Submit your Article

Our political leaders, foreign policy and diplomacy baffled our regional super power and the second largest economy of the world China at Its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) which was initiated by president Xi Jinping and has been adopted by dozens of countries of the world. Hardly a few countries have dared to come out of this Chinese venture. China was so much perplexed that the third Road and Belt Forum for International Corporation in its meeting held on 17-18 Oct 2023 included two small operational projects, Panda Pack Project and Amity Living Water Project, in the list of projects under BRI against nine projects selected during PM Oli’s last visit on account of the BRI implementation plan remained held up in Kathmandu. The then Chinese envoy’s claim that the construction of Pokhara International Airport was made under BRI as he knew well that the project was started before Nepal signed it, showed the Chinese desperation. This agony of China has now been removed by PM Oli’s four-day visit (Dec 2-5) to China. Its constant efforts since 2020 to get its BRI implementation plan accepted by Nepal has now succeeded.

The government has published the contents of the BRI Cooperation framework. Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) may now be called Belt and Road Initiative Cooperation (BRIC) in Nepal, as mode of payment will now be ‘technical and aid assistance against the usual mode of payment being loan to aid assistance, which was unfamiliar to the BRI world. Nepal has now expanded the payment modalities including technician and aid assistance disregarding its previous stand on ‘grant’ only. It seems that the PM has used his autotype as a PM ignoring the stand of the Nepali Congress. The contents of the plan have been very carefully drafted, as what China has given with one hand seems to have been taken away with another.

It is feared that Chinese currency might become a legal tender by allowing China to use it for the projects financed by it. We must be thankful to God that the Chinese language has not been accepted as a medium of teaching as yet at the university-level.  Positively, PM Oli’s visit to China shows that he is not only a shrewd politician but also a smart diplomat as he got the BTIC signed, as the Chinese BRI implantation idea has been replaced by another nomenclature by Nepal. Had it not been signed, his visit could have been taken as a failed one. He has apparently given all that he could have. It is more than what was given during president Xi’s last visit in 2029. 

Negatively, PM Oli could not give all that (loan modality), which  he wanted to offer to please the Chinese leadership. That is probably the reason why he got irritated when the question regarding ‘loan’ was raised during his press conference at the airport. The consensual draft prepared by the joint expert committee that included the terminology of ‘BRI Cooperation Framework’ replacing the Chinese BRI Implementation Plan’ was only half-heartedly supported by the PM. This was probably the reason why he excessively talked here about not taking loans from China for any projects, which was definitely not acceptable to China.

Since PM Oli had already made up his mind to visit China, he accepted the consensus draft to preserve the alliance and the Chinese negotiators might have accepted it to negotiate further while finalizing the draft in China during the visit. China had not taken the Nepali defiance of sending the revised/modified version of the implementation plan kindly. Probably sensing the dissatisfaction, he did not take up the demand of converting the loan taken for Pokhara airport into grant, the issue, which was already communicated by Finance Minister Bishnu Paudel to Yang Weiqun, vice-chair of the China International Development Cooperation Agency, on Aug 23 in Kathmandu. It seems he did not raise the issue to irritate further the Chinese establishment, which might have delayed the BRI cooperation work plan accepted by it, as was done by the then PM Pushpa Kamal Dahal who did not raise the issue of border disputes with Indian PM Modi during his visit to India. 

However, in domestic politics he has proved himself as an unchallenged leader who can do anything indirectly which he cannot do directly. He has again outwitted Sher Bahadur Deuba by doing what he wanted to do despite his assurance of not doing that. He has obliged Deuba by accepting the prime ministership overnight betraying the strategic political partner Dahal. Alternatively, Deuba knows his inability to oppose PM Oli at this juncture, probably on account of personal problems. 

After completing my six-year tenure as an election commissioner in July 2000, I decided not to return to teaching, my original profession. Instead of confining myself to the classroom, I decided to write articles on electoral matters to share my ideas with the people at large.

In the beginning of 2001, Padmaratna Tuladhar invited me to meet a foreigner (whose name I don’t remember) at a five star-hotel in Kalimati. There, I met Charan Parsai for the first time and a lady whose name I cannot recall. I don’t remember the subject we four deliberated upon. But this was my first interaction with civil society leaders. Devendra Raj Pandey got me associated with Nepal South Asia Center in March 2002 and I worked with him until I was made national coordinator for the Ceasefire Code of Conduct in June 2006.

