Submit your Article

Chinese President Xi Jinping's Belt and Road initiative (BRI) has entered its 10th year. On this occasion, China is preparing to hold the third international BRI conference—the first two were held in 2017 and 2019—by inviting world leaders to Beijing. Over the past decade, BRI has generated several debates and controversies, mainly surrounding its investment terms and conditions. China is aware of the BRI’s reputation on international stage, so it is poised to make an amendment to its original plan and rebrand the program as the BRI 2.0, of which little is known about. Nepal became a BRI member in 2017, and China wants to create a positive public opinion on BRI here. While Western countries have tried to sway Nepali leaders and policymakers by highlighting the debt issue of the BRI, Beijing is trying to override this narrative by portraying the program as a force of greater good, of development and prosperity. Critics of BRI say it is a ‘debt trap’ lacking in transparency and that it ‘spoils the investment climate’ and contributes to cross-border corruption. Those in favor meanwhile are of the view that Nepal can exploit immense benefit from the program. These two competing narratives regarding the BRI have paralyzed Nepali leaders. They see it as a tool to bridge the funding gap for infrastructure development as well as a potential debt trap. In essence, they have imprecise and superficial understanding of the program. This could be because of a lack of effective communication between experts and leaders, and also between the governments of Nepal and China. The Pokhara International Airport is a case in point. When Nepal objected to China’s listing of the airport under the BRI, there was no attempt at clarification from the Chinese side. A senior Chinese official says: “Obviously, it is a BRI project and we are firm on it. But if Nepal says it is not under the BRI, that is okay for us too.” This begs the question: What does BRI mean for Nepal? Or, more importantly: Is there a proper understanding in Nepal on BRI? Even after ten years, the Nepal government has not been able to make a concrete view and position on the program. A lot of confusion and ambiguity remains in the academic circle as well as in the government. Chinese officials say there are five pillars of BRI: policy coordination, infrastructure, unimpeded trade, financial integration, and connecting people. But much of its focus in Nepal has been on the infrastructure component. The fact is that China has invested billions in connectivity and energy projects mainly in the Global South, and mega projects have been built in many countries including high-speed railway. Of late, the BRI is gradually shifting towards soft power. Ambar Malik, Chinese development finance expert, told Voice of America in an interview that the BRI is not a single entity, but rather an umbrella under which many entities are delivering projects in many countries across many sectors. “China has now also folded a lot of their cultural initiatives — their educational initiatives, scholarships, Confucius Institute and others — into this big juggernaut of the Belt and Road Initiative,” he said in the interview. Chinese experts are of the view that the BRI faced challenges from the Covid-19 pandemic, geopolitical conflict and supply chain shocks, which needs to be settled for the coming decade. In Nepal, as the BRI discussions are overly centered on infrastructure projects, it does not offer a full picture of the program. Some experts say discussions focused on infrastructure projects is one reason why the debt trap is finding purchase among the intelligentsia and the public. The ‘debt trap’ argument could be the reason why former prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba of the Nepali Congress reportedly told the Chinese side that Nepal cannot take loan under the BRI. The senior Chinese official that ApEx talked with says there are some flaws in Nepal on how to view BRI, which has created a misleading narrative. Over the past few years, China has come up with three new initiatives— Global Security initiative (GSI), Global Development initiative (GDI) and Global Civilizational initiative (GCI)—which Chinese officials say fall under the BRI umbrella. The GDI is being implemented in coordination with the UN agencies while GCI is a new concept. As for the GSI, it necessitates an understanding between two countries before implementing any programs under it.   Some experts say these programs are Beijing’s way of recalibrating the BRI, which faced many hurdles in the past 10 years due to the commercially unviable projects, Covid-19 pandemic, economic crisis and climate change issues.  Malik says the era of cheap money with low interest rates and large-scale megaprojects is likely over, hence the advent of BRI 2.0. This could also be the reason why China is not forcing Nepal to select projects under the BRI, and repeatedly asking to come up with commercially viable projects that would help change the living standard of Nepalis. Experts say China will continue to invest in the infrastructure development of the Global South under the new version of the BRI. According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, over the last decade, the BRI galvanized nearly $1 trillion in investments and established more than 3,000 new cooperative projects, creating 420,000 jobs for the countries and regions involved, and lifting approximately 40 million people out of poverty. Nepal and China are working to conclude an implementation plan for the BRI. But unless Nepali leaders make a concrete view on it, the program cannot move ahead. There is also a need for consensus among major parties, so that the Nepal and China are on the same page.    

