Tag: Nepal elections

As Nepal Heads to Polls, Here’s What Major Parties Are Saying About Foreign Policy

While foreign affairs may not be the top priority in elections, Nepal’s location, sandwiched between two Asian giants, means that it remains a significant undercurrent in domestic politics.

Kathmandu/New Delhi: In two weeks, over 17 million Nepali voters choose their representatives in the federal and provincial assemblies. It marks a momentous milestone in Nepal’s parliamentary democracy, as these will be the first polls to be held after the entire five-year tenure.

While foreign affairs may not be the top priority in elections, Nepal’s location, sandwiched between two Asian giants, means that it remains a significant undercurrent in domestic politics.

In the last elections in 2017, the Left alliance of Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist) (CPN-UML) and the Maoist Centre brought K.P. Oli back as prime minister with a big majority. According to analysts, Oli’s victory was based on a hardline nationalist platform during the 2017 election campaign that came against the backdrop of the five-month-long ‘blockade’ at the Indian border in 2015. 

Five years on, the 2022 general elections are being held amidst a new landscape in Nepal’s foreign policy terrain.

After his 2017 victory, Oli began his term with an outreach from New Delhi. But by 2020, relations dipped to a nadir after the Oli government issued a new political map, which included territories – Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura, and Kalapani – controlled by India. This map was subsequently enshrined in the constitution. Later that year, a patch-up between Oli and India began with a much-commented visit of the Indian spy chief to the Nepali capital.

After Oli was voted out by parliament and the Nepali Congress-led coalition came to power, relations smoothened between the two neighbours. In the run-up to his ouster, Oli softened towards New Delhi and made an effort to woo the Hindu vote.

The India-Nepal border. Photo: PTI/Files

A key characteristic of Nepal’s diplomatic terrain has been the deliberate low profile maintained by the India mission in Kathmandu over the last few years. Instead, the Chinese embassy became the most visibly active diplomatic mission, with the Chinese ambassador flitting from meetings with one senior politician to another.

Not surprisingly, the political controversies in the diplomatic universe have shifted from being India-centric to Nepal’s relations with the US, a reflection perhaps of Chinese sensitivities over a larger American footprint in Kathmandu.

A hard-won success of the Deuba government was the ratification of a $500 million infrastructure grant by the US as part of the Millennium Challenge Corporation Nepal Compact. Just as the ruling coalition obtained parliamentary approval in February 2022, police used teargas and water cannon to disperse protestors, who claimed it would undermine Nepali sovereignty.

But, Deuba was forced to withdraw from the US’s Strategic Partnership Program (SPP) under pressure from alliance partners, who claimed it would lure Nepal into a military alliance. China publicly commended the Nepal government for the decision.

The manifestoes of political parties, released last week, do not have any big surprises, cleaving to their traditional outlook on Nepal’s relations with the wider world. 

Nearly all of them refer to the 2015 Nepali constitution’s enshrined principles on conducting international relations for an elected government.

  1. Pursuing an independent foreign policy considering national interest to be of utmost importance, on the basis of the UN Charter, non-alignment, principle of Panchasheel, international law and universal norms, and by remaining active to defend the sovereignty, indivisibility, national independence and national interest. 
  2. Entering into treaties and agreements on the basis of equality and mutual interest, by reviewing past treaties.

Further, under directive principles, the Nepali state has to maintain relations with the outside world “based on sovereign equality, protecting sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national interest of the country, and promoting national prestige in the international community”.

India’s former ambassador to Nepal, Ranjit Rae, indicated that coalition dynamics usually moderate the ideological positions on foreign policy articulated in manifestoes.   

“There is a distinction between what one says in the manifesto and what they do once they are in a coalition government. Because there have to follow the manifesto of the coalition, rather than that of individual parties. Individual parties may have a wish list, but they will have to compromise in a coalition,” Rae told The Wire.

Here is what four major Nepal’s major national political parties presented as their key foreign policy stances in their Nepali-language manifestos.

Nepali Congress (NC)

Nepal’s largest political party, as per membership, leads a five-party coalition to the elections. It had only won 23 direct election seats in the 2017 elections but added 40 more seats under the proportional representation system. Perceived to be close to India, the centrist party’s chances have been buoyed by its performance in the local elections in May, where it received the largest amount of votes. NC is contesting 91 FPTP [first past the post] seats. 

On foreign policy direction

In its election manifesto, the ruling NC has pledged to adopt an independent and balanced foreign policy in line with the United Nations charter, the country’s long-standing non-alignment policy and the principles of Panchsheel. Similarly, the party has opposed joining any military alliances and blocs. Nepali soil will not be allowed to be used against any neighbouring country, the party added.

The document also talks about bolstering regional organisations such as the South Asian Association for Regional Organisation (SAARC) and The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC).  

On India

Regarding the border dispute with India, the party specifically highlighted that Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba had taken up the issue with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his visit to New Delhi in April this year.

The party manifesto further added that it would take a decisive step to resolve the existing border disputes with both India and China. There is, however, no separate mention of the new political map that triggered a row with India.

Nepal PM Sher Bahadur Deuba with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Credit: Reuters

Nepal Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Photo: Reuters

On China 

The NC manifesto mentions that there is a border dispute with China in the Humla district and that it will seek a resolution through diplomatic means.

On the Belt and Road Initiative, NC says it is committed to its implementation based on national necessity and priority, as it was signed with China in 2017 under the NC-led government. 

The NC manifesto states that priority will be given to economic diplomacy with a preference for grants rather than commercial loans. 

What it means: With a public perception of being friendlier to India, NC has tried to straddle the middle path in the manifesto. While the document doesn’t mention the political map, NC voted in favour of the constitutional amendment in 2020, just like all other political parties in Nepal.

The NC has reminded that it led the coalition when Nepal signed the BRI agreement in May 2017. At the same time, it is the only party that has referred to a border dispute with China and reiterated the preference for grants rather than loans. During the Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi’s visit to Kathmandu in March, no new project on BRI was inked.

Nepal’s former ambassador to the US, Suresh Chalise, criticised the NC manifesto for “perplexingly overlooking” the importance of “tourism diplomacy” to stem the loss of revenue while pledging to lessen dependence on remittances. “It places Nepal’s relations with immediate neighbours China and India in the same basket but enigmatically ignores Nepal’s relationship with the United States,” he told The Wire.

Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML)

Nepal’s principal communist opposition party has entered the hustings with a loose alliance with Madheshi and royalist parties. A two-time prime minister, Oli will likely get the top post if the coalition wins.

On foreign policy direction

The main opposition CPN-UML’s election manifesto states party would have an independent and balanced foreign policy with a priority on neighbouring countries. The party has further noted that it would adopt an approach of ‘amity with all, enmity with none, to foster a relationship based on sovereign equality. It also reiterates the constitutional principles for conducting foreign policy.

On China

UML refers to the Transit and Transport Agreement with China and the party’s initiatives to open up more border points with China. 

UML refers to the Indian and Chinese railway projects in the manifesto. The document also promises that the construction of the Birgunj-Kathmandu and Rasuwagadi-Kathmandu railway lines will be initiated. 

On India

It noted that “Nepali territory” at Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura and Kalapani will be protected and added that border disputes will be resolved.

The UML manifesto also stated that all treaties would be reviewed and amended to protect Nepal’s welfare, and new treaties would be signed based on necessity.

What it Means: While the initial years of Oli’s term had a more pronounced “pro-north” lean, IDSA research fellow Nihar Nayak pointed out that there had been an ‘U-turn’ from 2021. “Equidistant policy is the standard declared practice, but operationally, they have engaged with south,” he said.

UML has cited the trade and transit agreement and railway projects with China, but none have been operationalised. The Chinese border points with Nepal, closed for nearly two years due to the earthquake and covid-19 pandemic, have re-opened but keep on closing at frequent intervals for various reasons.

There is also no likelihood of a resolution of the border dispute with India, with New Delhi not showing giving any signal of engagement on the matter besides routine border meeting.

