Submit your Article

Nepal has conducted seven parliamentary elections since 1959. But the upcoming election will be a historic one, in that it is the first to be held after the completion of parliament’s term. But as far as historic significance goes, that’s about it. The first parliamentary election of  1959 paved the way for the formation of a bicameral legislature comprising upper and lower houses of parliament. That election, the Nepali Congress won the most seats (74) and its leader BP Koirala formed a government. The then Communist Party of Nepal came a distant fourth with just four seats behind the then Nepal Rastrabadi Gorkha Parishad and Samyukta Prajatantra Party. But the people’s elected government was short-lived, as the then king Mahendra wrested power from it and imposed the partyless Panchayat regime.  After the restoration of democracy in 1990, the NC once again came to power through the 1991 general election. The main communist force, the CPN-UML, came a distant second. Since then, all elections have essentially been a two-horse race between the NC and communist parties. This is despite the emergence of new political forces, such as Maoist and Madhes-based parties, after 2006, and the start of alliance politics with the 2017 elections.  The Nov 20 elections can be termed a direct contest between two sides because all major parties are contesting by forming two distinct alliances, one led by the Congress and another by the UML.  The members in the NC-led electoral alliance or the so-called democratic left alliance are the CPN (Maoist Center), CPN (Unified Socialist), Janata Samajbadi Party Nepal and Rastriya Janamorcha. The UML, meanwhile, leads the second alliance, and its members are the Upendra Yadav-led Janata Samajbadi, the royalist Rastriya Prajatantra Party and other smaller parties.  Bhojraj Pokharel, former chief election commissioner, says political parties are yet to get a full maturity, which means the capability to avoid provocation, develop more understanding and engage in logic-based decision-making.  “Nepali political parties should first institutionalize themselves which means intra-party good governance, collective leadership, less factions and interest groups.”  It was due to the lack of intra-party democracy that former prime minister and UML chair KP Sharma Oli dissolved parliament twice.  Analysts say as long as intra-party democracy is lacking and several parties are running the government with their own set of interests and agendas, Nepal cannot achieve political stability.   They reckon the November 20 elections too won’t deliver a stable government, as more than two parties are set to form the next government.   An agreement between either NC and Maoist or UML and Maoist to lead the government on equal terms could sow the seeds of instability.   Political analyst Bishnu Dahal says, as a single party getting the majority votes is slim, Nepal is on the course of yet another period of political instability.  “In previous elections, political stability at least used to be one of the planks of parties. This time, they themselves have planted the seeds of instability,” says Dahal.   1959 election  Total seats: 109  Nepali Congress: 74  Nepal Rastrabadi Gorkha Parishad: 19  Samyukta Prajatantra Party: 5  Communist Party of Nepal: 4  Nepal Praja Parishad(Mishra): 1  Nepal Praja Parishad(Acharya): 2  Independent:4   1991 elections Total seats: 205  Nepali Congress: 110  CPN-UML: 69  Sangyuta Jana Morcha: 9  Nepal Sadbhawana Party: 6  Rastriya Prajatantra Party(Chand):3  Nepal Majdoor Kishan Party: 2  Nepal Communist Party(Pragatishil): 2  Rastriya Prajatantra Party(Thapa): 1  Independent: 1  1993 elections  Total seats: 205  CPN-UML: 88  Nepali Congress: 83 Rastriya Prajatantra Party: 20  Nepal Majodoor Kishna Party: 4  Nepal Sadbhawana Party: 3  Independent: 7  1999 elections  Total seats: 205  Nepali Congress: 111 CPN-UML: 71  Rastriya Prajatantra Party: 11  Nepal Sadbhawna Party: 5  Sangyukta Jana Morcha: 5  Nepal Majdoor Kishan Party: 1  Independent: 0  2008: Constituent Assembly elections  Total: 601  CPN (Maoist): 226  Nepali Congress: 110  CPN-UML: 103  Madhes Janadhikar Forum: 50  Tarai Madhes Loktantrik Party: 19  Sadbhawana Party: 9  (Note: The remaining seats were won by fringe parties; there were 24 political parties)  2013 Constituent Assembly Elections  Total: 601  Nepali Congress: 197 CPN-UML: 174  Maoist: 79  Rastriya Prajatantra Party(Nepal): 24  Sanghaya Samajbadi Forum, Nepal: 15  Madhesi Janadhikar Forum(Loktantrik): 14  Rastriya Prajatantra Party: 13  Terai Madhes Loktantrik Party: 11 Sadbhawana Party: 6  CPN(ML): 5  Nepal Majdoor Kishan Party: 4  2017 Parliamentary Elections Total seats: 275   CPN-UML: 121  Nepali Congress: 63  CPN (Maoist Center): 53  Sanghya Samajbadi Forum: 16  Rastriya Janata Party Forum: 17 Rastriya Prajatantra Party: 1  Naya Shakti Nepal: 1 