As many as 144,527 cases are awaiting verdicts in different courts of the country. According to the Annual Report of the Supreme Court for fiscal year 2020/21, a lion's share of these cases are with district courts. The report shows district courts have 91,186 pending cases. These courts settled only 54.56 percent of the 200,681 cases during the review year. The Supreme Court had the lowest settlement rate in fiscal year 2020/21. It was able to resolve only 5,689 out of 33,466 cases, leaving 27,777 pending cases. Under the 2015 Constitution, the court system consists of the Supreme Court, high courts in seven provinces, and district courts in 77 districts. There are also three specialized courts, including the Special Court for corruption cases, the Labor Court for labor-related issues, and the Administrative Court for disputes related to the exercise of public power, as well as four tribunals, which handle foreign employment, revenue, debt recovery, and debt recovery appeals. The high courts had the highest settlement rate among the courts, resolving 59.39 percent of the 56,417 cases under their jurisdiction during the review year. District courts settled 54.56 percent of the 200,681 cases. According to the report, the combined number of pending cases under the specialized courts and tribunals stands at 2,651. The Revenue Tribunal has the highest number of pending cases, while the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal has the lowest. The Special Court, responsible for handling corruption cases, was able to settle 57.06 percent of the cases during the review period. However, the report indicates that the court still has 657 pending cases. In terms of the types of cases, divorce cases account for 11.43 percent of all cases in Nepali courts, followed by property disputes (11.37 percent), financial transactions (8.87 percent), land disputes (6.68 percent), fraud (5.53 percent), ‘likhat badar’ (4.8 percent), banking offenses (3.65 percent), rape (3.23 percent), culpable homicide (2.09 percent), and accidents caused by motor vehicles (1.74 percent), according to the report. The report further reveals that the number of pending cases has been steadily rising in the Supreme Court over the past decade. In the fiscal year 2010/11, the apex court had 12,714 pending cases, which more than doubled to 27,777 by the end of 2020/21. The number of pending cases in high courts also doubled over the same period. In 2010/11, the high courts had 11,382 pending cases, which grew to 22,913 in 2020/21. The report further indicates that the number of pending cases in district courts has increased by over 100 percent. In 2010/11, district courts had 40,350 pending cases, which has now surged to 91,077. The number of pending cases at the specialized courts and tribunals has also doubled. The report states that these courts had 1,379 pending cases in 2010/11, which rose to 2,630 in 2020/21. In terms of targets set by the fourth five-year strategic plan of the judiciary, the Okhaldhunga Bench of Biratnagar High Court was the best performing court, settling 113.7 percent of the targets. The Dipayal High Court was next on the list as it achieved 103.28 percent of the targets in terms of case settlements. Likewise, the Tulsipur High Court, Surkhet High Court, Hetauda Bench of Patan High Court, and Mahendranagar Bench of Dipayal High Court achieved more than 75 percent of the targets in terms of case settlement.The high courts were given targets of settling 35,018 cases during the period of which they settled 59.45 percent of them or 20,817 cases. Among the district courts, Bajura, Mustang, Achham, Dadeldurha, Salyan, Jajarkot, Gulmi, Arghakhanchi, Rolpa, and Manang achieved more than 100 percent progress in case settlements. District courts achieved 59.31 percent progress during the review period. Province-wise, Bagmati had the highest number of cases (19,644) among the 56,417 cases under high courts, while Karnali had the lowest number of cases at only 1,286. Former Supreme Court justice Prakash Wasti says one of the major reasons behind the increasing backlog is a lack of sufficient human resources. The other reason is the lack of willingness on the part of judges to settle the cases. He suspects some judges fear they will court controversies if they settle more cases. Besides, Wasti says, there are no extra incentives to judges for settling more cases. Of late, there is a tendency of handing down verdicts in only those cases that are of national interest. Wasti says judges and justices are only interested in those cases that could make national headlines. He adds in many cases, judges and justices seem to lack the study and understanding required to settle cases concerning critical issues. As a result, he says many cases are put on hold, because the judges and justices do not want to get caught delivering flawed judgment. Former Supreme Court justice Balaram KC says the low number of judges in the court is a primary reason behind increasing case backlogs. He suggests introducing a lead lawyer system in the court, so that there is no need for all lawyers to speak for hours. KC adds there is also a need to develop a system, where judges and justices are well-prepared to intervene in the hearing process. He says as people have little trust in high courts these days, the Supreme Court is getting crowded. We should work to provide more business to the high courts, says KC.