At a rally on November 5, Oli was clearly ready to cash in on the nationalist card, raising the issue of Kalapani and the new political map. “We issued the national map [incorporating the Kalapani area]. The Parliament endorsed it, unanimously. I am here to guarantee that [the area returns to Nepal],” he said.

Nepal’s Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli. Photo: Reuters/Navesh Chitrakar

Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Centre (CPN-MC)

Maoist Centre, led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, had earlier contested the 2017 elections as a pre-poll alliance with UML, with a near two-thirds majority. But after the Supreme Court dissolved MC’s merger with UML, Dahal joined forces with Nepali Congress and other partners to oust Oli. It will be contesting 48 seats.

On foreign policy direction

The CPN (Maoist Center) has explained in detail in the foreign policy section that looking at the current geopolitical situation, friendly and proximate relationships will be maintained with both neighbours.

Providing a more conceptual view, the Maoist party observed in the manifesto that a “new cold war” was already being felt, and it is a big challenge for Nepal. The country will be freed from all sorts of foreign military activities and will be declared a zone of peace, the manifesto stated. Nepal will not become a part of any bilateral or multilateral military alliances.

On India

The Maoist party has said that open borders with India shall be controlled and regulated. The party has clearly stated that the Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1950, the Tripartite Agreement of 1947, and other treaties related to trade and treaties with India should be reviewed and if necessary cancelled.

The party has also pledged to address the problem of Gorkha soldiers, whose recruitment to the Indian Army was suspended at Kathmandu’s request after the introduction of the Agnipath tour-of-duty scheme. 

What it means: Regulation of open borders and review of the 1950 treaty with India is a long-standing position of the Maoist Centre, which Prachanda had reiterated during his visit to New Delhi earlier this year. The ruling Indian political party, BJP had invited him to India, which was perceived as an outreach from the Indian establishment to keep its options open.

As an ideologically driven party, MC has faced internal dissent in recent months over stances taken by the leadership over foreign policy. The decision to support the parliamentary ratification of the MCC compact in parliament, albeit with an interpretative declaration, led to visible frustration, as the party had earlier threatened to quit the Deuba government over the matter. 

The support of Prachanda had been crucial to the Deuba government’s foreign policy agenda. Therefore, with the MC not in a mood to give support to another controversial US initiative, Nepal had to formally withdraw from the Department of Defense-run Strategic Partnership Program.

Commenting on the importance of the manifesto, former Indian envoy Ranjit Rae pointed out that for communist parties, documents are very important, “as this is the line they disseminate internally and is absorbed by cadres”.

Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Socialist (CPN-US)

Formed in 2021 after a split from CPN-UML, the CPN-US became the fourth-largest political party with 25 seats in the House of Representatives. The party founder, former prime minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, joined hands with the NC-led ruling coalition and is also jumping into the election as part of the pre-poll alliance. It is contesting 20 seats.

Madhav Kumar Nepal. Photo: Wikimedia Commons/De Utudanuki – Trabajo propio CC BY SA 3.0

On foreign policy direction

In its election manifesto, CPN (Unified Socialist), a member of a five-party coalition, says that it wants to establish a cordial relationship with neighbouring countries based on international law, the UN Charter, Panchsheel, and policy of non-interference. Unlike other parties, the party has only a brief section on foreign policy 

What it means: In line with other Left parties, Madhav Kumar Nepal had been the focus of the Chinese ambassador’s meeting to have a unified communist front in Nepal. But, it obviously didn’t work.

Former prime minister Madhav Kumar Nepal had been at the forefront of the faction that had wanted to oust Oli from the party leadership, which led eventually the latter to propose the dissolution of the parliament in December 2020. However, the Kathmandu Post reported that one year later, Madhav Kumar Nepal’s coalition experience has not been smooth.

As a splinter party from CPN-UML, it is expected that Madhav Kumar Nepal’s party largely has a similar ideological position on foreign policy, especially on sovereignty and military alliance. Just like MCC, CPN-US had earlier opposed the MCC compact but changed its mind later. However, it remained opposed to the SPP. 

Incidentally, Nepal had been Oli’s choice for a special envoy to India to discuss the border issue, but it never took off, as per media reports.

Nepal: As CJ’s Impeachment Motion Finally Sent to Probe Committee, Questions About Timing

Opposition lawmakers asked the ruling parties and the speaker why the motion was kept on hold for months and was presented only after the government announced the date for elections.

Nearly six months after its registration at the parliament secretariat, the impeachment motion against Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana was forwarded to the Impeachment Recommendation Committee on Sunday following a discussion in the House of Representatives.

The committee will now probe the allegations against Rana. As many as 98 lawmakers of the ruling coalition – Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) and the CPN (Unified Socialist) – had on February 13 registered the motion against Rana with 21 charges including that he promoted corruption in the judiciary and failed to discharge his duties effectively. Rana was automatically suspended following the registration of the motion.

After sitting on the motion for months, the ruling parties presented it for discussion in the House on Sunday and forwarded it to the recommendation committee. The recommendation committee to investigate the allegations against Rana was constituted on March 6.

Taking part in deliberations, lawmakers of the main opposition CPN-UML asked the ruling parties and the speaker why the motion was kept on hold for months and was presented only after the government announced the date for elections.

Mahesh Basnet, a UML lawmaker, said the fact that the motion has been presented for discussions while the tenure of the lower house is nearing its expiry shows the ruling parties registered it to serve their vested interests.

“It was wrong to keep the motion on hold for months despite the pressure from our party and civil society to settle it through the parliamentary process,” said Basnet. “It has been presented for processing while the term of the House is coming to an end.”

The government on Thursday announced that federal and provincial elections will be held on November 20. There is a debate going on about whether the House can function after the election date is announced.

The recommendation committee has a maximum of three months to investigate the allegations and present its report before it is put to a vote.

Rule 163 of the Regulations of the House of Representatives allows the recommendation committee a maximum of three months, from the day it starts work, to probe the allegations.

Ruling party leaders say the motion couldn’t be presented because the UML obstructed the House while the government had to focus on the national budget after the obstruction was lifted.

“The recommendation committee can conclude the probe in two weeks if there is consensus among the parties,” Min Bishwakarma, the Congress whip who is also a member of the committee, told the Post. “We want the House to vote on the motion before its tenure expires.”

The ruling parties are for continuing the House meeting until Dashain (mid-October) as the terms of lawmakers do not expire until the Election Commission begins registering candidacies for elections.

UML lawmakers, however, say it is not possible to conclude the investigations in two weeks as claimed by Congress lawmakers. Shiva Maya Tumbahangphe, who also is a member of the committee, said the lawmakers have already started visiting their constituencies after the poll dates were announced. Therefore, they cannot fully devote themselves to the investigation.

Three of the UML lawmakers, who are on the recommendation committee, are currently touring their constituencies. “The ruling parties neither consulted us while registering the motion in Parliament nor before presenting it today [Sunday],” Tumbahangphe told the Post. “The impeachment motion is a sensitive issue which needs to be probed seriously by following a due process.”

Officials at the parliament secretariat say it will take at least three-four days for the recommendation committee to hold its first meeting. And it will take a couple of more days to prepare the working procedure.

Laxmi Prasad Gautam, secretary for the recommendation committee, said the senior-most member of the committee will consult with members and call the first meeting.

“The committee will then prepare a working procedure and elect its coordinator before formally commencing its investigation,” he told the Post. “The chief justice will be called for his clarification on the charges and the committee may also consult experts.”

The 11-member committee has four lawmakers from the UML, two each from the Congress and the CPN (Maoist Centre) and one each from the CPN (Unified Socialist), the Janata Samajbadi Party and the Loktantrik Samajbadi Party. The committee will endorse its report in consensus or through a vote and submit it to Parliament, according to Gautam.

Experts on parliamentary affairs say completing the probe against Rana in 15 days, as claimed by Congress lawmakers, is impossible because the recommendation committee needs concrete evidence to impeach Rana and the process is time-consuming.

