Politics in Nepal took a dramatic turn following two significant decisions made by the Supreme Court on February 23 and March 7, 2021. The first verdict overturned Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli’s decision to dissolve the House of Representatives (lower house). The second verdict invalidated the registration of the Nepal Communist Party (NCP).
Challenge to Oli
The first verdict reinstating Parliament cast a slur on the Prime Minister who, without respecting the letter and spirit of the 2015 Constitution, dissolved the lower house and called for a general election to be held, which was an irony given the huge majority in his favour. Mr. Oli, in fact, wanted to marginalise his party detractors, especially Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda) and Madhav Kumar Nepal, as they were challenging him for his arrogance and flawed style of governance. This was also a conflict between the communist pattern of conducting party affairs, as Lenin did while maintaining democratic centralism, and a multi-party parliamentary system that stresses on accountability and tolerance.
Comment | Back to Parliament in Nepal
Mr. Oli tried to run the show in his own way maintaining that the huge electoral mandate gained by the party in 2017 was due to his own popular image. Yet, pointing fingers at his party colleagues for not allowing him to function effectively, he opted to dissolve Parliament. There was overwhelming public opinion against this decision, including by former Chief Justices. Hectic political campaigns both for and against dissolution followed, as if the mid-term elections were around the corner. Mr. Oli claimed that the court could not enter into the political domain as this was not exclusively a constitutional issue that needed new interpretation. But to their credit, Mr. Oli and his followers accepted the court’s decision with grace.
One positive aspect of the episode was the broad national unity forged against Mr. Oli’s unconstitutional move. Nearly all the political parties, intellectuals, civil society leaders, legal professionals and sections of the media made this a common cause for democratic safeguard. Following a two-track policy towards dissolution, the Nepali Congress (NC), the main opposition party, passed a formal resolution against the dissolution but its President, Sher Bahadur Deuba, wasn’t as vocal against the dissolution as his senior colleagues. Mr. Deuba played the role of a reluctant opposition leader because the case was subjudice and also perhaps because he wanted to play an effective role during the elections in case the court ruled in favour of dissolution.
The Janata Samajvadi Party (JSP) also followed a wait-and-watch policy as the NCP was still not legally split into two parties: one led by Mr. Oli and the other by Mr. Prachanda and Mr. Nepal. Thus, when the NC and JSP were approached by Mr. Prachanda and Mr. Nepal for devising a joint strategy against Mr. Oli or for forming a government after reinstatement of the lower House, the leaders of the two parties asked Mr. Prachanda and Mr. Nepal which party they belonged to as the legal status of the NCP would remain unchanged after restoration of Parliament. The Election Commission did not make any decision to determine the status of the NCP in either Mr. Oli’s favour or in Mr. Prachanda and Mr. Nepal’s favour, despite the fact that the Prachanda-Nepal group submitted a list of the 40% of central committee members required to split the NCP. According to the two leaders, the Commission didn’t take any decision due to pressure from Mr. Oli.
Editorial | Judicial blow: On Nepal Supreme Court reinstating Parliament
Muddied political scenario
What was more surprising was the court’s second decision rejecting the existence of the NCP which was formed when the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) came together. The court said the two parties would return to the pre-merger stage with separate identities and symbols. The timing and content of the decision were significant. The verdict, which came on the day the reinstated Parliament was meeting, added confusion and complexity to the already muddied constitutional politics.
Now, Mr. Oli is the chairman of the CPN (UML) and Mr. Prachanda heads the CPN (Maoist Centre). Since many leaders and members of different organs of the integrated party were elected as NCP members, what will be their new party identity? Will Mr. Nepal or any other person belonging to the previous CPN (UML) join Mr. Oli or can the present ministers belonging to the former CPN (Maoist Centre) continue in government when both parties have legally, if not politically, parted ways?
The alternative is to split the CPN (UML) in order to integrate with the Maoist Centre under a new party name.
Comment | Playing a game of brinkmanship in Nepal
Possible scenarios
The new developments have offered a few possibilities for coalition politics. First, the CPN (UML) led by Mr. Oli is incapable of forming a government on its own strength of 120 members, which includes members of the Madhav Nepal group. If the NC decides to side with Mr. Oli’s CPN (UML), then he or the NC can form the government. Many NC members are not well disposed towards Mr. Oli because of his authoritarian style and past deeds. Although the Madhav group will be under pressure to obey the whip, it seems unlikely that it will support Mr. Oli even under pressure.
An option could be for the NC to form a coalition government with the JSP and the Prachanda group without Mr. Nepal in case the latter continues to be a member of CPN (UML).
Another scenario would be for the NC (60+), CPN (Maoist Centre) (53), JSP (34) and four members of other smaller parties and individuals to form the government with the NC heading it.
If Mr. Oli steps down from the prime minister’s post or from the party chairmanship, another senior leader, probably Mr. Nepal, may form the government with the support of the previous Maoist Centre. If this course is followed, it may help the process of reintegration of both parties. However, Mr. Oli’s obduracy may stand in the way as Mr. Nepal continues to be Mr. Oli’s bête noire.
Nepali politics is always full of surprises and uncertainty. The myth of communist invincibility and stability has exploded in less than three years. This has led to fragmentation of the Left parties. Some other parties also suffer from this malaise but not to the extent of the Left parties. The conflict of political cultures inherited by the various Left groups have contributed to political instability to a great extent. The recent political crises are also the fallout of intolerance and Mr. Oli’s failure to manage his own party.
Lok Raj Baral is Professor of Political Science and former Ambassador of Nepal to India