However, I was in constant touch with Daman Nath Dhungana through the 22-member Civil Monitoring Committee, formed to monitor the ceasefire that the Maoists had declared for Dashain in 2005, as both of us were its members. We remained associated through several organizations like Parliamentary Foundation, Friends for Peace and Nepal Transition to Peace Institute Nepal/Nepal Shanti Pratishthan, which was established in 2014.

During this period, we used to meet at least thrice a week and share our views over phone every evening till recently. After developing a theme to write on, I used to talk about it and after publication of the article, get his comments, which were always objective. He was actually my friend, philosopher and guide. Even when he was almost bedridden after his return from Delhi, where he had been for medical treatment, I used to meet him on alternate days. Though unable to speak fluently as before, he used to infer that I must be busy with my writing. Referring to our cordial relationship, I used to tell him that it must have been fixed in our previous lives, though neither of us believed in past lives. Even today I do not know why he was so cordial and helpful to me as we were far apart geographically: I am from Madhes and he was from Kathmandu.

There were some salient traits of his personality, which I want to share with the reader. First, he was a full-time politician, though not active but always participatory. He never declined an invite for a meeting, whether called by a party or a group, and he was a true politicoholic. Second, he was a democrat by conviction and practice, and never compromised with his ideals for any gains. It was he who raised, for the first time, the issue of electing a Constituent Assembly (CA) for framing a people’s constitution, in Nepal. So, the CA was his brain-child, though India’s first PM, Jawaharlal Nehru, had included the agenda in the ‘Delhi Compromise’ signed in Delhi in Feb 1951. The agenda remained on paper until the Maoists included it in the 12-point understanding reached with the Seven-Party alliance in Nov 2005.

Third, he was a politician with a difference as he neither sought any favour for himself nor obliged anyone for profit. Perhaps, this was the reason why he got respect from others but not their support, which is required the most in today’s electoral politics and that was also the reason why his institutions always lacked funds to operate smoothly. Fourth, he was always ready to address any meetings and deliver speeches but was quite lazy when it came to writing, which deprived us of his knowledge and wide experience for our guidance.

Fifth, he was a witty orator and knew how to twist and turn the subject matter he took up for deliberations. Sixth, he was a treasure of knowledge acquired by reading books, which he used to share with us in our meetings. Seventh, he was very hospitable and used to receive visitors well before the scheduled time. Eighth, I always found him very accommodating. During the launch of my books, he used to busy himself with the management aspect of the events. Lastly, he was always worried about the low level of politics and the future of Nepal. He wanted to take the lead in improving the situation but found himself handicapped by not having any organization to support him.

He wanted the Parliamentary Foundation, the organization he had founded, to function smoothly to provide organizational support for streamlining the parliamentary system and also wished to get the initiatives of NTTPI for documenting the peace process. Sadly, his wishes remained unfulfilled.

Fulfilling his wishes through joint efforts would be our tribute to the departed soul. In his death, I have lost one of my great well-wishers, whom I will be missing all my life as the void resulting from his absence will never be filled up.

Nobel laureate Mohammad Yunus, as the nominee of the agitating student leaders, is leading the advisory government of Bangladesh after the students uprising of July succeeded in dislodging Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year-old dictatorial government. As per the Army Chief’s advice, as reported, Hasina resigned and fled to India for her safety in the wake of violent protests. The takeover of the country has brought back a semblance of law and order in the country after a spate of revengeful activities targeted against Hasina’s supporters and the minority Hindu community. At this point in time, the Yunus government would do well to draw a roadmap for holding elections at the earliest to restore democracy, as Bangladesh has a history of frequent military interventions.

Per media reports, more than 400 agitators lost their lives since the agitation began. But a question arises: Did the Hasina government direct the army to shoot so many people? The army could have exercised restraint, as the protesters were not its enemy. Had it made its limitations known to the government, the result could have been different. If that had happened, Hasina, in all likelihood, would have been spared the trouble of fleeing the country to save her life.

With Hasina effectively out of national politics, the army has become more relevant, as without its support the interim government cannot function.     