Satis Devkota is an associate professor of economics and management at the University of Minnesota Morris. He holds a PhD in economics from Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, US. He closely follows Nepal’s politics, economy and international politics. Devkota talks to Kamal Dev Bhattarai focusing on the Nov 20 elections.  What is your take on Nepal’s growing culture of alliance politics? In a democratic society, people are free to create their political parties and contest in elections, which are free of coercion and fair to all contestants. However, forming a political alliance among a group of political parties with diverse political ideologies—political-economic philosophies—blunts the purity of our democracy. Such an alliance is unnatural, and a reflection of the incompetency or insecurity of political parties engaged in forming such an alliance. In general, a political alliance is a group of political parties that are formally united and working together if they have common aims. Looking at the past 30 years of political history in Nepal, you can find only a couple of political alliances that make perfect sense.  Could you explain the culture of past alliances?  First, the NC-Left front alliance that was formed in 1990 together fought against the autocratic Panchayat regime to establish the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy in Nepal. The shared objective was achieved, and the country’s multi-party democracy was reinstated after 30 years. Second, after King Gyanendra dissolved the parliament and seized power in Feb 2005, a seven-party alliance was formed that fought against the king’s direct rule with the intent to restore parliament and multiparty democracy. In the face of broad opposition, the king restored the previous parliament in April 2006. Again, the shared objective of forming the political alliance was met. Besides, let’s evaluate the provisions to form the government in the current constitution of Nepal. A coalition government could be an alternative if a single party cannot achieve the majority in parliament. So, forming a political alliance to form a coalition government is constitutional, and that might lead to political stability if our political parties are prudent and understand political ethics, and respect the values of politics. Unfortunately, our leaders and political parties are not on that boat.  Forming a political alliance in the general election for the house of the representative and provincial election between the two major forces (socialist and capitalist) with the wider difference in ideology, political philosophy, and political-economic agendas is against the ethos of democracy and completely unnatural. It is entirely guided by a single objective: to size down the strength of CPN (UML) in parliament and the provincial positions and to stop KP Oli from being the prime minister again. Such an alliance is unacceptable in a flourishing democracy.  The political leaders are guided by their egos rather than their social responsibilities.  Will the Nov 20 elections ensure political stability? No. The recent public choice literature discusses various political features which crucially influence government behavior, and drive a wedge between what governments actually do and what they are advised to do by economists. Typically, when there is a coalition government led by a political alliance between the political parties with opposing ideologies, political power is dispersed, either across different wings of the government, or amongst political parties in a coalition, or across parties that alternate in power through the medium of elections. The desire to concentrate or hold on to power can result in political instability and inefficient economic policies.  For instance, lobbying by various interest groups, together with the ruling party’s wish to remain in power, often results in policy distortions being exchanged for electoral support. Generally, politicians are interested solely in maximizing their probability of surviving in office, so the resulting character of government is pretty much unstable and very far away from the benevolence assumed by more traditional normative theories of government behavior. In addition, political parties are almost exclusively concerned with furthering the interests of their own support groups. Thus, the conclusions that follow from this discussion are very much different from the conclusion that can be reached if there is a stable government.  During electioneering, all political parties commit to bringing the wave of development, but it is limited only to the slogan, what are the major hindrances to Nepal’s development? Political parties, their leaders, and policymakers lack a clear understanding of the determinants of growth and development in Nepal. Even though they know the common determinants, they may not internalize how each of those determinants affects growth and development, what strategies promote inclusive growth and sustainable development, and if that growth and development strategy leads to achieving the objective of a welfare state in the long run. Besides, political parties and policymakers do not have clear pictures of the intermediate and final outcomes of the long-run growth process. That creates confusion and policy dilemmas, which leads to misleading outcomes.  