The government has tabled a bill to amend the Enforced Disappearances Enquiry, Truth, and Reconciliation Act in Parliament. In many ways, if not exclusively, this move was prompted by a case filed at the Supreme Court against Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal for a public admission three years ago that his party would take responsibility for the deaths of 5,000 people killed during a decade-long insurgency. It is hard to believe that the 10-party ruling alliance took the bill to Parliament to actually give a fresh impetus to the stalled transitional justice process. Many conflict victims see the move as a gambit to influence the court rather than an earnest attempt to conclude the long overdue transitional justice process. They have a valid reason to be suspicious. For one, the parties have made no effort to change some controversial provisions in the proposed legislation. The bill proposes amnesty on even serious human rights violations including murder, rape and torture cases. Some say the bill tabled in Parliament is barely any different than the previous one, which was widely criticized on the ground that it would deprive justice to victims. Conflict victims, rights activists, and the international community, among others, have raised objections to some provisions of the bill. A protest assembly was held in Maitighar Mandala, Kathmandu, on Sunday as the government tabled the bill in Parliament. Nepal’s transitional justice mechanisms—Truth and Reconciliation and Disappearance Commission—cannot make any progress unless conflict victims, rights activists and the international community take ownership of the process. But political parties are trying to conclude the transitional justice process on their own terms, ignoring the concerns raised by the conflict victims and other stakeholders. The major political parties—Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center)—are committing yet another blunder in the transitional justice process. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has expressed serious objection to the government’s move to table the bill. The constitutional rights body has said the proposed legislation has been presented in Parliament without a broad consultation with stakeholders, and without amending the disputed provisions in line with the 2015 Supreme Court verdict. NHRC is of the view that there should be amendments on the issue of reparations, prosecution, appointment process of commissions, issue of child soldiers, and matters relating to jurisdiction of courts. Suman Adhikari, who leads a campaign of conflict victims, says the current bill has the provisions of adopting reconciliation even in cases of serious human rights violations committed during the conflict era. He warns that passing the law in haste amid widespread dissatisfaction among the conflict victims could further complicate and prolong the transitional justice process. There is also the chance of more lawsuits being filed by the conflict victims against Prime Minister Dahal and his party leaders. It is not helping that the Maoist and its splinter parties are threatening the court and others raising the issue of war-era human rights violations. Such an attitude will only reinforce the perception that the Maoists are not committed to concluding the transitional justice process. Ganesh Datta Bhatta, former chair of Truth and Reconciliation Commission, says there is always a lack of trust between conflict victims and the government. He is of the view that all the concerns of conflict victims could not be addressed if the government were to take the conflict victims into confidence. He says if the environment of distrust continues to fester, there is a risk of conflict-victims snubbing the entire transitional justice process. The only prudent way to conclude the transitional justice process is to amend the transitional laws in a way that addresses the concerns of all stakeholders. It may not be possible to satisfy each and every individual, but the major concerns pointed out by the conflict victims, rights activists, court and the international community must be addressed. It is also vital to ensure that the two transitional justice bodies are free, independent and autonomous. It is a fact that due to the flawed appointment process, these two bodies, since 2015, have failed to make substantial progress on their tasks. They have received around 65,000 complaints, but completed the preliminary investigations of only a few cases. The two transitional justice commissions must be allowed to work without political interference to independently investigate every single complaint. In the past, there have been several instances of top politicians exerting pressure on the commissions to stop the investigation of certain cases. If the Dahal government is really committed to taking the transitional justice process and the peace process to its logical conclusion, it has to make a substantial progress. The international community has renewed its interest in Nepal's stalled transitional justice process after Dahal became prime minister in December last year. It has been more than 15 years since the seven-party alliance and the Maoists signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, but the transitional justice process has barely made any significant progress so far. The government is now planning to fast-track the bill from Parliament, which doesn’t give lawmakers sufficient time to study and deliberate the proposed legislation on transitional justice. As the government has already presented the bill in Parliament, the only way ahead is to form a parliamentary committee to revise the controversial provisions after consulting all stakeholders. Meanwhile, political parties should also revisit their past actions to examine what went wrong in the last eight years, after the formation of the two commissions, and find out ways to remedy those mistakes. Bhatta, the former chair of Truth and Reconciliation Commission, says the onus lies on Parliament and its members to hold intensive discussion on the bill before its endorsement. Parliamentary committees have not been formed yet, which are responsible for holding discussions on important legislations. If the bill endorsement is hurried, Bhatta says there will be serious, long-term implications, which could jeopardize Nepal’s peace process.