Looking back, Bangladesh is the youngest country of South Asia created in 1972. Hitherto, it was West Pakistan, which was the creation of the partition of India in August 1947 on the ground of Muslim-majority areas. Mujibur Rahman, who achieved independence for Bangladesh with support from India, was not allowed to lead the country, as he was assassinated along with all family members except his two daughters (who were abroad) on 15 Aug 1975, the independence day of India. Ziaur Rahman, who led the military coup against Mujib, ruled the country from 1975 to 1981 after which another military General Hussain Mohammed Ershad held the reins from 1982 to 1990. 

The politics changed gradually, as Khaleda Zia, the widow of Ziaur Rahman, assumed assassinated at the hands of the Ershad group and Sheikh Hasina (in revenge of the assassination of her father and other family members), joine hands against Ershad, who paved the way for the restoration of parliamentary system. In 1991, a caretaker government held general elections through which Khaleda Zia came to power and completed her five-year term. The tradition of caretaker governments holding elections continued in 1996, 2001 and 2008. Hasina formed the government in 1996 after a poll win, only to lose power to her nemesis Khaleda in 2001. Two years after getting elected for the second time in 2009, Hasina abolished the system, sparking a strident opposition from Khaleda and her party. The relations between the two parties (Hasina’s Awami League and Zia’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party) and the two leaders got so worse that Zia and her party did not contest the 2024 general elections, after which Zia landed behind bars on charges of corruption. 

Hasina’s decision to rule the country single-handedly by ignoring, suppressing and persecuting the opposition on the charges of corruption ultimately brought about her downfall.

As Hasina appeared increasingly partisan, this shade of hers perhaps led people to believe that she was no longer a leader suitable for steering an unstable democracy, which has suffered repeated military coups. Her sudden departure from the political scene was the result of constant and concerted efforts on the part of her opponents to remove her from power. It is quite possible that the powerful elements opposing Sheikh Mujibur Rahman did not like to see his heir Hasina leading an independent and secular Bangladesh with good relations with India as the demolition of the statue of Rahman and burning of the houses of the Hindus show. 

Hasina’s autocratic rule and a strain of extremism coming from the political force under Khaleda Zia helped the situation to explode. A major reason for the agitation was the legal provision of reserving 30 percent quota for the family members of the veterans of 1971’s war of independence against Pakistan. Though morally justified during the early days of independence, the quota system had lost its relevance. Perhaps oblivious to the atrocities that their parents suffered during the struggle for independence, the new generation is fighting for a better life amid limited opportunities for employment.

What has happened in Bangladesh can happen in any other country with similar conditions. Politicians blinded by absolute power never want to give it up. They want to cling to power by hook or crook. They do not realize that a prolonged stay in positions of power makes them repulsive.  If the frustration among the youth and public despair continue for long and politicians do not take suitable measures to address this volatile situation, public outrage may erupt like a volcano in Nepal also. 

The friendly Nepal-China relations are well tested. However, the reported inclusion of two small operational projects, Panda Pack Project and Amity Living Water Project in the list of projects under BRI by the third Road and Belt Forum for International Corporation in its meeting held on 17-18 Oct 2023.is disappointing and alarming for Nepal, for it sends two messages. First, China is reluctant to take any new project in Nepal and second, the naming of these two projects warns Nepal not to accept the terms and conditions laid down by China for BRI, which have been accepted by Pakistan and Sri Lanka. It is evident from the indirect messages of the Chinese envoy, who claimed the construction of Pokhara International Airport under BRI, as he knew well that the project was started before Nepal signed it. The envoy’s remarks on the Nepal-India electricity trade were also a pointer that China was not happy with the present dispensation. It has been skeptical toward Nepal since the approval of MCC, the US project by Nepal’s parliament.

PM Pushpa Kamal Dahal did his best to rush to China directly from the US to attend the 19th Asian games opening ceremony at Hangzhou and to meet president Xi jinping. But his plan failed, perhaps, as he could not satisfy President Xi for Nepal not accepting the terms and conditions of BRI. Nepal and China had signed 12 agreements, which included development of electricity connectivity between the two countries.