Actually, policymakers have to look at the proximate and fundamental factors that affect the growth and development of a country. Capital accumulation and productivity growth are the proximate determinants of growth. In contrast, luck, geography, culture, and institutions are fundamental determinants of the growth and development of any country in the world, and Nepal is not exception. Understanding this fact and internalizing the channel through which each of those factors affect our growth and development is fundamental in the first place. That knowledge helps policymakers form evidence-based policies to achieve high growth, alleviate poverty, reduce inequalities, and promote all-faced development in the country. That says there is not just a single hindrance to growth and development in current Nepal. How does a coalition government affect good governance and service delivery? As I have mentioned earlier, a coalition government led by a political alliance of parties with opposing political views leads to political instability and forms an unstable government. That can be a cause of economic distortions. Unstable coalitions or governments that are not likely to remain in power for an extended period of time are liable to introduce policy distortions for at least two reasons.  First, such governments obviously have very short time horizons that have important implications for economic policy in general and budgetary policy in particular. If political power alternates rapidly and randomly between competing political parties or groups of parties, then each government will follow myopic policies since it assigns a low probability of being relocated. Hard policy options whose benefits flow after a long gestation lag are unlikely to be adopted by such a government. Instead, it may spend indiscriminately in order to satisfy the short-term needs of its support groups. This will result in a legacy of high debt to its successor. Although this may constrain the actions of the next government, the current government does not care about the priorities of the next government. The second route through which the rapid turnover of governments may induce policy distortions is relevant in the case of coalition governments. The shorter the expected duration of such governments, the more difficult it will be for the ruling coalition members to agree on policies.  Of course, the more heterogeneous the parties in the ruling coalition, the greater the lack of cooperation will be. Each party in the ruling coalition may then try to promote populist policies in order to exploit its own narrow interests. The most likely casualties of all this will be fiscal discipline, good governance, and service delivery.

New US Ambassador to Nepal Dean R. Thompson has just taken charge. The Chinese Embassy remains vacant since the departure of Hou Yanqi. And Indian Ambassador Naveen Srivastava, who arrived in July, is just getting a sense of Nepali politics.  But with or without their ambassadors, these three powers– which are competing to counter each other’s influence in Kathmandu– are closely following the November 20 elections and its outcomes.  For the new ambassadors, it is not an easy job to navigate Kathmandu’s complex political situation. At the same time, there are new developments in Beijing and Washington. Chinese President Xi Jinping has been elected for a third consecutive term, while his US counterpart Joe Biden has come up with a new national security strategy, which clearly mentions about containing China.  In order to contain each other, they want a favorable government in Kathmandu.  Rupak Sapkota, a Kathmandu-based foreign policy expert, says compared to the past elections, there are greater concerns among the big powers regarding the outcomes of the elections this time.  “The case of Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) clearly showed that parliament and parliamentarians have much of a role to play on bilateral agreements and other international cooperation issues,” says Sapkota. “It is not only about which party comes to power after the elections. This election, the big powers have shown concerns regarding the victory of some specific candidates.”  Amid geopolitical tensions, all three powers want to see a government that will potentially advance their interests in Kathmandu. The immediate priority of the US, according to experts, is to create a conducive environment for smooth implementation of the MCC, which will formally come into operation from next August, and to push forward the State Partnership Program, which has been halted for time being.   As for Beijing, it is obvious that it prefers to see a communist party-led government in Kathmandu and if that is not possible, it wants the left alliance to be a dominant force in the government.  At this point, China’s number one priority is to curb the growing Western influence in Kathmandu.  “If Sher Bahadur Deuba were to become prime minister after the elections, China fears the Western influence may further increase in Nepal,” says a source close to the Chinese Embassy. Meanwhile, India’s priority for now is to lessen the influence of Beijing in Kathmandu.  Apart from curbing China’s role in Nepal, New Delhi also wants to see a government in Kathmandu that is willing to keep on hold the border disputes and 1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty, says a former diplomat. Nihar R Nayak, a New Delhi-based Nepal-India expert, says India prefers a government led by liberal democratic forces in Nepal, which means the continuation of the current coalition government led by the Nepali Congress.  “Given the election manifestos of communist parties, New Delhi may not feel comfortable working with them after the elections,” says Nayak. “At the same time, as always, India is ready to work with whichever party comes to Baluwatar, but does not want much noise on map and other issues and engage on those issues diplomatically.”  