Corruption continues to thrive at all three levels of government, despite the anti-graft body’s claim of having a strong monitoring mechanism in place. Hardly any day goes by when there is no incident of corruption, mainly concerning civil servants taking a bribe, in the media. Senior journalist Hari Bahadur Thapa says news stories about bribery that comes in the media are usually minor ones, and that there are much larger corruption cases taking place in the shadows. Thapa suspects the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) is deliberately turning its attention away from big cases because of high-level political involvement. “The CIAA is failing to catch big fishes. It has abandoned the investigation of big scandals involving political leaders and focusing only on small cases,” he says. “This is because all the state mechanisms have been captured by the political parties.” After a long gap, the Special Court in Kathmandu last week slapped two former ministers—Badri Prasad Neupane and Tek Bahadur Gurung— with nine-year jail terms and Rs 12m fine. But it was a one-off case of politicians getting convicted of corruption in the country. In Nepal, even courts are known to delay the hearing of cases involving politicians or those people who have high-level political connections. A cursory look at the CIAA documents also shows where its focus lies when it comes to curbing and investigating corruption cases. People are registering more and more complaints with the CIAA.  A majority of complaints (4,459) received by the commission in the fiscal year in 2021/22 were in the form of written applications. Complaints were also recorded via postal service, e-mail, and directly to the CIAA website. Around half of the complaints (50.55percent), which also include those from previous fiscal years, are currently under investigation at the CIAA central office. Among the various regional offices of the anti-graft body, the highest number of complaints is being handled by the Bardibas office (8.68percent), while the Nepalgunj office (3.07percent) and Pokhara office (4.59 percent) have the lowest number of complaints, according to the report. Likewise, the Kathmandu head office of the CIAA has settled the highest number of complaints (9,509) compared to its branches. Among the offices outside of Kathmandu, the Butuwal office had the highest percentage of settled complaints (84.52 percent), while the Bardibas office had the highest number of settled complaints (1,196).  The Itahari office of the CIAA settled the fewest number of complaints in terms of percentage (53.36 percent), while the Nepalgunj office had the fewest number of settled complaints (524). The report also showed that approximately half of the complaints filed at both the head office and regional offices of the CIAA were against the local governments and their agencies (47.08 percent). About 40.96percent of the complaints were against agencies under the federal government. In terms of provinces, the highest number of complaints was received against the offices in Bagmati, followed by Madhes, Lumbini, and Koshi. Number of corruption complaints against provincial government offices in Gandaki, Karnali, and Sudurpashchim was comparatively fewer. In terms of agencies under provincial and local governments, the highest number of complaints has been filed in Madhes (28.10 percent), while the lowest was in Gandaki (8.47 percent). Lumbini accounted for 15 percent, Sudurpashchim 13.73 percent, and Koshi 12.79 percent of the total number of complaints filed. Bagmati and Karnali accounted for 11.78 percent and 10 percent respectively. The report also showed that complaints against sectors such as federal affairs, education, health, land administration, forest and environment, physical infrastructure, and home affairs were comparatively higher. A significant number of complaints were related to fake academic certificates and amassing of illegal properties. In terms of sector-wise distribution, complaints in federal affairs (including local government) were the highest (33.14 percent), followed by education (15.31 percent); land administration (7.71 percent), forest and environment (4.62 percent); health and population (3.99 percent); physical infrastructure and transport (3.88 percent); home administration (3.75 percent); tourism, industry and commerce (3.23 percent); energy, water resources and irrigation (3.09 percent); water supply and urban development (2.98 percent); finance and revenue (1.96 percent); agriculture and livestock (1.88 percent); and communication and information technology (0.99 percent). After preliminary investigation, the CIAA head office settled 9,509 (77.31 percent) of the 12,300 complaints filed in 2021/22, said the report. The commission’s branch offices settled 7,660 (63.67 percent) out of 12,031 complaints. In total, the CIAA settled 17,169 (70.56 percent) out of 24,331 complaints recorded during the fiscal year 2021/22. The remaining 7,162 complaints have been carried over for 2022/23. In 2021/22, following a comprehensive investigation, the CIAA decided to register charge sheets in 130 complaints. Including one charge sheet decided in 2020/21, the commission filed a total of 131 charge sheets at the Special Court in 2021/22. Additionally, the anti-graft commission issued 80 suggestions and 17 written instructions, while 637 complaints are in the notice service process. It also took 41 other decisions. In 2021/22, the CIAA held 79 meetings and made 975 decisions related to filing charge-sheets, appeals, reviews, dispositions, and pending of investigation, among other matters. Of the 131 cases charge-sheeted in 2021/22, 35 were related to causing damage to public property, 34 to seeking illegal benefits, and 32 to corruption. Seven cases were related to illegal amassing of properties, six to fake academic certificates, five to revenue leakage, and 12 to other offenses. In 2021/22, the CIAA also filed appeals at the Supreme Court against decisions of the Special Court in 57 cases. A total of 637 complaints — 42 against illegal amassing of properties and 595 others — filed in 2021/22 have been kept in disposition as per Clause 19 (12) of CIAA Act, 1991, and Rule 10 CIAA Regulations, 2002. The performance of the Special Court, through which cases related to corruption are settled, is dismal. For instance in the fiscal year 2078/79, altogether 792 cases were filed, but the court delivered on only 339 of them. Most of the cases filed at the Special Court are related to illegal earning, policy corruption, fake certificate, bribery, and money laundering. Nepal was ranked in the 110th position out of 180 countries in the corruption perception index report of Transparency International in 2022. The country had ranked at 117th spot in 2021. But despite the year-by-year improvement in corruption perception, observers say it does not take account of irregularities that are happening at the local level. They say corruption and irregularities are thriving at provincial and local levels, and there are no reliable mechanisms to check them. This is true particularly in development projects, which have boomed in provinces after Nepal adopted federalism. According to the National Vigilance Center (NVC), corruption has flourished mainly in big development projects. In one of its reports, the NVC states that the quality of big infrastructure projects is seriously compromised due to nexus between politicians and contractors. To check the quality of infrastructure projects, NVC has set up laboratories but it falls short of sufficient human and other resources. Padmini Pradhananga, president of Transparency International Nepal, says anti-graft agencies in Nepal are not paying attention to the corruption happening at the local level. “We are receiving complaints that corruption and irregularities are happening in the health, education and construction sectors,” says. “There are also reports of the CIAA keeping big corruption scandals on hold and investigating only small cases.”

