then opposition CPN-UML, in what came to be popularly known as the left alliance.

Now, it is an open secret that CPN (Maoist) Chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal wants an electoral alliance with Congress, like he did with KP Oli on the eve of previous elections. Likewise, Madhav Kumar Nepal, chairman of Nepal Communist Party (Unified Socialist), another ruling party, is ready for an alliance with Dahal but the latter believes that will be insufficient to win elections given the formidable strengths of Congress and UML. As the Maoists are weak in terms of organization and popular votes, Dahal has calculated that the party could face a drubbing without an electoral alliance.

Congress, mainly Prime Minister and Party President Sher Bahadur Deuba, has not spoken publicly about the possibility of an alliance with coalition partners. Party leaders say the issue is likely to be discussed in the party’s upcoming general convention. Says Nain Singh Mahar, a youth leader close to Deuba, NC could consider an alliance even though it is capable of winning elections on its own.

“Looking at things from the perspective of Congress, there is no need for an electoral alliance but if there is a guarantee of a long-term alliance, we could think about it,” says Mahar. For that, according to Mahar, Maoist chair Dahal must be ready to revisit his 2017 unceremonious turnaround and come up with a credible framework to ensure that there will be no similar break-up. Before the previous round of elections, Dahal had secretly negotiated a seat-sharing arrangement with UML Chairman Oli while he was still in a coalition government with Congress.  

Also read: Delhi undecided as Deuba seeks its blessings 

In the 2017 local elections, Congress had supported Renu Dahal for the post of mayor in Bharatpur sub-metropolitan city. With strong NC backing, Renu won as well. But this was followed by a strong backlash inside the Congress party, mainly after Dahal went on to align with UML.

Ideological differences also make it difficult for Congress to forge an electoral alliance with communist forces. Similarly, the Maoists have a history of violence, and local-level NC cadres are uncomfortable aligning with such a force. The long list of prospective NC candidates also makes it hard for the party to agree on a seat-sharing formula with another party. NC leaders are of the view that the party is capable of winning elections on its own. This is why leaders like Gagan Thapa and Arjun Narsingh KC have completely ruled out any kind of electoral alliance.  

“NC candidates are ready to lose but they do not want an alliance with other parties as they believe such an alliance will weaken their constituency,” says an NC leader requesting anonymity.

What could Dahal do if the NC rejects such an alliance? Will he again align with Oli? Given the growing animosity between Dahal and Oli, they are unlikely to forge an electoral alliance this time. But it cannot be ruled out because if there is no electoral alliance among big parties, the NC is likely to gain a lot. In that scenario, despite their differences, Oli, Dahal, and Nepal could come together to check the Congress party.

That is why PM Deuba and NC leaders want early elections. They believe animosity among communist parties will die down with time and they could again come together. China, which played a vital role in uniting UML and Maoists in 2017, is advising communist forces to come together this time as well. Though Dahal and Oli don’t see eye to eye, many second-rung UML leaders are still in favor of unity between communist forces in order to forge a powerful communist party.

Also read: Playing Squid Game in Nepal

Maoist leader Dev Prasad Gurung says it would be premature to talk of electoral alliance. The spirit is that the incumbent five-party alliance should be continued till elections, says Gurung. “Once the elections are announced, there will be discussions among the coalition partners on the possibility of an electoral alliance,” he says.

Similarly, the Nepal-led party is also angling for an electoral alliance. It is almost a given that there will be an electoral alliance between Nepal’s and Dahal’s parties as well as with other fringe communist parties. The Nepal-led party appears weak as influential second-rung UML leaders decided to remain with the mother party; of the elected UML representatives, only around 10 percent joined Nepal’s new party. So, for Dahal, even the support of the Nepal faction and other fringe parties is not sufficient to win the elections.

NCP (Unified Socialist) Central Committee member Shankar Bhandari is not hopeful of a large electoral alliance with Nepal Congress. He is of the view that there could rather be an alliance among his party, the Maoist party, the Janata Samajbadi Party led by Upendra Yadav, and other fringe communist outfits. “But there will be some seat-sharing with NC to ensure the victory of top coalition leaders,” he says. Nepal has already started consultations with left parties.