“The motion has been forwarded just to show that the ruling parties had at least tried to impeach Rana,” Surya Kiran Gurung, a former general secretary at the parliament secretariat, told the Post. “The motion won’t be put to a vote without the assurance of a two-thirds majority in its favour. However, the UML appears to be against the motion. So I think the term of the House will expire before taking any decision on the motion.”

The impeachment motion against Rana cannot be endorsed without the support of the UML, the main opposition, which has 98 lawmakers in the House. To impeach Rana, the motion needs to be passed by a two-thirds majority in the 271-strong House, for which 181 lawmakers must vote in its favour.

“The opposition lawmakers must be clear whether they stand with the motion or oppose it. We can endorse the motion if the UML wants. Time is not a problem,” said Haribol Gajurel, a Maoist Centre lawmaker in the House. “It seems the UML wants to protect Rana.”

This article was originally published in the Kathmandu Post.

Nepal: Beset by Political, Legal Challenges, Timely Conduct of Elections Seems Unlikely

With the ruling coalition in a disarray, there are fears that it will break sooner or later, creating political uncertainty that will affect the election process.

As per the constitutional provisions, Nepal should complete elections to local governments by the first half of this year and initiate the process of holding the elections to the national parliament and provincial assemblies by the end of the year.

Due to the multiple pressing issues that the country has been facing, there are doubts about the timely conduct of elections. The fragile ruling coalition itself is divided over numerous political controversies. The US’s $500 million grant under Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) has created a gulf inside the ruling coalition, as its members have divergent views on it.

The Nepali Congress favours endorsing the MCC grant in its current shape while two key coalition partners, CPN (Maoist Center) and CPN (Unified Socialist), want to amend some so-called objectionable provisions. Due to the differences over the grant, there are fears among member parties that the coalition could split.

Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba seems determined to endorse MCC before the elections, but other coalition partners want to deal with the issue after the elections.

With all the brouhaha, MCC is set to become an electoral agenda in the upcoming elections. So, there are also chances of MCC becoming an instrument for fissures in the five-party coalition, possibly paving the way for a new one.

Possible split in the ruling coalition? 

In Nepal, MCC has turned into a controversial issue, as it is perceived to be linked with the US’s Indo-Pacific strategy. Some politicians have also raised concerns that some of the MCC compact provisions supersede Nepal’s constitution. However, the US has made it clear that MCC does not have any military components, and Nepal’s constitution prevails over the MCC compact.

Amid fears about the coalition’s future, PM Deuba, for the first time after becoming prime minister last July, held a one-on-one meeting with main opposition leader CPN (UML) chairman K.P. Oli, seeking the latter’s support for the endorsement of MCC. Along with MCC, two leaders also discussed ending the parliamentary deadlock.

Nepal Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba. Photo: Reuters/File

The main opposition, CPN-UML, has been hampering the functioning of the lower parliamentary chamber, House of Representatives (HoR), raising constitutional issues concerning the role of speaker Agni Prasad Sapkota from the Maoist party. CPN-UML had alleged that the speaker was biased when he refused to confirm the expulsion of 14 lawmakers from the party.

The CPN-UML believes that the speaker should not recognise the split which led to the formation of CPN (Unified Socialist) chaired by former prime minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, his long-time colleague.

In the meeting with Oli, PM Deuba urged Oli to end the obstruction in House and allow the MCC compact to be tabled in the House. Oli responded to Deuba, saying that if the latter takes the initiative to meet his party’s demand, he is ready to support the MCC compact.

Also read: Winds of Political Change As Nepali Congress Party ‘Elects’ New Leadership, Youth Get Priority

He reportedly conveyed that his support for the MCC compact was conditional on Deuba breaking the ruling alliance. So far, CPN-UML has maintained a strategic silence over MCC though it favoured early endorsement while it was in government.

Similarly, Oli believes that as parliament is not functioning well, it is better to go for early elections dissolving the parliament. Before being prime minister in July, Deuba had the same position that the country should go for early elections. Coalition partners fear that the issue of MCC and early elections could bring Deuba and Oli together, which means the split of the current fragile coalition.

Uncertainty over elections 

Along with the House, there is a deadlock over the judiciary. Nepal Bar Association, an umbrella organisation of lawyers, has been demanding Chief Justice Choleddra S.J.B. Rana’s resignation. The protests by the legal fraternity have badly affected the functioning of the judiciary, denying service to the people. However, parties are sharply divided on how to respond to the crisis in the judiciary.

Amid such deadlock and uncertainty, timing is running out for holding the elections of local governments. In 2017, Nepal had the elections of a three-tier government provision in the new constitution adopted in 2015.

According to the Election Commission, a constitutional body for holding the elections, the term of local governments expires on May 19. But, there are some ambiguities in the constitution and electoral laws. Local Level Election Act, 2017 states that elections for the heads of local governments must be held two months before the expiry of their tenure. But Article 225 of the constitution states that “the term of a village assembly and of a municipal assembly shall be five years from the date of election and another leadership shall be elected not later than six months of the expiration of such a term”.

The EC has decided to go ahead with the provision of law, which means holding elections before the expiry of terms. But, EC does not have the mandate to announce the dates for elections. The constitutional body has proposed holding local-level elections on April 27. However, the government has not decided on the dates for elections. Only a consensus among parties can end the legal ambiguity and set the dates for elections.

There have not been any discussions among parties on how to move ahead with elections as they had remained busy holding their general conventions. At the same time, parties are calculating their electoral prospects as newly formed parties and ruling alliance partners are yet to build their grass-root organisational strength, so they want to buy time.

For holding the elections, the consensus within the ruling coalition about the dates of the election is a prerequisite, as well as securing the support of the principal opposition party. If the political parties are serious about holding elections on time, they should reach a consensus immediately, because EC said that it requires 120 days to prepare for holding the polls.

If the local government elections are not held on time, it will affect national elections. As more rights and resources are devolved to local governments, they cannot remain without elected authorities for long, affecting development and governance issues. There are also fears that the current coalition will break sooner or later, creating further political uncertainty that will affect the election process.

Kamal Dev Bhattarai is a Kathmandu-based political commentator and journalist.

Nepal President Dissolves Parliament; Announces Mid-Term Polls in November

Bhandari’s announcement came after Prime Minister Oli recommended the dissolution of the 275-member House following an emergency midnight Cabinet meeting.

Kathmandu: Nepal President Bidya Devi Bhandari on Saturday dissolved the House of Representatives and announced mid-term polls on November 12 and 19 after she determined that both embattled Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli and the Opposition alliance were not in a position to form a government.

Bhandari’s announcement came after Prime Minister Oli recommended the dissolution of the 275-member House following an emergency midnight Cabinet meeting.

A press statement issued by the Office of President said the parliament was dissolved and dates of mid-term polls were announced in line with Article 76 (7) of the Constitution of Nepal.

The council of ministers has recommended conducting the first phase of the poll on November 12 and the second phase on November 19.

The move followed a notice from the Office of the President which said that it could appoint neither K.P. Sharma Oli, the incumbent prime minister, nor Sher Bahadur Deuba, Nepali Congress president, as claims made by both to form a new government were insufficient.

With four lawmakers in the 275-member House of Representatives dismissed by their party after they chose to be part of another party, a prime ministerial candidate requires the support of at least 136 lawmakers in parliament to form a new government.

Also read: Why Was Nepal PM Oli so Desperate to Woo Hindus?

Interestingly, both Oli and Deuba had claimed the support of some lawmakers, whose names were included in the list of both of them, according to Nepalese media reports.

This is the second time President Bhandari has dissolved Parliament on the recommendation of Prime Minister Oli following a political crisis.

Last year on December 20, President Bhandari had dissolved Parliament but later it was reinstated by the Supreme Court in February.

Nepal’s political crisis had taken a dramatic turn on Friday as Prime Minister Oli and the Opposition parties staked separate claims for the formation of a new government by submitting letters of support from lawmakers to the President.