When the CPN (Maoist Center) and the CPN-UML came together on 25 December 2022 to form a new government under Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the Nepali Congress was thrown to the opposition aisle. The NC had forged an electoral alliance with the Maoists and other fringe parties to fight the parliamentary election on 20 November 2022. But the alliance fell through after Congress leader Sher Bahadur Deuba refused to cede the prime minister’s office to Dahal. The NC had won the most number of seats in parliament, but failed to secure a majority. The Maoist-UML reunion came as a shock to many, not just the Congress party. The animosity between Dahal and UML leader KP Sharma Oli was too deep for anyone to even imagine that they could come together. Naturally, Deuba came under fire from the party rank and file for failing to save the electoral alliance and helping revive the coalition of two major leftist forces. It was a disaster in the eyes of the NC as well as external powers including India that are averse to a communist party rule in Nepal. But by joining forces with the UML and other fringe parties including the Hindu right-wing Rastriya Prajatantra Party, Prime Minister Dahal had cobbled together a shaky coalition. As the key coalition partner UML, the second largest party in parliament, was effectively running the government. Oli was the kingmaker, and Dahal a powerless premier. It didn’t take long for the Maoist-UML coalition to crack. The NC played a significant part in this by offering a vote of confidence to Dahal, even if that meant blurring the line between the ruling and the opposition parties in parliament and creating a national confusion. Now the Maoists and the NC have once again revived their coalition, but the uncertainty about its lifespan remains — after all, making and breaking of alliances has always been a dominant theme in Nepali politics. The breakdown of UML-Maoist coalition in two months does not offer any hope of stability. No one knows what kind of power-sharing understanding was reached between Prime Minister Dahal and NC leader Deuba this time. There are media reports that Dahal, Deuba and CPN (Unified Socialist) leader Madhav Kumar Nepal will be taking turns running the government for five years. But even the top politicians of the ruling parties cannot confirm if such a deal was indeed struck. Before taking the decision of forming the latest coalition, Prime Minister Dahal had held several rounds of meetings with senior Congress leaders. But NC Central Working Committee member Ramesh Rijal says, “The party leadership has not informed us about the agreement on power-sharing.” As the joint numerical strength of the NC and the Maoists is not sufficient to keep the coalition in power, it is vital for the two parties to stay together and, at the same time, keep the other fringe parties happy. For now, the NC seems to be basking in the glory of having recaptured the position of power by breaking up the left alliance and having elected its leader Ram Chandra Poudel to the post of president, but the party has a steep challenge ahead to keep the coalition together. The same goes for the Dahal’s Maoist party, which has been losing its political strength and relevance over the years. “Continuation of the current coalition is the need of the hour,” NC Vice-president Purna Bahadur Khadka told the party meeting on Wednesday. Compared to the past, the NC this time seems united when it comes to fostering a sustainable partnership with the Maoist party — that is, until the next election. Earlier, leaders like Gagan Kumar Thapa and Shekhar Koirala were not in favor of this idea. But it is still too early to say how long this political partnership will last. A few days back, Thapa said at a public program that the course of the coalition would be determined by the performance of the government in the next five-six months. He added if the current coalition fails to ensure good governance and address the economic crisis, it could prompt the NC to rethink about the future of the government. Thapa’s remarks suggest that the NC-UML coalition cannot be ruled out. The UML, which is now in opposition, is already hinting at a possible alliance with the NC “for the stability of the government.” The UML’s top priority right now is to unseat Dahal and his party from power. However, NC leader Rijal says there are no chances of an NC-UML coalition at least until the next election. NC youth leader Shankar Tiwari is also confident that the chances of NC-UML coming together are almost zero. “The parties came together in the past because there was the question of constitution promulgation. The situation is completely different now,” he says. It appears that Deuba and his team in particular is unlikely to displease the Maoists or change the political course, for the fear that it could once again create an environment where the two communist parties could come together. NC youth leader Tiwari says there are some major political and policy barriers between NC and UML. “Oli’s attempts to dissolve the previous parliament was unconstitutional, but he is still insisting that he was right and talking about mid-term elections. Congress cannot work together with the UML if it is holding the same view,” he says. But there is no mistaking that Prime Minister Dahal still leads a fragile coalition of eight parties with conflicting positions on domestic and external issues. His main challenge is to satisfy all coalition partners. The incumbent Cabinet will be reshuffled soon after he takes a vote of confidence on Monday. There are chances of dispute breaking out among the coalition partners during the Cabinet expansion process, because it is impossible to meet the aspirations of all political parties. As the largest party in the coalition, the NC will certainly bargain for more ministries, and powerful ones like finance, foreign affairs, and defense. There is also the risk of intra-party feud within the NC, as the number of ministerial aspirants has increased with the rival faction in the party supporting Deuba in his decision to give the trust vote to Prime Minister Dahal back in January. According to some NC leaders, Deuba wants to provide a respectable share to the rival faction for the sustainability of the coalition. Or else, there is sure to be friction within the party, which could affect the government functioning. Meanwhile, the CPN (Unified Socialist), another vital coalition partner, is also sure to bargain for more ministries, for it did not get the presidency. And with several parties likely to be represented in the government, it remains to be seen how practical the Common Minimum Program is going to be. The parties could manage the differences on the domestic issues, but disagreements persist between the NC and the UML on matters relating to dealing with external powers. Another challenge before the Dahal-led government is to address the demands put forth by fringe parties such as Nagarik Unmukti Party and Madhes-based parties, mainly about releasing their cadres who are in prison and issues related to citizenship. Parties in the opposition, mainly the UML and the RPP, who together hold 90 seats in parliament, could protest if the issue of citizenship finds space in the House.