Political analyst Bishnu Dahal subscribes to Bhandari’s views. The NC could field weak candidates in the constituencies of Nepal, Dahal, or other senior leaders to ensure their victory. But the chances of an out-and-out electoral alliance are slim, says the analyst. “There is little chemistry between Maoist and Congress cadres at grass-roots level, which was evident when NC decided to support Renu Dahal in the 2017 elections,” he says. “NC and communist parties see each other as class enemies and their relations at the grass-roots level are poor. This means a larger poll alliance may not be feasible but there can still be some kind of collaboration to keep the coalition intact.” 

The terms of the federal parliament, provincial assemblies, as well as the local governments expire next year. Growing debates in political circles on a possible ‘electoral alliance’ and ‘early elections’ of the House of Representatives (HoR) show that parties are already in an election-mode. They have started nationwide campaigns to strengthen their organizations, targeting the upcoming three-tier elections.

If things go as planned, local elections will take place first, to be followed by provincial and federal elections. Though the exact dates are yet to be finalized, sooner or later, the country will head to elections. Here is an explainer on how local, provincial and federal elections will take place.

Who declares the date of local-level elections?

As per Local Election Act 2017, the government is mandated to announce the date for local elections in consultation with the Election Commission. The government can choose to hold elections in multiple phases if they cannot be held in a single phase. At the local level, the first-past-the-post (FPTP) election model is applied for holding elections.  

How long is the tenure of local elected bodies?

The tenure of the village and municipal assemblies is five years. Article 225 of the constitution says: “The term of a Village Assembly and a Municipal Assembly shall be of five years from the date of the election. Another Village Assembly and Municipal Assembly shall be elected not later than six months of the expiration of such a term.”

The first local elections under the new constitution were conducted in 2017 in three phases (on May 14, June 28, and September 18). According to election experts, if there are to be multi-phase elections, the date for the first phase would determine the tenure of local bodies. So, ideally, the elections for local governments must take place within May-June next year. Even if parties choose to hold local level elections six months after their current term expires, local elections must take place by next August at the latest.

What about elections of provincial assemblies?

The provincial assemblies are unicameral and the numbers of provincial lawmakers vary from province to province. Unless dissolved earlier pursuant to the constitution, the term of the provincial assemblies is five years. Their term may be extended for a period not exceeding one year in cases where a proclamation or order of the state of emergency is in effect. As provincial assembly elections were held simultaneously with the federal elections in 2017, their tenure also expires in 2022. Under the FPTP component, twice as many members are elected to provincial assemblies as are elected to the federal House of Representative. 60 percent provincial assembly seats are filled through FPTP elections and 40 percent through PR elections. 

Also read: Delhi undecided as Deuba seeks its blessings 

And when are the federal parliament elections?

The House of Representatives and the National Assembly make up the Federal Parliament. On the term of the HoR, Article 85 of the constitution says, “Unless dissolved earlier, the term of the House of Representatives shall be of five years.” The previous federal and provincial elections took place in two phases in November and December 2017. So, the tenure of the incumbent parliament will be valid till December 2022, if the parliament is not dissolved earlier. After the completion of the five-year term, the federal parliament will get dissolved. As the constitution has not envisioned a parliamentary vacuum of over six months, elections for the federal parliament will have to take place within six months of December 2022.

Who declares the date for elections to the federal House of Representatives?

The government announces the date of the elections to the House of Representation in consultation with the Election Commission. The government can hold elections in multiple phases citing logistical and security issues. But the government must consult the commission before announcing federal elections.

What about the National Assembly?

The National Assembly is a permanent House that consists of 59 members, each with a six-year term. The term of office of one-third of the members of the National Assembly expires every two years. The election of NA will take place after the elections of local, provincial, and federal levels.

Are there any chances that elections to the parliament, provincial and local governments will take place simultaneously?

There is an ongoing debate on the possibility of holding simultaneous elections. However, parties are yet to begin deliberation over such a proposal. To conduct simultaneous elections, the law needs to be changed. For one, simultaneous elections will reduce electoral costs. Former Election Commission Commissioner Dolakh Bahadur Gurung says simultaneous elections are a good idea if all parties are on the same page. Towards this end, Gurung says legal arrangements must be accompanied by a huge exercise in arranging logistics.

Also read: Nepal’s decennial census needs a rethink

Should the Election Commission be allowed to announce the date of elections?