Prime Minister Oli had reached the President’s Office Shital Niwas and presented his list, a couple of minutes ahead of the Opposition leaders.

Oli was the first to declare that he had the support of 153 lawmakers of the House of Representatives, a day after recommending to the president to initiate the process for the formation of a new government in accordance to Article 76(5) of the Constitution, citing that he does not have adequate support to go through another floor test.

The letter he submitted had his signature along with the signatures of Janata Samajbadi Party-Nepal chair Mahanta Thakur and the party’s parliamentary party leader Rajendra Mahato.

Likewise, Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba along with other leaders of the Opposition alliance reached Shital Niwas with signatures of 149 lawmakers including 27 lawmakers from the Khanal-Nepal faction of the CPN-UML.

The president apparently told the Opposition leaders that she would take a call after consulting constitutional experts, The Himalayan Times reported.

However, a dispute emerged after a few lawmakers from the Madhav Nepal faction put out statements claiming that their signatures were misused and that they did not sign any paper to install Opposition leader Deuba as the prime minister against their own party chief, the report said.

Soon after the mid-term elections were announced, major political parties slammed Prime Minister Oli and President Bhandari for their unconstitutional moves.

Bishwa Prakash Sharma, Nepali Congress spokesperson, said, People are fighting the pandemic, and is this the gift to the people? The PM is riding on his imaginary highway of dictatorship. A collective raping of the Constitution will prove costly.

Barsha Man Pun, Maoist Center leader, said: This is a midnight robbery. Gyanendra Shah used to choose Fridays and midnights for similar moves. K.P. Oli is a stooge for those who did not like our Constitution, and this is an attack on democracy and our Constitution.

Shekhar Koirala, senior Nepali Congress leader, termed the late development as unconstitutional.

The move has pushed the country into a scary conflict. This move by the president cannot be pardoned,” he said.

Ramesh Lekhak, another Nepali Congress leader, tweeted that the president forgot her duty and trashed the Constitution; she cannot protect and preserve democracy.

The fresh rounds of political chaos, at a time when the coronavirus is raging across the country, can invite more confrontation and political uncertainty, the Republica reported.

There is fear that the new political developments will push the country toward a prolonged crisis, the paper said.

Nepal plunged into a political crisis on December 20 last year after President Bhandari dissolved the House and announced fresh elections on April 30 and May 10 at the recommendation of Prime Minister Oli, amidst a tussle for power within the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP).

Oli’s move to dissolve the House sparked protests from a large section of the NCP led by his rival Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’. In February, the apex court reinstated the dissolved House, in a setback to Oli who was preparing for snap polls.

On Gender and Social Inclusion, Nepal’s Politics Has a Long Way to Go

Despite political reservation systems, Nepali women, Dalits and other marginalised groups remain severely under represented. 

Despite political reservation systems, Nepali women, Dalits and other marginalised groups remain severely under-represented.

By law, women must comprise 33% of each legislative body in Nepal. Credit: Reuters

By law, women must comprise 33% of each legislative body in Nepal. Credit: Reuters

Over the past nine months, Nepal has held elections for local level officials, provincial assemblies and two houses of national parliament. In total, the country elected 334 members of parliament (275 in the lower house and 59 in the upper house), 550 representatives for seven provincial assemblies and local representatives at 753 local administrations across the country.

The election process was finalised on February 14, when the Election Commission confirmed results under the proportional representation system.

With the completion of elections, Nepal is well on its way to implementing the country’s 2015 constitution, which explicitly affirms a commitment to “build an egalitarian society founded on the proportional inclusive and participatory principles.” In accordance, Nepali law provides reserved seats in the government for women and certain caste and ethnic groups at all levels.

However, despite these laws, many marginalised groups – most significantly, women and Dalits – remain severely under-represented. Most political parties remain dominated by the higher-caste Khas Arya group, relegating other groups to less powerful positions.

However, some historically marginalised groups – most notably, the Madhesis – have achieved a higher degree of political representation through identity-based political assertion. But overall, the results suggest that Nepali political parties still have a long way to go in terms of transforming their attitudes towards social inclusion.

How Nepal’s reservations system works and how it is different from India’s

Nepal has provisions for social inclusion at each level of government.

At the local level, municipality and rural municipality assemblies are headed by a mayor or chair and also include a deputy mayor/deputy chair, ward chairs and other ward representatives from each ward in the area. Each ward has one seat reserved for a woman of any caste or ethnicity and one seat reserved for a Dalit woman.

Additionally, during campaigning, each party must nominate a female candidate for either the mayor/chair seat or the deputy mayor/deputy chair seat (they almost always choose the latter, as will be discussed below.) All seats at the local level are directly elected.

A mixed system is used at the provincial and national level. Each provincial assembly and the lower house of parliament comprises 60% directly-elected seats and 40% proportional representation (PR) seats. For the PR seats, voters cast ballots for a party rather than a specific candidate, and then the parties choose their representatives for the seats they have won.

Also read

  • What the success of the Left Alliance means for Nepal, Biswas Baral explains

  • Amish Raj Mulmi on what India can do to mend ties with Nepal

  • Vishnu Sharma views on what the merger of Nepal’s communist parties means for their two leaders and India

By law, women must comprise 33% of each legislative body, and seats within the PR system are reserved for caste and ethnic categories based on the proportion of the population they represent. Such categories include Adibasi-Janjati (indigenous groups), Dalits, Madhesis, Tharus and Muslims. Notably, the Khas Arya also have their own reservation.

This system is different from the reserved seats for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the Indian Lok Sabha and state legislatures. While in India, the seats are directly elected, the reserved seats in Nepali legislative bodies are proportionally elected. This is a crucial difference because candidates who get PR seats owe them to their political party bosses, rather than to their own victory in an election.

As a result, the PR seats are widely seen as lacking power; occupants feel strong pressure to toe official party lines. In addition, the Nepali system differs from the Indian system in that the highest castes – the Khas Arya – are also included in the reservation system.

A woman casts her vote during the parliamentary and provincial elections in Bhaktapur, Nepal December 7, 2017. Credit: Reuters/Navesh Chitrakar

A woman casts her vote during the parliamentary and provincial elections in Bhaktapur, Nepal December 7, 2017. Credit: Reuters/Navesh Chitrakar

Women, Dalits and Muslims severely under-represented

Despite the laws designed to promote inclusion, women, Dalits and Muslims remain underrepresented, especially in powerful positions.

Women make up just over half of Nepal’s population. But women make up 33.1% of the lower house of parliament, mostly through the less powerful PR seats – only 3.6% of directly elected members of parliament are women. In provincial assemblies, women make up only 5% of directly elected seats. Local administrations are also dominated by men. Only 2% of mayors and rural municipality chairs are women since most parties fulfilled the inclusion requirement by nominating women for the deputy positions instead.

As a result, 91% of deputy mayors and chairs are women. This unusual contrast shows how parties have made a mockery of the principle of gender inclusion on which the law was based.

Likewise, Dalits are significantly under-represented at the national and provincial levels, with representation at roughly half or less than half their population share, mostly through the PR system. At the local level, reserved ward seats for Dalit women are an important avenue for inclusion, but Dalits still make up only 1% of mayors, even though they equal roughly 14% of the national population.

Muslims, who make up 4.4% of the population, are also significantly under-represented. They are the only categorised group to lack a single member in the upper house of parliament or national assembly.

Progress for Adibasi-Janjatis, Tharus and Madhesis

Historically, marginalised Adibasi-Janjati groups remain under-represented at the national and provincial levels, though not quite as badly as women, Dalits or Muslims. However, Adibasi-Janjatis fared well at the local level, garnering 33% of mayor/chair and 35% of deputy mayor/deputy chair seats – higher than their population share of 29%.

However, it should be noted that these victories were concentrated in rural areas rather than urban areas. The situation of Tharus, an indigenous group from the Terai region who have their own reservation category, is similar to that of Adibasi-Janjatis, although they did not fare quite as strongly at the local level.