Dahal, though optimistic to have at least one or two projects out of nine agreed upon previously for approval under BRI, could read the mind of President Xi, who, with his ambitious plan of One Belt and One Road Initiative in 2013 (rechristened Belt and Road Initiative), has succeeded in connecting  China with Europe through Central Asia and South Asia to become the largest economy of the world through its mass production at the lowest cost and technical advancements. 

However, due to Covid 19, the slackened economy of China warranted immediate action to boost the economy. During the premiership of KP Sharma, Nepal-China relations were enhanced to strategic partnership. Naturally, China was very hopeful to bring some projects in Nepal under BRI. Moreover, in recent years, China has been assertive in Nepal’s internal politics and had managed to bring the CPN (Maoist Center) and the CPN-UML together before the 2072 election, which resulted in the coalition securing a majority in the federal parliament and also at provincial and local levels of government. However, it became frustrated with Dahal when he discarded the UMLand joined hands with the Nepali Congress and the CPN (Unified Socialist), defeating the UML in the elections. And since there was no progress on selecting projects under BRI, he annoyed China further.

Even after becoming Prime Minister with UML support, he again betrayed Oli and kicked out UML ministers from his cabinet. All these made China more suspicious of Dahal. It is a truism that Prachanda favored China by canceling the decision of the Dr Baburam  government to construct the Budhi Gandaki 1200 MW project by Budhi Gandaki Hydroelectric Project Development Committee, and  signed the MoU with China Gezouba Group Corporation (CGGC) to be constructed under the engineering, procurement, construction and financing (EPCF) model. His party leader and the then Finance Minister Varshman Puna had accepted a loan from the Chinese EXIM bank for developing the international airport in Pokhara.  Though the Deuba government canceled the project, KP Sharma Oli government again roped in the CGGC in 2018, as was done by the Dahal government.

Nepal went ahead to upgrade its relations with China to strategic partnership during President Xi’s visit to Nepal in 2019. Nepal allowed Chinese language in school curriculum. The PM’s Office authorized a subsidiary company of the Chinese Huawei Technologies Co Ltd after suspending the bidding process to set up the ‘action room’ equipped with a video conferencing hall. Nepal allowed China International Development Cooperation Agency to provide development assistance to 15 northern districts of Nepal and signed a treaty of  Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with China, which it does not have with any other country. Nepal,  after breaking its traditional stand,  allowed the bracketing of the word ‘Zhumulangma’ with the Nepali word ‘Sagarmatha’.

In spite of the good intention of Dahal to satisfy China, he could not do so, as he is heading a coalition government. The coalition partners are  not willing to accept any projects under BRI loan with high percentage of interest and shorter period of repayment. These parties can accept projects under aid or grant. And there is no ground to reject the Chinese offer at lower rates of interest and longer timeframe for repayment, as being offered by other international funding organizations. Moreover, China should not equate Nepal with Pakistan and Sri Lanka, as its relations with Nepal are centuries old.

It is believed that a nation is reborn by adopting a new constitution. And it really became true with the adoption of a new constitution in Nepal when its Constituent Assembly-2 declared it a secular, inclusive, federal, democratic republic on 20 Sept 2015. These are the cardinal features of the constitution. 

Looking back, we find that the three words, ‘democratic federal system’ were incorporated in the Interim Constitution (Article 38) in addition to the terms ‘inclusive and restructured’ through its first amendment on 13 April 2007. It has its basis in the Comprehensive Peace Accord (Clause 8.2) signed on 21 Nov 2006 by the then PM GP Koirala and the Maoist Chief PK  Dahal, which provides for making a ‘a high-level  Recommendation Commission for the Restructuring of the State.’ 

The Maoists were calling for restructuring of the state, however, it was not mentioned in the 12-point agreement signed on 21 Nov 2005, in India by the Seven-Party Alliance and the Maoists. Perhaps, the most pressing need at that time was to throw out of power the absolute monarchy and other demands were considered secondary.

The entire country celebrated as usual the eighth ‘Constitution Day’ on Sept 20, save the Madhes-based parties, which celebrated the day as a ‘Black Day’ for them, as  more than 100 Madhesi youths had sacrificed their lives for incorporating federalism with one Madhes Pradesh for 20 districts in the Tarai region in the forthcoming constitution. However, the constitution adopted provides for seven provinces out of which a province consisting of only eight districts was carved out of 12 districts. 