President-elect Ram Chandra Paudel will take the oath of office and secrecy on Monday as the third president of republic Nepal. Like his predecessors—Ram Baran Yadav and Bidya Devi Bhandari—Paudel too comes from a political background. The President is regarded as a constitutional head of the state with limited powers defined by the constitution and federal law. But the executive powers are vested in the council of ministers. Still, electing a politician with executive ambitions could raise the risk Sheetal Niwas emerging as a parallel power center. It was evident in the case of two past presidents that instead of keeping the Office of the President free from politics and controversy, parties view this institution as a tool to advance their political interests. This has eroded the credibility of the president’s office and often become a subject of public criticism. The tussle between the president and the prime minister erupted right from the time Nepal became a republic by electing a political leader to the post. Ram Baran Yadav, the first president, was a senior Nepali Congress politician loyal to the NC leaders, Girija Prasad Koirala and Sushil Koirala. Similarly, outgoing president Bidya Devi Bhandari came from the CPN-UML. She served two terms in Sheetal Niwas. Both Yadav and Bhandari were always grateful and loyal to their political patrons, and they showed this gratitude by siding with their parties on more than one occasion. The two former presidents faced charges of breaching the constitution by interfering in the executive’s jurisdiction and conversely engaging in party politics. Yadav courted several controversies and faced the charges of acting as a parallel power center. The tussle between the Office of the President and the Office of the Prime Minister over the government’s decision to sack the then Chief of Army Staff Rookmangud Katawal culminated into the resignation of Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal. Yadav took the decision to refuse the government’s move following the whispers of his party. The Maoist party launched a street movement against the president, and the new republic was to get cougars in a power tussle between the president and prime minister from 2011 to 2015. It was expected that the parties would learn lessons from the first presidency and elect a non-partisan figure as the second head of the state. But the second president, Bhandari, was even more controversial. During her eight-year tenure, Bhandari faced charges of favoring her party, UML. She was heavily criticized for endorsing the decisions of the KP Oli government to dissolve the democratically elected parliament twice. Once again, Nepal has got an active politician as its president. Moreover, the president-elect is someone who had made several unsuccessful bids to premiership as a NC leader. And unlike Yadav and Bhandari, Paudel is a dominant force in his party. This begs the question: can Paudel maintain the dignity of his office? There are fears that there could be more confrontation between the president and the prime minister, as a senior leader of a political party has reached Sheetal Niwas. Paudel has previously held the post of House speaker and several ministerial positions. Though he has achieved the highest position in the country, he still regrets not becoming the prime minister. Even after being elected the president, Paudel said that his preference was to become the executive head rather than the constitutional president. This statement betrays his hunger to wield executive power. It also suggests that Paudel could be a more controversial president than his two predecessors. Political analysts predict that his dominant personality may put him on a collision course with the government. One NC leader reckons Paudel will start asserting his power after some months into the office, dictating the works of the prime minister. Even the party leader, Sher Bahadur Deuba, cannot control him, adds the leader. The past presidents have often come to clash with the prime minister on the issue of authenticating bills and ordinances. As per constitution, the president should endorse the ordinances forwarded by the government. But, the problem with the ordinance is that they are designed to serve the petty party and personal interests of the prime minister and his party. The president often faces the pressures to authenticate the decisions of the executive but at the same time, there is a pressure from the public to reject the decisions, particularly if they contain objectionable provisions. Regarding the bill endorsed by Parliament, the constitution has given certain rights to the president. Article 113 of the constitution says: In case the President is of the opinion that any bill, except a Money Bill, presented for authentication needs reconsideration, he or she may, within 50 days from the date of submission, send back the bill along with his or her message to the House in which the bill originated. However, if parliament sends the bill to the Office of the President—with or without consideration of the president’s queries—for the second time, it has to be authenticated. Both Bhandari and Yadav were dragged into controversy due to ordinances. On those issues, the Prime Minister’s Office was equally responsible for bypassing the parliament and trying to steamroll controversial bills or laws through an ordinance. This culture often puts the president at the center of political controversy. A lack of communication between the president and prime minister in the past has also created misunderstandings between the two institutions.  Though Article 81 of the constitution makes it mandatory for the prime minister to inform the president about the bills that are to be introduced in the federal parliament, necessary information, current state of affairs, and matters relating to foreign affairs, the Prime Minister’s Office has consistently failed to do so. So it is important that both the prime minister and the president’s offices learn lessons from the past and keep their line of communication open at all times. That is how the notion of checks and balances is fostered between the two institutions. As a senior political leader, the onus lies on Paudel to take measures to develop the institution in line with the constitutional provisions. He should clean the legacy left behind by his predecessors and lead the Office of the President by example—free from controversy and always within the constitutional limits.