Madhesis, another historically marginalised group, have now achieved significant representation in government. At the national level, Madhesis make up 18.2% of the lower house of parliament – slightly more than their population share of 15.3% (the figure used by the Election Commission, although it is disputed by Madhesi activists).

Madhesis are well-represented among the directly elected seats too. In Province 2, the Madhesi heartland, two Madhesi parties – the Rastriya Janata Party Nepal and Sanghiya Samajwadi Forum – together won a majority, although it now appears the Forum may align with the Left Alliance, which won provincial assemblies throughout the rest of the country.

Madhesis, a historically marginalised group, have now achieved significant representation in government. Credit: Reuters

Madhesis, a historically marginalised group, have now achieved significant representation in government. Credit: Reuters

Khas-Arya domination

High caste people from the hills – the Khas Arya – remain singularly dominant in Nepali politics. They are the most over-represented group at all levels of government, especially in powerful positions. Khas Aryas make up only 31% of the national population, but they constitute a majority of seats in the national assembly and a majority of directly-elected seats in the lower house and in all of the provincial assemblies combined.

Khas Arya representation is boosted by the reservations system since they are included in it. At the local level, Khas Aryas control almost half of all mayor/chair and deputy mayor/deputy chair seats. It is also worth noting that within parties, central leadership remains dominated by Khas Arya, and the current prime minister, Khadga Prasad Oli, belongs to this group, as have all of 13 prime ministers since 1990.

Nepal's Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli, also known as KP Oli, observes a minute of silence for earthquake victims during an event organised to mark the 18th National Earthquake Safety Day and the official launch of earthquake reconstruction efforts in Bungamati village, Nepal January 16, 2016. Credit: Reuters/Files

Nepal’s Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli. Credit: Reuters/Files

Lessons to be learnt

Results suggest Nepal’s political parties are yet to internalise the principle of inclusion. While following the letter of the law regarding reservations, as a whole, parties continue to privilege their Khas Arya members whilst neglecting significant other sections of the population.

The results also suggest that, for better or worse, historically marginalised groups that engage in identity-based political assertion achieve greater representation. The Madhesis, for example, staged widespread movements for their rights in 2007, 2008 and 2015-16, which contributed to their greater representation in government today.

Adibasi-Janajatis and Tharus, who are slightly less well-represented, have also organised along ethnic lines, although they have yet to build nationally-relevant political parties like the Madhesis.

The most under-represented groups, like women and Dalits, have lacked strong political organisation. For example, Dalits are spread throughout the country, lacking a heartland like the Madhesis, and remain victims of ongoing caste stigma – factors that hamper attempts at political organising.

It is worth noting that the ethnic and caste categories currently used for the reservations system can disguise ongoing discrimination. For example, the Adibasi-Janjati group consists of a variety of sub-groups, some of which fare better than others – the Newars, for example, are still much better-represented than the Tamangs. Likewise, Madhesi representation has been dominated by Yadavs and high castes, often leaving out other Madhesi populations.

In sum, Nepali politics still has a long way to go before it is truly inclusive.

Bhola Paswan is a Nepali journalist who focuses on Madhesi and Dalit issues. He writes for Kantipur, Nagarik and Naya Patrika, and tweets @paswanbhola. Peter Gill is an American journalist based in Nepal. He tweets @pitaarji.

Why Nepal Is Still Caught in a Political Deadlock Over the Formation of Its New Government

As political parties refuse to come to an understanding weeks after Nepal’s historic election results were declared, there is still no trace of a new government.

As political parties refuse to come to an understanding weeks after Nepal’s historic election results were declared, there is still no trace of a new government.

President Bidya Devi Bhandari sat on an ordinance on the federal upper house for two months. Credit: Reuters

President Bidya Devi Bhandari sat on an ordinance on the federal upper house for two months. Credit: Reuters

Kathmandu: The communist coalition’s landslide win in Nepal’s recent elections set off tremors within and without but several weeks have since gone by without the new government in sight. The elections were meant to mark the final phase in the country’s long political transition from the abolition of the monarchy to the establishment of an inclusive, federal republic. The fact that they haven’t is as much a reflection of old political habits as it is of last minute constitutional and administrative wrinkles.

The first reason for the delay in the formation of the national assembly was President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s decision to sit on an ordinance on the federal upper house for two months even though she had no legal authority to do so.  Bhandari – who was elected as the (nominal) head of state on the recommendation of the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxists Leninists (CPN-UML) – is angling for another term as president, and was acting on the instruction of her mother party, the UML, which has emerged as the single biggest political entity after the recently-completed elections for three tiers of governments: local, provincial and federal. The UML reigned supreme on each tier. Together with its alliance partner, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), the UML will now have an absolute majority in the 275-member federal lower house and it will also get to form the government, in an alliance with the Maoists again, in six of the seven federal provinces.

But while the election to the lower house is based on universal adult franchise, the upper house is to be elected based on electoral colleges comprised of elected representatives at the local and provincial levels. The ordinance on the upper house, that was forwarded by the current (Nepal Congress-led) caretaker government of Sher Bahadur Deuba to the president, had proposed that election to the upper house be based on ‘single transferable vote’. This method would ensure some presence of the ruling Nepali Congress as well as of other smaller parties in the upper chamber.

Blocked out

But UML opposed the system. Following its sweeping victory in the local elections, the first of the three elections, UML wanted a majoritarian system of election to the upper house to help it get the most seats. It thus lobbied for the upper house to be elected based on ‘block votes’, which, given the new electoral map of Nepal, would have meant that nearly all of the 59-member national assembly would be filled by UML and Maoist appointees.

Interestingly, the original ordinance had also proposed a block-vote system, which the ruling Congress changed when it became clear that this system would not suit it. This is why President Bhandari was under UML pressure to not approve the ordinance. Prime Minister Deuba, meanwhile, insisted that he would not step down before the formation of the upper house on the basis of single-transferable vote. The UML-Maoist left alliance and its leader KP Sharma Oli appeared as rigid on block votes.

Thus the impasse over the formation of new government dragged on for a fortnight after the publication of the final results of the first-past-the-post (FPTP) component of the combined provincial and federal elections. But with Oli itching to become prime minster again, and with seemingly no other way to remove Deuba, the UML leader was forced to give his tacit nod to the ordinance.

Thus, after holding on to the ordinance for two months since the Deuba government first forwarded it, President Bhandari gave it her blessing on December 30. Theoretically, this cleared the way for the formation of the new government.

But the new government may still take more time to fashion. Completing the complicated process of electing the upper house is expected to take around a month and a half. Before that, the government will have to appoint governors of all seven provinces as well as fix the temporary headquarters of the provinces. Both of these tasks will entail a great deal of controversy. For instance, Deuba wants to appoint governors before leaving office; UML and Maoist leaders insist that their provincial cabinets will not take oath under Deuba’s appointees.

Provincial pressures

The task of fixing temporary provincial headquarters is no less dicey. People want the headquarters to be close to their homes so that they don’t have to travel long distances for official duties. There have predictably been protests and counter-protests against some proposed temporary headquarters. The locals of the eastern hill town of Dhankuta, for example, want the headquarter of Province 1 for themselves, even though the old industrial town of Biratnagar in the Tarai plains is the most natural contender. People fear that setting up of temporary headquarters somewhere else will be tantamount to completely giving up their claim. Province-level politicians are under tremendous pressure to establish these headquarters close to home.

Then there is the issue of the appointment of women in parliament. According to the new constitution, there should be at least 33% women in the national parliament. But only six out of 165 lawmakers (or under 4%) who were elected in the federal parliament under FPTP system are women. The remaining quota must be filled up through the proportional representation (PR) component. The Election Commission thus has to clearly vet the list of PR names submitted by the political parties to ensure women’s adequate representation. It will likewise have to vet the parties’ lists for mandatory representation of other marginalised communities, again as provided in the new constitution. All this will take time.