The other 12 districts of the Tarai were made part of the five provinces.

It was the thorny issue of federalism that failed Constituent Assembly-1 as consensus was impossible among the parties on the one hand and the strength of the Maoists and the Madhes-based parties in the CA was 

significant which could be ignored, on the other. 

In the CA-2, the number of representatives of both the parties, the Maoists and the Madhesi outfits, was reduced; it was possible for the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML to adopt the constitution with support from some other parties. And realizing the position, the Maoist party also supported the NC and the UML’s proposals and gave up its demand for making identity and resources as the bases 

of federalism.

It was obvious that while adopting the constitution most of the top leaders of all major parties apprehended that federalism would weaken the nation, as it would affect the existing central control over those areas which would be brought under different provinces. 

They also apprehended that since local populations will have control over their areas, they may go for division/bifurcation of the territories. 

Their main concern was regarding their control of the bureaucracy, the permanent government.  If power was divided, their complete say over it would decrease, if not end.

These are the reasons that even after the passing of eight years and three tiers of government duly elected, they are not allowed to function as per powers delivered by the constitution. Important federal laws are not framed as yet to enable them to use their rights to govern the administration and discharge day-to-day duties. 

It seems that many laws, including those related to the civil and police administrations, have not been enacted by the center deliberately to prove that the provincial tier of governance is superfluous and redundant. It is evident from the facts that the frequent transfers and postings of high officials hinder the government’s functioning seriously, as there have been frequent complaints to the center. There are cases filed by the provincial governments in the Supreme Court for the protection of their constitutional rights.

It can be assumed that before taking the decision for carving out seven provinces, they made the local tiers of government more powerful and kept it outside of the overall supervision and control of the provinces to make the second tier weak and worthless. 

The constitution has provided for three tiers of government—central, provincial and local. 

However, the central government has made it a four-tier government by adding one more tier by way of district government, which is controlled by the central government. 

Chief district officers are in charge of peace and security of the districts. It has been made so that the central government will prevail ultimately over provincial and local governments. There are many more obstacles created by the center to prove that federalism is only an unwanted child of the constitution, which is not allowed to grow properly so that its life gets shortened for want of nutritious food to survive by not providing sufficient support.

The implications of Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s four-day visit to India will be known in due course of time.    Notably, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi promised during the visit to take bilateral relations to Himalayan heights by resolving all pending issues with Nepal.  Now, however, India appears to be on a wait-and-watch mode. It will study how Dahal concludes his visit to China, as it is believed that the road to Beijing passes through New Delhi.  While Dahal is right in saying that his visit has reduced the trust deficit with India, the real picture will emerge gradually.   It seems PM Dahal visited India with a well-defined plan—with two goals in mind. The first was to formally take up all pending bilateral issues by incorporating inputs from several quarters. And second, the primary motive was to seek Indian cooperation for sharing hydropower for mutual interests to minimize a yawning trade deficit with India. Perhaps, after getting a green signal from India, he became impatient for his visit. Dahal wanted to get India’s commitments on hydropower sharing and various other matters like hydropower trade with Bangladesh through India. Some other agreements on enhancing transport connectivity for strengthening Nepal-India trade relationship were also on his wish-list . Dahal perhaps felt that the handover of two more lucrative hydropower projects (669 MW Lower Arun and 480 MW Phuket Karnali) will help the country overcome a serious economic crisis, knowing well the limitations of other natural resources like forests. So he went ahead, despite the recent handover of other vital projects—750-MW West Seti, 450-MW Seti River-6 and 900-MW Arun-3. Altogether, India now has projects with combined capacity of 3249 MW in its basket.  Against this backdrop, Dahal faces charges of compromising Nepal’s national interest.  But nobody questions as to why Nepal remains deprived of the benefits of hydropower for more than seven decades. This is one of the major factors keeping millions of people below the poverty line and forcing younger generations to toil in other countries for their bread and better.   He did raise long-pending and serious issues like border disputes knowing well that such issues cannot be solved at one go. Resolution of these problems requires long-lasting and cool deliberations between the two sides.  The Maoist supremo is known for his dynamism as he can turn his coat any time to suit his interests. Dahal and the then second-in-command of the Maoist party, Baburam Bhattarai, displayed their images of revolutionary leaders while taking the oath of office by presenting them in the western outfit (tie and suit). Dahal continued to wear this dress even during his second oath-taking ceremony and at all official functions.  However, while taking oath as the PM for the third time, Dahal had a change of dress.  He donned the official dress of Daura and Suruwal, perhaps to present himself in a hardcore patriotic avatar and show that he was no less patriotic than others. Looking back, he was ‘anti-India’ while taking up arms against the state in 1996, as most of the demands he submitted to the then government were against India.  However, he changed his mind together with his second-in-command Baburam Bhattarai and wrote to the Indian Prime Minister’s Office in 2003, pledging to cooperate with India. It will be no wonder if Dahal, one fine day, denounces the decade-long insurgency as the Maoist folly against the state in which around 17,000 people were killed.  Back to his recent visit. An agreement on the purchase of 10,000 MW of electricity was almost certain to materialize this time. A 25-year bilateral trade treaty was also supposed to become a reality. India was also expected to allow at least one air entry point to Nepal for incoming international flights.   But things did not unfold as planned. The 10,000-MW energy deal did not materialize in writing, though Modi made a commitment to this effect at the joint press conference.  While a 10-year trade treaty materialized instead of a 25-year one, Nepal got no additional air entry route.  The two sides agreed on completion and submission of a detailed project report of the Pancheshwar multipurpose project within three months. This project has been pending for several decades despite. Notably,  PM Modi had, during his first visit to Nepal in 2014, issued instructions for submission of the project’s DPR within three months. Any diplomacy has marginal benefits. It is the geography and cultural ties that bind two nations together. In our case, nature decided geographic proximity millions of years ago. We cannot make our rivers flow northward nor can we stop their flow. Perhaps, India wants to check whether Dahal had a change of mind or heart. Mind can change with change in circumstances but the heart does not. As things stand, India seems interested in having better relations with Nepal. We should also reciprocate with self-respect and in mutual interests.  