South Asian countries are plunging into economic crises one after another. The Sri Lankan economy is struggling to recover from a devastating debt crisis and its subsequent political fallout, while Pakistan’s economy is teetering on the brink of collapse. Nepal’s economy was sick before the Covid-19 pandemic due to continuous rise in imports and depleting internal production. And just as the country’s economy was getting back on track after the pandemic, it was knocked down again by the Russia-Ukraine war. To make matters worse, extreme weather patterns are also seriously hampering economic activities. Nepal’s crop output is failing. From buying groceries to energy, the cost of living is rising sharply, which has hit the low-income families the most. Meanwhile, businesses are also facing stress due to rising interest rates. Nepal’s economic growth rate has fallen further than it was during the Covid-19 pandemic. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, the country’s economy grew by a meager 0.8 percent in the first quarter of the running fiscal year. Slump in construction, minimal growth in agriculture and slow manufacture are ruining the economy. As the crisis deepens, the government is struggling to strike a balance between income and expenditure. The federal budget was in a deficit of Rs 153.61bn as of March 5. A study conducted by the Confederation of Nepalese Industries shows that implementation of projects mentioned in the budget is sluggish, with zero progress in 36 economic sector programs. In order to save forex, the government imposed a ban on the import of so-called luxurious items, but the move backfired, hitting the revenue collection. If the situation deteriorates further, there is a risk of society descending to anarchy. Some elements have already launched a campaign of not paying interests on loans they have taken from financial institutions. So, addressing the economic crisis should be the number one priority of the government and political parties. Unfortunately, they are preoccupied with their own political agendas. Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal has only just started consulting with economists on ways to save the economy from a free fall. Well, better late than never. Nepal’s economy has remained neglected by the political leadership for a long time now. This is mainly due to the lack of political stability in the country. In the previous government, there was animosity between the finance minister and the central bank governor. Coordination between the Ministry of Finance and Nepal Rastra Bank was affected, as the two agencies did not see eye to eye. Now, change in the coalition has left the ministry without leadership. Frequent transfer of secretaries has not helped, either. As of now, it remains uncertain when Dahal’s Cabinet will get its full shape. The incoming finance minister will have a lot of responsibility, so it is incumbent upon the prime minister to pick the right candidate—and not get caught in political seat-sharing. Senior economist Chandra Mani Adhikari says though Nepal’s economy cannot be compared with that of Sri Lanka and Pakistan, it is certainly heading toward a disaster. He says the political leadership should get serious and get to work without any delay. Internal investment is gradually decreasing, the state of foreign investment and assistance is going down, and almost all economic indicators are poor, says Adhikari. Remittance is the only thing that is keeping the economy alive, while there are some hopes from the tourism sector as well. Economists suggest that the government maintain austerity measures and take steps to increase domestic production. This is not a normal situation, so the political leadership should think differently. Economist Swarnim Wagle says instead of patch-up work, Nepal’s economy needs a serious surgical solution. Party and political issues have overshadowed the problems in the economy, he adds, while suggesting that the current crisis should be viewed in short-term, mid-term and long-term perspectives and addressed accordingly. Former vice-chair of National Planning Commission Govinda Pokhrel says the government should pay attention to increase the capital expenditure and decrease general expenditure. In order to decrease imports, he suggests the federal government should set an agricultural production target to each local government to reduce imports. To do all these things, Prime Minister Dahal should first appoint a strong finance minister who has a sound knowledge of the current state of the economy. He must act fast to prevent a looming economic disaster.  