This is why the left alliance has been constantly lobbying with the election commission to shorten this lengthy process. It argues that since the alliance already has enough seats to form the government, there is no legal hurdle in replacing Deuba as prime minister. But Congress argues that a new government can be formed only after both the upper and lower houses of federal parliament come into being.

Doing it with grace

In the best-case scenario, the new government could be formed some time in mid-February. It will not be at all surprising for the process to be held up if there are mass demonstrations against some of the proposed administrative headquarters or because a legal case is filed against a government decision impacting the formation of the new federal setup. Deuba could also look to hang on by using every trick in his well-thumbed political book. The recent news of a rift between Oli and Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ will further encourage Deuba’s Congress.

Yet the left alliance is unlikely to implode. Both Oli and Prachanda know that they need each other. Oli will not be able to become prime minister without Prachanda’s help; Prachanda’s own ambition to return to power will be thwarted if he moves away from Oli now. The best way to ensure the longevity of the alliance would be for Oli and Prachanda to agree to become prime minister for two-and-a-half years each in a five-year term. Whether such an arrangement will be in Nepal’s interest is a different question altogether.

Nonetheless, with UML conceding the Nepali Congress’s demand for a single-transferable vote on election of the upper house, Deuba and his Congress party will be under moral pressure to reciprocate this gesture of goodwill and plan for a graceful exit.

Biswas Baral is a Kathmandu-based journalist and tweets at @biswasktm

‘Wide Angle’ Episode 14: What Does a Communist Win in Nepal Mean for India?

Maya Mirchandani discusses the Left Alliance’s victory in Nepal elections, India-Nepal relations and China’s growing influence in the region with Ranjit Rae, former Indian ambassador to Nepal.

Maya Mirchandani discusses the Left Alliance’s victory in Nepal elections, India-Nepal relations and China’s growing influence in the region with Ranjit Rae, former Indian ambassador to Nepal.

With the Left Alliance Now Dominant in Nepal, India Must Reach Out With Positive Agenda

There are strategic planners in the Indian establishment to whom the option of breaking the Left Alliance would come easily. Any such shortsighted move will be a disaster for India’s Nepal policy.

There are strategic planners in the Indian establishment to whom the option of breaking the Left Alliance would come easily. Any such shortsighted move will be a disaster for India’s Nepal policy.

The national flag of Nepal is waved during a mass gathering in Kathmandu. Credit: Reuters/Navesh Chitrakar

The national flag of Nepal is waved during a mass gathering in Kathmandu. Credit: Reuters/Navesh Chitrakar

In the recently concluded elections in Nepal, the Left Alliance of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) (UML) and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) (MC) – has registered an impressive victory. They may not gain a two-thirds lead as claimed by them during the campaign but have a firm, comfortable majority in the national parliament. They are also a dominant force in six of the seven provincial assemblies.

The elections were held under Nepal’s new constitution adopted in September 2015. These elections will elect 275 members to the House of Representatives (HoR) and 550 representatives to the assemblies of the seven newly-created provinces.

In the parliament, while 165 seats have been filled by direct elections, on the basis of first-past-the-post (FPTP), another 110 will be filled by proportional representation (PR), for which separate ballots were used. At the provincial level, 330 posts have been filled through the FPTP system, and another 220 will be nominated on the PR basis. Both these bodies will have 33% representation of women as mandated by the constitution. Any shortfall in women’s representation – as it is huge under the declared FPTP results – will have to be made up by the political parties through the PR system.

What led to Left Alliance’s victory?

What explains this impressive performance of the Left Alliance, forged just on the eve of elections? In the first place, credit must go to the alliance leaders, K.P. Sharma Oli of the UML and Pushpa Kamal Dahal of the Maoist Centre. Both of them carry a bit of a charisma – they are articulate and effective communicators, have the organisational acumen and are politically agile and manipulative. They were backed by strong organisational support and campaigned for giving Nepali people stability, peace and prosperity.

There were doubts if the cadres of these two communist parties, which have been locked in adversarial conflict and rivalry for years, would support each others’ candidates. The elections results have set such doubts aside.

The victory of the Left Alliance has been greatly facilitated by a weak and directionless opposition put up by the Nepali Congress (NC) led by Sher Bahadur Deuba. There was an attempt by the NC to forge a democratic alliance with the Madhes-based and other non-Communist parties in order to counter the Left Alliance, but this grouping failed to firm up. Considerations of personal egos, political turf and the lack of organisational resilience came in the way, so much so that in some places, Madhes-based leaders not only ended up contesting against the NC but even fought and won on UML tickets. Some ranking Congress leaders like Bimalendra Nidhi were trounced by their rivals like Rajendra Mahto of the Madhes-based Rastriya Janata Party (RJP).

Pushpa Kamal Dahal, known as Prachanda, (left) greets K.P. Sharma Oli. Credit: Reuters

Pushpa Kamal Dahal, known as Prachanda, (left) greets K.P. Sharma Oli. Credit: Reuters

The Nepali Congress also ran a lacklustre campaign. Its main plank was to scare people against the possibility of the Left Alliance imposing a totalitarian state, which did not cut much ice with the Nepali voters. In their assessment, Nepal’s communist parties, barring their alienated extremists factions, have been democratised as they have come to power through ballot in the past and learned to share power and governance with the other democratic parties including the NC and the Madhes parties.

The Nepali Congress said very little about its development agenda for Nepal and even failed to highlight many of its own achievements, such as always being in the forefront of Nepal’s struggle for democracy, ushering in the new constitution and holding all the three constitutionally mandated elections at the local, provincial and parliamentary levels in a short time of 18 months against heavy odds. No wonder that it has ended up with only 23 elected seats at the national level, though they are very close to the UML in PR votes.

The Madhes parties also did not put up a strong electoral showing. Except in province 2, they lost in the other six provinces to the Left Alliance, both at the provincial as well as national level. With the exception of a couple of leaders, most were uninspiring in their campaign. They could not forge firm unity amongst themselves and had two competing formations – the RJP and the Federal Socialist Forum of Nepal led by Upendra Yadav. Yet another important Madhes-based group of the Tharu community led by Bijay Gachhadar even merged with the NC on the eve of the elections. But this helped neither the NC nor the Tharus. Another emerging Madhesi leader, C.K. Raut, boycotted the elections and campaigned for voters to cast negative votes. He has been asking for an independent Madhes. As a result of fragmentation among the Madhes groups, the cause of Madhes accommodation pleaded by them has suffered a loss of political credibility at the national level.

An important aspect of the Nepal election has also been the rout of regressive forces that want Nepal to become a Hindu state under a constitutional monarchy.

This is evident in the miserable failure of the two Rastriya Prajatantra Party factions. All their leaders have lost and their vote count has suffered so severely that they will not be able to secure 3% of the total PR votes required to be recognised as ‘national parties’. Against them, two smaller parties which have also failed in securing ‘national party’ status, have done better. They are Bibeksheel Sajha Party led by Rabindra Mishra and the Naya Shakti Party led by former Maoist Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai. While the Sajha Party has failed to get elected at the national or provincial level, it has secured nearly two lakh PR votes and stands sixth after the RJP in that order. The Naya Shakti Party has failed to garner much PR votes but has succeeded in sending one representative to parliament and two to the provincial assemblies. Both these new parties stand for a corruption-free and transparent political system and good, people-centric governance.

Nepalis want stability, development

It would be a mistake to read the emergence of the Left Alliance as Nepal’s preference for communism. In their vote for the alliance, Nepali voters have clearly expressed their new nationalism which has three key components – the search for political stability and peace, the demand for fast and comprehensive development and assertion against India.

While it was a monarchy, Nepal was governed as a rentier state without any concern for the well-being of the people. Since the beginning of the 1990s, Nepalis have lived with violence and instability precipitated by the Maoist insurgency.

The successful people’s movement of 2005-06 and the mainstreaming of the Maoists unleashed the hopes and aspirations of ordinary Nepalis for stability and development. These aspirations were, however, belied by the Nepali politicians’ continued power struggle and lack of institutionalisation of democracy due to perennial political instability. Even the reconstruction of earthquake-inflicted destruction was ignored in the midst of political games. Now after the adoption of the new constitution, Nepalis want order, stability and development.