The new Constitution, adopted by the Constituent Assembly in September 2015, has moved ahead with the completion of presidential and vice-presidential elections on March 9 and March 17, 2023, respectively. The elections for the Speaker and Deputy Speaker were held earlier whereas provincial and local level elections were completed much earlier. The constitution has defined the functions of the President in two specific terms—protection and observance (of the constitution). Naturally, politicians and constitutional experts consider protection and observance of the constitution as two distinct functions of the presidency. If the president is regarded as the protector of the charter, it places the position of the president above the constitution. No doubt, these two terms have two different connotations. However, to keep in view the spirit of the republican constitution these two functions have to be taken together, for it envisages that president is not above the constitution, as it is a post created by the charter itself to complete the defined course legislation and other formal functions. Hence the prime duty of the president is to observe the charter. If the president refuses to abide by the statute, there is no superior constitutional authority to compel him or her to follow it. The refusal makes the statute dysfunctional and places the presidency above it, providing the presidency the liberty to ignore the advice of the cabinet. Sadly, it has happened in the past. The outgoing president did not nominate the persons recommended by the cabinet to the Upper House. The Bills were not certified/signed by her to make them laws. The government remained a silent spectator in all this. Significantly, the helplessness of the government seems to be the outcome of the lack of vision of the framers of the charter. Consciously or unconsciously, they made presidential and vice-presidential posts insulated indirectly from the process of impeachment by not providing the provision for the immediate suspension of these posts on the registration of the impeachment motion similar to all other posts of constitutional bodies. In the past, two chief justices were suspended immediately after impeachment motions against them were registered in the House of Representatives. This provision could have been made equally applicable to these two supreme posts. The process of suspension is the first step for taking action against those officials charged with serious allegations to conduct a fair investigation. Significantly, this provision works as a deterrent for offenders and also functions like undue pressure over the fair and impartial functioning of constitutional bodies to toe the line of the political parties in power that can register the motion of impeachment. Perhaps, the framers of the statute did not realize that the posts of president and vice-president are the creations of constitutional provisions. These posts cannot be claimed on the basis of any divine or hereditary right. Logically, when these posts are liable to be impeached, the further process of suspension would have been provided in the constitution. Its non-existence can be interpreted that to keep these posts above the process of immediate suspension makes these posts unimpeachable, as without getting suspended it is difficult to pass the motion of impeachment when the persons concerned are in the office. It seems that these posts were insulated practically from impeachment as the framers might have thought to get these highest posts reserved for themselves by holding it their exclusive right to have them, which is evident from the recent elections for these posts. Interestingly, though the president is only a titular head, the post has been made so glorious that it is difficult for a lay person to distinguish between the previous monarchical and the present republican era. The security umbrella given to this post causes a lot of inconvenience to the people. However, the new president rightly wants to modify the traditional security cover. It is no secret that the post has the least security threat, as no real power is vested in it, as the president has to act as per the advice of the government. It is good that the president has repeatedly assured the people that he will protect and follow the charter. However, he could have noted that the charter wants him to follow it to protect it. Of course, he has to be an  ‘emergency light’, as claimed by an India president, to act maturely when situation demands and not in a partisan way, as has been witnessed recently. Our infantile republic has just started crawling. He must be careful till it walks confidently so that it does not fall into a ditch of political chaos.    

