Nepal’s political musical chairs often throw up surprises. Chance and accident, not calibre, decide who occupies the big chair when the music stops. Politics is driven purely by the pursuit of power and is almost always at the cost of principles and a long-term vision beneficial for the state and society.
K P Oli, Chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal (UML) returns as the head of the government exactly three years after he had to demit office because the supreme court foiled his attempts to be close to power, even as a caretaker Prime Minister by dissolving the House twice. The apex court held both dissolutions unconstitutional and issued a writ of mandamus that Nepali Congress (NC) leader Sher Bahadur Deuba, who had submitted signatures of a majority of the MPs in his support, be made PM.
Strangely, Oli and Deuba are political pals now, with Deuba, 81, agreeing to wait for 21 months for Oli to vacate the office in his favour.
Political stability has eluded Nepal for over 34 years since it ushered in multi-party democracy – first through a constitutional monarchy arrangement in 1991 and later becoming a republic in 2006. The first phase saw changes of government 15 times, and Oli will be the 18th PM in 17 years in the republic.
But the change this time came in a much more mysterious, if not conspiratorial, manner. Barely four months ago, Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda” had kicked the NC out of the ruling coalition and tied up with the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), with Oli and Prachanda pledging to be together in “heaven and hell”.
Every outgoing Nepal PM has demonstrated a unique characteristic: The refusal to take accountability for poor delivery, a struggling economy, blatant corruption and the absence of political ideology and principles guiding their politics. And almost every one of them has seen a “foreign hand” in their exit, but never in their entry into power. Prachanda was no exception this time when he said that the political group that is replacing him would have been impossible to engineer by its constituents alone.
Prachanda may just be expressing his anger and frustration over the loss of power. He lost the vote of no-confidence motion that he called for earlier this week. However, competing external powers, over the years, have not concealed their interest in Nepal’s internal politics.
China officially and visibly played a role in bringing about communist unity. Oli and Prachanda fought the general election as allies in 2017 successfully and merged their parties briefly before only to part ways. Beijing would have wished for a long and happy union when Oli joined the Prachanda-led coalition in March this year.
On the other side of the coin are the interests of the US-led West and India. Both are unlikely to be pleased with the communist parties of Nepal coming together, given their ideological leanings.
Despite the presence of the Maoists in the coalition that was led by Deuba, and China’s disapproval, his government ratified the $500 million grant through the Millennium Challenge Compact with the US aid agency in February 2022. Deuba’s partner Oli, on the other hand, is viewed as “anti-India” by many in Delhi.
Somewhat ironically, he is seen as a nationalist in Nepal for having stood his ground when India imposed an economic blockade for over four months in September 2015 and when a dispute over the border erupted four years later. Delhi may well still be miffed at him for signing the Transit and Transport Agreement (TTA) in March 2016 with China. It formalises Nepal’s access to the sea in the north if it faces an economic blockade from the Indian side.
Oli has also said that he will bring “Nepali territory” under India’s administrative control back, through dialogue. India and the US have also shown concern and advised Nepal not to execute projects under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and fall into the debt trap, despite pressure from the north not to ignore the deal signed seven years ago.
Nepal’s diplomacy, like its politics, is unstable largely because of a lack of credibility of the political parties. This factor becomes more acute in the absence of a permanent institution that signals stability, as the monarchy did for many.
China, like Russia, is uncomfortable with Nepal condemning the latter’s aggression in Ukraine so soon after it endorsed the MCC. Russia’s request to Kathmandu to review its stand in the UN given the Soviet Union’s contribution to Nepal’s development till the late ’80s has thus far been ignored. China, which frequently sends high-power delegations to Nepal, has also expressed its concerns. Chief among them is that Nepal’s geo-strategic location will be used by the US, aided by India, against China. So, its trust and support for communist forces in Nepal may well be more tactical, born of necessity, than ideological or moral.
However, Nepal’s overwhelmingly large economic relationship is with India. In partnership with the Nepali Congress, Oli seems to be cognisant of this reality and its bearing on his political future. Rajan Bhattarai, foreign policy advisor to Oli, recently told PTI that India’s support and cooperation were crucial for Nepal’s development and stability.
Oli’s acerbic tongue, intolerance of dissent, and megalomaniac tendencies have been visible over the years that he has been in power. Add to this the plethora of corruption charges against him and his allies, and it is likely that instability will continue to be the order of the day.