Whichever party ascends to power after elections, it will have to balance the ties with New Delhi and Beijing. This way of diplomacy is also something all major parties have in common in their election manifestos as well.  “It is important for the new government in Kathmandu not to tilt to any powers,” says Amit Ranjan,  research fellow at the National Unity of Singapore. “Only a balancing act can better serve Kathmandu’s interests.”  In 2017, when the left alliance secured two-third votes in national parliament, it sent a shock wave in New Delhi, while Beijing was upbeat over the victory of communist parties. Sheng Zhang, research fellow at Chengdu Institute for World Affairs, says as Nepal faces a crucial time, the November 20 polls should elect competent leaders to lead both internal and external fronts.  Internationally, there is a risk posed by the complicated China-US relations and the controversy over the US-led Indo-Pacific Strategy and China-led Belt and Road Initiatives (BRI). Domestically, Nepali economy needs to revive and there are multiple tasks such as economic development, health care, infrastructure, education and cultural reforms.  “The large hope that many international friends of Nepal have for the post-election time is, that no matter what the election outcome, Nepalese society and political parties, especially those in the left, should cease the polarization,” says Zhang. “Political parties of Nepal should reconcile and work together to actually improve the livelihood of the people and to handle the international challenges.”

If you visit cafes and tea shops around Kathmandu valley, you’ll find people who harbor a deep resentment against the incumbent political parties. They say they prefer untested new candidates who can bring real changes. This sentiment among voters rings true across the country. After the local elections of May 13, that saw the rise of independent mayoral candidates like Balen Shah and Harka Sampang, many Nepalis seem to be eager to do away with old, established parties and their leaders and vote for outsiders. Even top leaders like Sher Bahadur Deuba, KP Sharma Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal are facing the heat of independent candidates.  Analysts say realistically, independent candidates are not in a position of winning the elections against seasoned politicians, but they can surely change the course of election outcomes. Political analyst Krishna Khanal says though anti-incumbency wave has become strong this time due to the failure of major political parties that have been at the helm of power in the past three decades.  “True, a new political party will not sweep them away overnight, but it is high time that the established parties changed their ways, brought new agenda and allowed young leaders to drive the county,” says Khanal.  “The same old faces have been running this country since 1990 and they have failed to deliver. So, resentment among the public is understandable.” Jagannath Lamichhane, an independent candidate for the provincial assembly from Kathmandu-5, says people’s response to independent candidates is encouraging.   “People want to vote for outsiders but with so many independent candidates in the race, their winning prospects are low.”   Khanal says major parties should take the recent surge in independent candidates as an important intervention and a lesson to correct their old ways.  He believes that independent candidates cannot become an alternative to the political parties.  “But there is certainly an important lesson that old parties can learn from the enthusiasm that the public has shown towards independent candidates.”

Who will be the next prime minister after the Nov 20 elections? The answer depends on whom you ask. But one thing is sure: one of the old faces will take charge of the country. If you talk to CPN (Maoist Center) leaders, they explain why the party leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal is a natural candidate for the top job. They say Dahal had backed Sher Bahadur Deuba’s prime ministerial bid in July 2021 and it is time for the Nepali Congress to return the favor. The NC, however, is a divided house. It is not entirely keen on handing over the prime minister’s role to Dahal. Deuba’s core supporters wish for his continuation as prime minister after the elections. They argue that the largest party should lead the government in the parliamentary system. NC leader Min Bahadur Bishokarma says there has yet to be an agreement on post-election power-sharing. “The party may lead the government with a condition of transfer of power to Dahal after a certain period.” The NC, in its election manifesto unveiled on Oct 29, has mentioned that the post-election government will be formed under its leadership. Meanwhile, the main opposition, CPN-UML, has already announced its chair KP Sharma Oli as the party’s prime ministerial candidate. The main opposition is contesting the elections alone in most constituencies against the five-party alliance of NC, Maoists, Unified Socialist, Janata Samajbadi Party and Rastriya Janamorcha. Though the UML’s chances of emerging victorious over the alliance appear slim, its leaders are still hopeful. Since there won’t be one runaway winner, the formation of the next government will be based on power sharing, an issue that appears more complex than it appears. In Nepal, power-sharing agreements rarely take place based on shared ideology or vision among parties, and as a result, they are often fickle. As major parties have a history