The present political scenario raises some questions: Are we destined for prolonged political instability? Will Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal continue for a limited period or full term? Generally, the electoral system is blamed for instability, as it produces a hung parliament with no single party securing a majority in the House of Representatives. But a hung parliament can hardly be blamed, as in parliamentary system coalition culture has been practiced in many countries in South Asia and Europe. We cannot blame the parliamentary system, which envisages joint responsibility, as it is also called the ‘Cabinet System’ in which the Prime Minister is held as the senior among the equals. Ministers are responsible not only to the Prime Minister but to the House as well. The job of a PM is to coordinate among the ministers. However, it is also called the prime ministerial system, as the parties, while contesting general elections, informally select their leaders who lead the election campaign. A PM is changed, of course, but with the change in the confidence of the House. It is never bargained among the parties or groups before a PM is elected as the leader of the House. We have a history of frequent changes of guard since the election to the Constitution Assembly. We have had about a dozen governments from 2008 to 2023. Interestingly, the same old faces have replaced one another all along. It shows a handful of leaders controlling their parties and the absence of inner democracy in party folds. No doubt, periodic elections are held in the parties but candidates not enjoying the endorsement of leaders hardly win such elections. Worldwide, several popular PMs have continued for years. But the same leader serving as PM time and time again is a case unique to Nepal. It is a truism that political power is required to do good to the people. It is a means. But when a means becomes an end in itself by becoming an insatiable hunger for power, it corrupts leaders absolutely. Perhaps, this is the reason behind instability. Political parties, especially the major ones, are not ready to learn from the past, mend their ways and develop a coalition culture for which leaders have to make adjustments with other parties, in the best interest of the country. Politics in Nepal appears to be treated as an enterprise where an entrepreneur succeeds if he takes the risk of investing even in unfavorable circumstances. If he invests and uses his maneuvering skills, his success is more guaranteed. It has been proved recently that success in politics depends on the art of maneuvering and the impossible becomes possible. In the last election, the Nepali Congress (NC) secured 89 seats (32 percent of total seats), the CPN-UML got 78 seats (28.36 percent) and the third largest party, the CPN (Maoist Centre) got 32 seats (11.63 percent) in the House of Representatives. But the third largest party is leading the government. This is because Dahal knows that the leaders of the first and the second largest parties can neither form alliances themselves nor can they form their own government without support from the Maoists and some other fringe parties. In such a situation, it was easier for Dahal to float his own candidature for premiership and bargain with the NC and the UML to accept his leadership. First, he approached the NC for forming a government under his leadership, only to find the largest party reluctant. Then he approached the UML, which accepted the idea. But then Dahal found relying solely on the UML support for his government not a very good idea, so he sought and got the support of the NC in the vote of confidence. Dahal courting the NC made the UML suspicious. As anticipated, Dahal ditched the Maoists’ alliance with the UML by supporting the Congress candidate in the presidential election. This was perhaps meant to maintain a balance of power in the parliament, given that the UML has already bagged the position of Speaker. Dahal perhaps hopes to be able to serve a full term by managing to keep the current ruling coalition intact. Let’s hope that our leaders show maturity by focusing more on political stability than on satiating their thirst for power.