Nepal’s politicians are hiding a democratic deficit. Look beyond the elections.

In 'Nepal', Lok Raj Baral unpacks the idea and practice of democracy in the South Asian nation, disentangling the tensions and balances between representation and governance.

Nepalese Constituent Assembly Building | Commons

Political parties in Nepal take pride in holding regular elections and forming governments with the numbers they gather. Election is one of the significant aspects of democratization but not the sole element of democratic governance. What type of political elites become representatives, and how they govern or sit in Opposition and behave are integral parts of the democratic process. If Parliament is elected but is confined to elected government, downgrading its functions, it simply becomes a ritual. In Nepal, the parliamentary system is increasingly becoming dysfunctional due to political parties’ leaders preoccupation with self-interests. What is the use of spending huge amount of money if the parliamentary institution does not function to make the government accountable and task-worthy? It is, therefore, worse than the NP (1962–90) as the former legislative body used to function vibrantly. Parliament during 2017–22 could not function properly, as most of its time was either spent without any business or was misused by disrupting the sessions. What has been more surprising and even shocking is that both the Houses of Parliament have not been able to elect the deputy speakers, who, according to the Constitution, would be a woman belonging to any party but the ruling one. And just to fulfil the quorum for constitutional committee, which appoints persons for various constitutional posts, and four months before the parliamentary elections, the NC nominee was elected deputy speaker of the House of Representatives, while the National Assembly (Upper House) still lacked deputy speaker.

In the parliamentary system, the PM is the leader of his party as well as of the country. The survival and efficient functioning of the system lies with the PM and the leader of the opposition party. However, the manner in which Parliament in Nepal is made irrelevant would not augur well for the consolidation of democracy. How parliamentary process derailed in 2021 with PM showing his antipathy to the House could be observed by the time Oli was the PM. He not only stopped Parliament from deciding his fate as the leader of the House but also used the President to dissolve the Lower House twice even while the Supreme Court had nullified his move. Instead of facing Parliament, the PM preferred to go to polls arguing that elections were the only legitimate means for renewal.

In Nepal, political parties’ leaders swear by democracy but they hardly take part in parliamentary processes. It was reported in June 2022 that almost all top leaders, including the PM, opposition party leader and other leaders did not attend Parliament but generally showed their attendance by signing in the register book. In 2022, about 60 bills were pending in Parliament but no urgency was shown by the leaders, as they were least interested in making Parliament active. Prime Minister Deuba and K.P. Oli attended Parliament 77 times out of 219, while the Maoist leader Dahal attended 103 times out of 193. There were similar examples of other leaders. The question therefore asked was: ‘How could the leaders go to the people when they do not attend Parliament?

The decline of the highest institutions could be observed by the way the President and Vice-President stooped low in taking active interest to help manage the crises of their respective parties. President Bidya Devi Bhandari actively rescued the CPN (UML) from being disintegrated. She invited the senior party leaders to her official residence to dissuade the warring leaders, PM K.P. Sharma Oli and co-chairman Dahal, from splitting the party and also became a channel of communication between her and the Chinese President Xi Jinping as the latter was equally concerned for averting the imminent split of the party.

Vice-President Nanda Bahadur Pun, who came from a Maoist background, was reported to have played a role in forging unity between Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Baburam Bhattarai. The latter had played second fiddle to Dahal during the People’s War, besides playing a decisive role in changing the Maoists into a mainstream parliamentary party in 2005.

Chief Justice Cholendra Shamsher Rana has often been dragged into controversies, sometimes for wrong reasons and at times for alleged indulgence in corruption, bargaining to appoint his relative in the cabinet and also for directing the junior judges to favour certain clients in exchange for money to be paid to him through middlemen (lawyers). He played into the hands of politicians, had been suspended following the impeachment motion registered by as many as 98 lawmakers (one-fourth members as per Article 101(2) of the Constitution) from three ruling parties—the NC, CPN (Maoist Centre) and CPN (Unified Socialist). As many as 21 charges were levelled against him for promoting corruption, facilitating the entry of middlemen in the judiciary, failure to maintain the dignity of judiciary and for misusing the constitutional responsibility by demanding a share in the government, among others. Surprisingly, the same parties’ leaders who had received support from Rana while deciding the issue of dissolution of the House of Representatives (favouring restoration) were coy on deciding the agenda of impeachment. Consequently, Rana is in a limbo, as his case has been pending in Parliament. It seems that he will retire without being exonerated or impeached.

In 2017, the NC and the CPN (Maoist Centre) filed an impeachment motion against the then Chief Justice, Sushila Karki, when the latter had allegedly not complied with the wishes of the PM and of other parties’ leaders. Later, the SC quashed the motion, enabling Karki to return to the court. How the custodian of democracy—the judiciary—has lost its credibility and dignity could be observed by such power plays between the three branches of the government. In the given context, both the judiciary and the executive seemed to be responsible for lowering the image of the independent judiciary.

The role of opposition in Parliament has been dubious and, at worst, opportunistic. The CPN (UML) failed to play a responsible role, and instead, engaged in avenging those who were active to oust it from power. After blocking parliamentary processes for eight months, the main opposition party unilaterally decided to allow the proceedings of the House. It was presumably done after knowing that its image had been tarnished.

This excerpt from ‘Nepal’ by Lok Raj Baral has been published with permission from Rupa Publications.