Right now only the government holds the right to announce the dates for elections. For a long time, the Election Commission has been making a case for its right to do so. According to former commissioner Gurung, giving the commission such a mandate will ensure timely elections. As the government has the right to announce dates, the ruling parties right now tend to declare elections as per their convenience.

Are there any chances of a change in our electoral system?

In the last election, a mixed electoral system—first-past-the-post and proportional representation (PR)—was adopted. But debate has already begun about changing it. Ruling coalition partner CPN (Maoist) has proposed a completely proportional election system. Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has been saying that elections are becoming too costly and a complete PR system is the only solution. The Maoist party also fears losing elections if the FPTP component is high. In any case, Nepali Congress and CPN-UML are unlikely to accept such a proposal.

Are there any chances of early elections?

There are divergent views among political parties on early elections. The main opposition CPN-UML is in favor because it wants to justify KP Oli’s House dissolution and call for elections.

Inside Nepali Congress, there are strong voices in favor of early elections for the federal parliament. NC leaders believe that if local elections are held first, federal elections could be affected because of the ensuing factional feuds and chances of intra-party betrayal. Local-level leaders who lose elections are unlikely to support rival-faction candidates in federal elections. However, coalition partners CPN (Maoist) and CPN (Unified Samajwadi) led by Madhav Kumar Nepal are against early elections as they are both in party-building phase. 

Did India provide a safe haven to Nepali Maoists or was it always intent on crushing them with brute force? The Maoists have maintained that during the insurgency they were hiding in India and the Indian establishment didn’t support them in any way. Their critics pooh-pooh the notion that top Maoist leaders from Nepal could have lived and moved about freely there without the knowledge of the vast Indian government apparatus. This query is of more than academic interest. As CPN (Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has pointed out, on it hinges the question of success (or failure) of Nepal’s ‘homegrown’ Maoist movement.

Former Indian Ambassador to Nepal Ranjit Rae infers in his new book ‘Kathmandu Dilemma’ that the Indian government provided no support to the Nepali Maoists living in India. India, apparently, didn’t even know of the Maoist existence in its midst. If anything, India saw the Maoists as a threat, not the least because of its own growing Naxalite problem. Particularly in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, it viewed them more and more as terrorists, just like the US and the UK did. Only after King Gyanendra assumed executive powers in a coup did the Indians rethink their Maoist policy.  

As Rae writes in his book, following the coup, the opinion in India was divided between those who were still intent on decimating the Maoists by strengthening Nepal Army (IB, Indian Army) and those who believed a peaceful way out was the only durable solution (MEA, RAW). One thing is for sure: Had the Indians decided to crush the Maoist rebellion, they could have done so. Even if the Indian establishment didn’t actively support the Maoist leaders waging a war in Nepal from India, they tolerated their existence. Or at least a part of the establishment did.  

Also read: Diplomatic License | Playing Squid Game in Nepal

The Indian security establishment and sections of the bureaucracy wanted to use the presence of the Nepali Maoists in India as a bargaining chip against the royal regime, the ultimate goal being to maintain a semblance of ‘controlled instability’ in Nepal so that India could continue to play within it. 

Perhaps with more high-level political engagement between the two countries, the Maoists wouldn’t have been so successful in orchestrating the insurgency from foreign soil. Unlike the erstwhile Nepali Congress leaders living in exile in India in the 1940s or 1950s, the Maoist leadership in the early 2000s didn’t have extensive engagement with the Indian leaders. Without such political connections, to keep themselves safe, they had to rely on the Indian bureaucrats and spies who came in their contact.  

Moreover, as prime minister, neither Atal Bihari Vajpayee nor Manmohan Singh seemed interested in cementing political ties with Kathmandu. Neither came to Nepal on a bilateral visit during their long tenures (although Vajpayee did come in 2002 for the SAARC summit). As political engagement broke down, interference from Indian security agencies and bureaucrats, who found themselves in charge of India’s Nepal policy by default, increased. In return for providing a safe haven to Maoist leaders, they wanted a greater say in Nepal’s affairs.

In fact, a big challenge in resetting Nepal-India bilateral relations continues to be the multiplicity of Indian foreign policy actors—often working in cross-purposes. As the attention of the political leadership of a rising India continues to shift to big actors, perhaps this will continue to be the fate of smaller countries in the region.