Nepal’s political leadership pledging to conclude the long-drawn-out transitional justice process has just been about talking the talk. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the former rebel group, Maoists, and government was signed in 2006. That was 17 years ago, and the victims of the decade-long armed insurgency waged by the Maoists against the state are still clamoring for justice. When Nepal reaffirmed its commitment to conclude the transitional justice process at the ongoing 52nd session of the UN Human Rights Council last week, it sounded disingenuous to many people, particularly conflict victims. Then there was another glaring reason to look askance. The government of Nepal, led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal of the Maoist party, had sent Govinda Prasad Koirala to lead the Nepali delegation after barring Foreign Minister Bimala Rai Poudyal from attending the UN meet under way in Geneva. With the CPN-UML’s decision to pull out of the coalition government, the prime minister thought it would be unwise to send Poudyal, a minister from UML, to represent his government at the UN council. This last-minute change of plans also starkly showed the world the fluid political situation in Nepal. This incident came at a time when the international community is keenly watching the new government’s commitment to seeing through the transitional justice process. It didn’t help either that Prime Minister Dahal is one of the chief actors of the conflict in which more than 17,000 people were killed. In his address to the UN Human Rights Council, Koirala reiterated Nepal’s commitment to conclude the transitional justice process and provide justice and reparations to the victims. He said the new government would be guided by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, directives of the Supreme Court and in line with Nepal’s international commitment on human rights. Koirala also informed the international community that the amendment proposal on Enforced Disappearance and Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act 2014 would soon be tabled in Parliament. It was noteworthy that Koirala, who previously served as minister of law during which he had made a tall claim of concluding transitional justice within six months, was trying to convince the UN member states that Nepal was on track to deliver justice to the conflict victims. The story of transitional justice at home is very different. The two transitional justice mechanisms — Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons—are without their heads and office-bearers for eight months now. Successive governments have been extending the term of both commissions that are essentially toothless, without office bearers and resources. The new government under Dahal is being pressed by the international community to take concrete steps to settle the war-era crimes and cases of human rights violation. The Maoist prime minister also seems eager to conclude the peace process. But there is a distinct contrast in the way the two sides see the act of delivering justice. The Maoists want a reconciliatory approach while settling most of the cases and prosecuting only those incidents that are serious in nature. But the international community as well as the conflict victims strongly oppose such a plan. They are in favor of thoroughly screening all incidents and prosecuting them based on the nature of seriousness. Even Nepal’s Supreme Court is on the side of the victims on this one. The highest court in the land in its 2015 verdict has closed the door for blanket amnesty on serious cases and directed the government and political parties to accordingly amend the transitional justice act. The government in July last year came up with an amendment bill to the transitional justice act. While the proposed amendments were a slight improvement to the previous laws, they are still flawed in many ways. The amendment bill registered in Parliament is yet to be presented. But it has already generated enough talking points. The international community has cited several flaws including the wordings that make it possible to grant amnesty for certain gross violations of human rights, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. There is also the provision where the verdicts handed down by a special tribunal for transitional justice would not be subject to judicial appeal, which is in violation of international fair trial guarantees. Until major political parties of Nepal come together on the bill to amend the transitional justice act, it is unlikely to be endorsed by Parliament. And building a consensus on things that matter is an almost impossible task in Nepal. For the Nepali Congress and the UML, two other major political forces in Nepal, the transitional justice process has always been a bargaining chip to exploit the Maoists to serve their political interests. They are equally responsible for rendering the two transitional justice commissions powerless. The long overdue transitional justice process cannot be concluded on the whims of political parties. The two transitional justice commissions have collected 66,000 complaints from the conflict victims, but only some of these cases have so far gone through the preliminary investigation round. Once the complaints are recorded, they should be thoroughly investigated to satisfy the victims, which has not happened so far. Legal experts say it could take at least four to five years to conclude the transitional justice process, provided the two commissions are empowered with staff and resources. But Nepali political parties have always taken a wrong attitude to taking the peace process to its logical end. They think that with broad political consensus, the transitional justice process could be concluded overnight. The reality is they have turned this issue into a political weapon for their gains. No wonder they did not hold wider public consultation while coming up with transitional justice laws and showed reluctance to follow the Supreme Court’s verdict. In his address to the UN council, Koirala, on behalf of the Dahal government, conveyed the message of Nepal’s transitional justice process making progress. But if you asked the conflict victims, it has barely moved an inch. The longer the concerned parties and stakeholders delay the transitional justice process, things are likely to get more complicated. Take the latest Supreme Court’s direction concerning the prosecution of Prime Minister Dahal, for example. The court on Friday ordered its administration to register a writ petition against Dahal, who had claimed responsibility of 5,000 insurgency-related deaths at a public event some three years ago. Hearing a case filed by two advocates against the decision of the Supreme Court administration to reject their petitions last November, a division bench of justices Ishwor Prasad Khatiwada and Hari Prasad Phuyal has ordered the court administration to register their suits. Advocates Gyanendra Aaran and Kalyan Budhathoki, who are also conflict victims, had filed separate writ petitions to take legal action against Prime Minister Dahal, but the court administration had refused to do so, claiming that the issue was related to transitional justice. The Supreme Court’s decision has rattled Prime Minister Dahal and his party. They are crying foul over what they say is a conspiracy to corner them by bringing up the conflict-era cases, which ought to be dealt by the transitional justice commissions. But the Maoist party should know that they cannot forever hide behind the shield of transitional justice for their convenience whenever someone brings a case against them in the court of law. They have to put genuine commitment to empower the transitional justice mechanisms and respect their findings if they ever wish to put their violent history behind them. There is no two ways about it, the conflict victims deserve their long overdue closure. Or else, there will be more legal and political complications in the days to come.