Also read: Eleven Years in the Making, Left Alliance Could Herald New Era of Political Stability in Nepal

The main question before the new Left Alliance government will be to address these aspirations by measuring up to the promises made during the election campaign by the top UML and Maoist leaders. The very first pre-condition for the Left Alliance to perform on its promises is to maintain unity, even if they fail to forge the promised merger of the two parties. A merger may not be easy for the UML and the Maoists as they have serious ideological differences, and divergent political approaches regarding some of the key political and constitutional issues like constitutional amendments for accommodating the remaining Madhes demands, working of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to complete the peace process, creation of new institutions like the ‘Executive/Effective Presidency’ and working out credible power-sharing arrangements to satisfy their respective cadres.

A man cast his vote on a ballot box during the parliamentary and provincial elections at Chautara in Sindhupalchok District November 26, 2017. Credit: Reuters/Navesh Chitrakar

A man cast his vote on a ballot box during the parliamentary and provincial elections at Chautara in Sindhupalchok District November 26, 2017. Credit: Reuters/Navesh Chitrakar

The Left Alliance is not going to get a two-thirds majority after the PR votes are added and this will force them to take the opposition groups on board for any constitutional change. Both Oli and Prachanda have led governments at different times and under different political arrangements. They are known for efficient power management and political consolidation. They have to desist from the politics of patronage and party/personal control of constitutional and governing institutions they have been apt in pursuing so far.

This is a tall order and time will tell how the Left Alliance conducts itself. Strains in any of these areas can impinge heavily on the unity of the alliance. In the final analysis after the PR vote counting, the UML may not have an absolute majority on its own (The UML has 80 seats and they may need 50 plus more for absolute majority from the PR quota which does nook look possible), prompting the Maoists to look for greener pastures elsewhere if the alliance keeps them uncomfortable as a subordinate partner. The possibility of Oli reaching out to either NC or Madhes-based parties to liberate himself from the Maoists is a rather remote proposition.

Challenges from outside Nepal

Outside the domestic challenge, the Left Alliance also has to cope with Nepal’s two giant neighbours – India and China. The UML under Oli had opened Nepal’s option of cultivating China to diversify its heavy dependence on India in the matters of trade and transit. Prachanda and the Maoists have always looked towards China as a counterbalance to pressures from India. Since the launching of its Belt and Road Initiative, China is also keen to expand its economic engagement and strategic space in Nepal under the excuse of facilitating Oli’s and Prachanda’s developmental agenda. China was looking forward to the victory of the Left Alliance, and is assiduously working to see this alliance turn into a single party to help it carry forward its economic and strategic initiatives in Nepal.

The Left Alliance had objected to the Deuba government’s cancellation of the Budhi Gandaki power project with a Chinese concern and promised to reverse this decision. In pursuing its engagement with China, the Left Alliance may find it prudent to be careful on two counts. One, it should avoid entering into such projects with   China that can lead it into a long-term debt-trap, as has been the case with countries like Sri Lanka, Myanmar, the Maldives, or even Pakistan. Secondly, it may be well advised to steer clear of such projects that may trigger India’s security sensitivities and concerns. Both Oli and Prachanda are intelligent and experienced leaders. They are acutely aware of the structural constraints and avoidable red lines inherent in India-Nepal relations. That is why they have repeatedly and publicly been stating their desire to bring a balance in building co-operative relations with both their northern and southern neighbours. Let us hope they create a new and credible framework of Nepal’s foreign policy to do so.

How India contributed to rise of Left Alliance

If the  victory of theLeft Alliance is seen as bad news in New Delhi, the fact is that India has unwittingly contributed to the rise of both the Left Alliance and the new Nepali nationalism with anti-India undertones. Recall some of the recent developments in India-Nepal relations – Delhi’s brazen diplomatic intervention in Nepal’s constitutional process through the sending of its foreign secretary to halt that process in September 2015; its coercive economic diplomacy to punish Oli for not responding to its constitutional preferences regarding accommodation of Madhesi demands; its blessings for unseating Oli once by supporting Sushil Koirala against him in 2015 and then by encouraging Prachanda to defect and align with the NC in 2016.

Also read: What the Success of the Left Alliance Means for Nepal

All this not only alienated Oli, who had remained a friend of India for several decades, but also infuriated the Nepali people – who bore the brunt of this coercive economic diplomacy. This created conditions for Oli to cleverly exploit Nepali sentiments against India and the Madhes to crystallise an anti-India nationalism and consolidate his power base on it. By opening up the Chinese option in the ‘wake of coercion from India’ he successfully projected his image of being a strong leader who could brave Indian pressures. The election results are a reward for his deft political moves in this respect.

Prachanda with India PM Narendra Modi. Credit: PTI

Prachanda with India PM Narendra Modi. Credit: PTI

India must now to cope with the victory of the Left Alliance and the rise of new Nepali nationalism. There are strategic planners in the Prime Minister’s Office, the external affairs ministry and other parts of the establishment to whom the option of breaking the Left Alliance would come easily. Any such shortsighted move will be a disaster for India’s Nepal policy. If the alliance has to break, it will do so on its own as many of its internal tensions have been identified earlier. There are also political heavyweights within the ruling BJP who want to turn Nepal into a Hindu state and revive its constitutional monarchy for resisting the rise of the communists and China in Nepal. They need to learn from the electoral outcome that the Nepali people have smashed the forces of feudalism and Hindutva.

India, instead of launching down the path of these disastrous adventures, must help the alliance stabilise and give good governance to the Nepali people. India has to take initiatives to firmly demonstrate, not through words but actions, that it is a true friend of the Nepali people and sincerely wants to cooperate in their developmental efforts. It must complete long pending projects in Nepal and initiate new ones that create confidence and goodwill among ordinary Nepalese.

This is not the first time that India has had to deal with a communist regime in Kathmandu. As Nepalis, particularly the communist parties, are keen on revising some of the old agreements and treaties, like the one of 1950 on Peace and Friendship, India must respond with sincereity and ensure that while protecting its core interests, Nepal’s sentiments are also respected. India has done this in case of Bhutan and should do the same for Nepal now. Though the Chinese challenge is becoming formidable for India in its immediate neighbourhood, Indian policymakers must accept that the neighbouring countries’ affection for China is shaped considerably by their alienation from India. Part of the challenge of China in the neighbourhood can be met by India revisiting and recasting some of its own critical policy options towards smaller neighbours.

S.D. Muni is Professor Emeritus at JNU and former special envoy and ambassador, the government of India. 

What the Success of the Left Alliance Means for Nepal

There is skepticism as well as a lot of hope, and it is now up to the big parties to lead Nepal on the path to peace and prosperity.

There is skepticism as well as a lot of hope, and it is now up to the big parties to lead Nepal on the path to peace and prosperity.

Pushpa Kamal Dahal, known as Prachanda, (left) greets outgoing K.P. Sharma Oli (right). Credit: Reuters

Kathmandu: The writing had been on the wall for the Nepali Congress (NC) for some time. The largest party in the second Constituent Assembly elected in 2013 – and the party that has, since its formation in 1950, been at the vanguard of all popular movements in Nepal – was struggling in the run up to the recent provincial and federal elections. It was struggling because its leader, three-time prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, had failed to articulate a single clear electoral policy. Missing a central agenda, Congress leaders instead tried to demonise their chief opponent, the recently formed Left Alliance, a strategy that backfired badly.

Earlier, the announcement of an alliance between K.P. Sharma Oli’s Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxists Leninists (CPN-UML) and Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda’s Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Center), with an eventual merger on the cards, had come as a complete shock. Until recently, the leaders of the two parties had been at each other’s throats as each tried to project itself as the only ‘genuine’ communist force in the country, and thus to monopolise the sizable leftist vote bank. The rank and file of the parties were kept completely in the dark about the alliance, and it was not hard to surmise that the partnership had pure electoral logic – the consolidation of divided left votes – the purported ‘ideological proximity’ acting as no more than a convenient smokescreen.

