In the recently-concluded Nepal Bar Association election, the alliance of the Democratic Lawyers Association (DLA), close with the Nepali Congress, and the Progressive and Professional Lawyers Association (PPLA), close with the CPN-UML, achieved a landslide victory. Lawyers’ associations close to the CPN (Maoist Center) and the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) had also formed a separate electoral panel but failed to secure a single seat in the 25-member working committee.
As a member and voter in the Supreme Court Bar, I believe these professional associations should remain purely professional. However, they act like sister organizations of political parties, which is deeply concerning. In these elections, political party leaders often nominate and back the contenders, turning the process into an extension of party politics. A troubling trend has emerged where the same coalitions formed at the central government level are replicated within these associations. As a result, professional bodies established for the betterment of professionals have become just as weak and unstable as the country’s central politics.
No political party or their affiliated organizations have the courage to contest elections independently—they almost always form coalitions, which is deeply concerning and detrimental to democratic practice. In a healthy political system, both the government and the opposition should be strong and functional, but that is not the case in Nepal.
The opposition has failed to fulfill its role. As a government-in-waiting, it should hold the ruling party accountable, scrutinize its actions and prevent misuse of power. At the same time, the government should focus on effective service delivery, development and be accountable to the parliament, operating under the rule of law. But neither side is doing its job.
Worse still, when it comes to covering up their wrongdoings—especially corruption—the top leaders of the major parties seem to stand united. There is neither peace nor prosperity, neither good service delivery nor meaningful development. What prevails instead is nepotism.
The government is often influenced by brokers and businesspeople, who support those in power but deliver no benefits to ordinary citizens. Most appointments are made to serve the interests of middlemen rather than the public. This troubling trend persists, regardless of which party is in power.
Because of these ongoing wrongdoings, people have started questioning whether the problem lies in our constitution and current political system. Some are even wondering if returning to the old system might be better. Recent protests have further fueled public sentiment in favor of a systemic change. Due to the misconduct of politicians and the deep politicization of every institution, our political system—and indeed our democracy—is now at risk.
Within the country, many people oppose certain aspects of the constitution, such as the secular state, federalism, proportional representation and inclusivity, even if we are to ignore neighbors’ concerns. There are growing calls for constitutional amendments. However, the government has been ignoring these concerns, which has led to widespread public frustration. Without addressing these issues, how can the country achieve peace and prosperity? How will economic growth take place? How can citizens expect efficient service delivery?
The major political leaders—Sher Bahadur Deuba, KP Sharma Oli, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal—must reflect and reform as the public has entrusted them with power time and again. This is a crucial moment: if they fail to correct their course, it will have serious consequences for our political system, as public sentiment is rapidly shifting due to their repeated misdeeds.
Another troubling situation lies within the political parties themselves. The current leadership has weakened these parties, as there is little to no value given to dedicated leaders and grassroots cadres.
Why has politics been made so dirty by these leaders? Why can’t these parties contest elections alone? What has weakened the foundation of these parties so badly? The public is convinced that, since the leaders are corrupt and have no intention of reforming themselves, the problem cannot be resolved. This crisis stems from extreme politicization and the growing trend of political coalitions. As most of them are corrupt, they have joined forces not only to cover up their irregularities but also to continue them. Today, political parties and their leaders seem to lack any real ideology—corruption and nepotism seem to be their only focus.
The Nepali Congress, founded in 1950, has a rich legacy in Nepali politics, having played a crucial role in every major political transformation the country has witnessed. The people of Nepal have consistently supported the party, helping it become a strong force in parliament. However, the party is now unable to contest elections on its own. Even in the Bar elections or any election in any sector, why is a coalition necessary? All candidates were respected professionals, so a panel winning or losing would not have made much of a difference.
So why was the alliance necessary?
This coalition culture has deeply affected Nepal—across all sectors, from top to bottom. These tie-ups allow political actors to collaborate in corruption without accountability, as no one is left to question them. This is a deeply troubling situation.
How long will this continue? It has deeply troubled ideologically-driven cadres, and this frustration could eventually impact our political system and even the constitution. The political leadership must address this issue in a timely manner. In the days ahead, all elections—whether federal, provincial, local or those of political organizations and sister wings—should be contested independently. Each party should remain true to its ideology. Politics should not be tainted. No one benefits from such practices.
If the current leadership of these political parties is unwilling to change the status quo, then alternative leaders must step forward. For instance, in the Nepali Congress, Shekhar Koirala should take a stand for change if Sher Bahadur Deuba does not. The same applies to KP Sharma Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal in their respective parties. Such shifts in leadership can strengthen party organizations and make the parties more competitive in the days to come.
The author is a member of the Supreme Court Bar and has been practicing corporate law for around three decades