Badly shaken by this announcement of left unity between the second and third biggest political parties in parliament, the Nepali Congress quickly set about cobbling together a ‘democratic alliance’ of its own with the support of Madhesi parties. The problem was that, in desperation, it embraced not just the Madhesi groups but also various hues of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) that have been campaigning for the restoration of monarchy and a Hindu state.

This messaging confused voters. The NC claimed to be the chief usher of all progressive changes in Nepal in recent times. But then it was entering an alliance with parties whose main agenda was to roll back all recent changes, including federalism and secularism. Moreover, it appeared Deuba had no vision about how to take the country forward under the new federal dispensation, which has become operational after the recent elections.

Rather than talk about their own strength, Congress leaders on the campaign trail chose to raise the bogey of a ‘communist takeover’ of the Nepali state. However, with both UML and the Maoists well-established as legitimate electoral contenders, few people bought into this scaremongering about totalitarianism.

But perhaps the biggest reason people rejected the NC this time has to do with the 2015-16 shutdown of the Nepal-India border. As the Congress has always been close to New Delhi, its leaders were at the time seen as mincing their words in condemning the ‘Indian blockade’. But while they vacillated, Oli and his comrades felt no such qualms. They openly blamed India for bringing misery to Nepalis.

Sher Bahadur Deuba. Credit: Reuters

Deuba and company were seen as weak and doing ‘India’s bidding’. In contrast, Oli came across as a strong nationalist leader who was not afraid to call a spade a spade. Oli, the blockade-time prime minister, got the credit for courageously standing up to the ‘Indian bully’.

Oli back then also signed the landmark trade and transit agreements with China. These agreements ended Nepal’s total dependency on Indian ports for business with third countries and put paid – at least in terms of optics if not reality – to India’s monopoly on the supply of fuel. Both these acts were seen favorably by Nepalis who had felt humiliated by India’s highhandedness during the standoff. India-bashing has traditionally been a foolproof electoral strategy in Nepal, and Oli milked it.

Perhaps Prachanda, who has long since abandoned his revolutionary zeal, also realised that it would for the moment be wise to align with Oli and try to steal some of his thunder. On the campaign trail, Prachanda was seen as openly projecting Oli as the new prime minister. Apparently, the deal is that while Oli will lead the country, Prachanda will head the new party formed after the left merger. (A more cynical interpretation is that Prachanda is looking for Oli, who has multiple heath issues, to step down sooner rather than later so that he can then become the undisputed communist leader in Nepal.)

China’s puppet?

Speculations are rife that with the Left alliance poised for at least a simple majority, and very likely a two-thirds majority, the new government under Oli will firmly align with China. But this would be an over-simplification of the ground realities in Nepal. Oli understands very well – as does Prachanda, who in 2009 lost his prime minister’s chair after angering India – that no government in Nepal can afford to be seen as openly anti-India. Former Indian foreign secretary Shivshankar Menon rightly refuses to label Oli ‘pro-China’ and thinks of him as ‘just another politician doing whatever is convenient to get to power’.

Oli, who was until a few years ago among India’s most trusted lieutenants in Kathmandu, embraced the pro-China nationalist image because he knew it would pay off electorally. But once in power, he will not need to be so openly hostile to India and will, in all likelihood, make efforts to mend his frayed ties with New Delhi, safe in the knowledge that there is no immediate threat to his government.

Also read: Eleven Years in the Making, Left Alliance Could Herald New Era of Political Stability in Nepal

Also, these days, it is hard to find an ‘anti-China’ political outfit in Nepal. Even within the Nepali Congress there is now a big constituency that believes Nepal’s national interest is best served by maintaining a well-calibrated distance from both India and China, and that Nepal’s ‘special relation’ with India is losing its salience. So it would be wrong to see the new left alliance as ‘pro-China’, as if the NC these days is ‘anti-China’.

India would thus do well to welcome the new left government, which promises to herald an era of long-desired political stability. If India makes an effort to mend ties, Oli, the consummate politician that he is, will reciprocate, and there is no reason Nepal-India relations, badly damaged by the blockade, cannot come back on an even keel. Stability in Kathmandu would also help New Delhi chart out a clear long-term Nepal policy.

Whatever works

But what of the fear that the Left coalition is intent on establishing a communist dictatorship? Even Congress leaders who accuse Oli of harbouring dictatorial tendencies perhaps don’t quite believe that. Nepal’s precarious geopolitical situation makes that impossible. India won’t look kindly on it. Nor have the Chinese in any way hinted of their preference for such a government. All China has been saying all these years is that it wants a stable government in Kathmandu. If the Left coalition gets a two-thirds majority, coupled with more restrictive constitutional provisions on the  filing of no-confidence motions, Nepal could well have a stable government without having to resort to dictatorial means. China, which has assiduously cultivated the Nepali Congress in recent times, also knows that the party is only one election away from power.

Rather than autocracy, with some corrupt and criminal-minded politicians elected this time, the bigger fear is that the new government will be a kleptocracy that only works for vested interests in lucrative sectors like education and medicine. But if there is some skepticism, there is also a lot of hope — hope that the new federal set-up will finally help realise the age-old dream of decentralisation of power and resources away from Kathmandu. There are still misgivings on the part of the Madhesis and it is essential that the new government address these with an open mind and broad spirit.

With the successful holding of all three sets of constitutionally-mandated elections, the long political transition that started with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord between the government and the Maoists in 2006 has formally ended. There is now tremendous pressure on the big parties to take the country on the path of peace and prosperity, and work towards the realisation of Nepal’s goal of ‘graduating’ from the ranks of the Least Developed Countries by 2022.

It is true that not all political questions have been settled. But the new constitution is an evolving document, and will change with the country’s changing needs. What the recent elections have done is put the country firmly on the path charted by the new constitution. Not everyone may approve of this new path. Yet the forces that wanted to subvert the constitution have been silenced, at least for the time being.

Biswas Baral is a Kathmandu-based journalist. He tweets @biswasktm.

Nepal Left Alliance Wins 72 Seats, Heading Towards Majority

The Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist led by former premier K. P. Oli and the CPN-Maoist led by former premier Prachanda have forged electoral alliance

An officer from election commission works to set up a polling station during the parliamentary and provincial elections at Chautara in Sindhupalchok District November 26, 2017. Credit: Reuters/Navesh Chitrakar

Voting in two-phased parliamentary and provincial assembly elections were held on November 26 and December 7. Credit: PTI

Kathmandu: Nepal’s Left alliance was today heading towards comfortable majority in the parliamentary elections, winning 72 of the 89 seats so far in the historic polls that many hope will bring the political stability to the country.

The Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) led by former premier K. P. Oli and the CPN-Maoist led by former premier Prachanda have forged electoral alliance for both the provincial and parliamentary elections.

According to results released by the Election Commission, the CPN-UML has won 51 seats while its alliance partner CPN Maoist-Centre has bagged 21 seats.

The ruling Nepali Congress, which was the largest party in the last election, won only ten seats, according to tallies.

Two Madhesi parties have won five seats.

The Federal Socialist Forum Nepal led by Upendra Yadav has won two seats whereas Rastriya Janata Party led by Mahanta Thakur has bagged three seats.

Naya Shakti Party led by former prime minister Baburam Bhattarai has won one seat and an independent was among winning candidates.

The vote counting is in progress for remaining 76 seats.

The house of representatives consists of 275 members, of which 165 would be elected directly under the first-past-the- post system while the remaining 110 will come through the proportional representation system.

Voting in two-phased parliamentary and provincial assembly elections were held on November 26 and December 7.

In the first phase, polling was held in 32 districts, mostly situated in the hilly and mountainous region, in which 65 per cent of voters had exercised their franchise. In the second phase, 67 per cent voter turnout was registered.

A total of 1,663 candidates contested polls for parliamentary seats.

(PTI)