of forming and breaking alliances, there is no guarantee that Nepal will have a stable government after the elections. If there is no crack in the ruling five-party alliance, chances are the Maoist party will drive a hard bargain with the NC to clinch the prime ministerial seat. Maoist leader Dahal has publicly announced that he would like to be at the helm of power to implement his vision of economic policy. For him to become the next prime minister, the role of CPN (Unified Socialist), another party in the ruling alliance, will be instrumental. Unified Socialist chair Madhav Kumar Nepal has already tapped Dahal as the next prime minister. On October 18, Nepal announced at a public function, which was also attended by Deuba, that Dahal would lead the next government. Nepal and Dahal are closer to each other, and many see the prospect of their parties unifying after the elections. What will be Congress’s position on Dahal’s claim to the seat of the executive is not entirely clear so far. However, a senior Maoist leader close to Dahal is hopeful that Deuba will concede. “He [Deuba] has not made any promises, but he is also not batting away the idea of handing over the premiership to Chairman Dahal.” The Maoist leader suspects that Deuba is keeping silent so as not to rile up his own party leaders. Chances are that Dahal and Deuba may have reached a gentleman’s agreement on power-sharing when their parties decide to enter the electoral alliance. Deuba will likely try to convince Dahal into splitting the five-year government tenure and taking turns to lead the country. But Congress leader Nainsingh Mahar is not wholly convinced that Dahal will agree to the arrangement. “I believe Dahal will claim for unconditional role of a prime minister. If that doesn’t happen, he will likely break the alliance.” Mahar says Deuba also faces the challenge of convincing his own party leaders after the elections.  Inside the Congress, there is a strong opposition against the idea of the party relinquishing the government leadership to the Maoist party. To take a final call on power-sharing, some leaders say Deuba is eagerly waiting for the election results. If the vote outcome allows the NC to form a coalition government without the support of the Maoist Center, the situation will be entirely different. In such a scenario, the Congress will likely seek support from the Madhes-based parties and the Unified Socialist to form the next government. But if the Maoist party, like now, emerges as a decisive factor, Deuba will have to agree to hand over the power to Dahal. To prevent the possible rise of the left alliance, some political analysts say, this is the only way forward for Deuba and his party. If Dahal were to become the next prime minister, Congress would likely claim some critical ministries, as well as the post of parliament speaker. After the Constituent Assembly elections, candidates from left parties have successively become the speaker. The NC, for once, wants to head the lower house, particularly after former Speaker Agni Prasad Sapkota, from the Maoist party, took many controversial moves while leading the lower house, including his roles in splitting up the UML and delaying the House endorsement of the Millennium Challenge Corporation Nepal Compact. Though the post of parliament speaker is supposed to be impartial, Nepali parties have been using it to serve their own political interests. The Unified Socialist is also likely to make a bid for some important ministries and positions of influence in the power-sharing negotiations based on how the party figures in the government formation process. As for other fringe parties in the five-party alliance, they will most likely settle for small ministries and ceremonial positions. Power-sharing in seven provinces is another critical factor that could also affect the federal government configuration. And in case the five-party alliance disintegrates, the role of UML will be crucial for the formation of the next government. As the party has already projected Oli as a prime minister, it will be hard for the UML to hand over the government leadership to other parties. Some UML leaders are already predicting that squabbling in the ruling alliance over power-sharing will, one way or another, help their party. They are even hopeful about securing the majority seats, on the account of a poor vote transfer among the alliance. However, other leaders have made a more modest projection of securing 70 of the 275. Inside the NC, there are two projections. Leaders close to Deuba say the party is likely to win around 100 seats (70 in first-past-the-post voting system and 40 in proportional representation), but leaders from the anti-establishment camp say they will likely secure only around 90 seats, owing to the intra-party dissatisfaction. The Maoist party, meanwhile, expects to win at least 50 seats. The major parties could also see their voter base chipped away by the recent popularity of independent candidates. No matter which party forms the next government, Nepal will not have political stability for another five years. There is no clear winner in the electoral race of many political alliances based on experience rather than a shared vision for the country. The next five years will likely continue to see frequent government changes and political crises.

Major political parties in their election manifestos have mentioned their respective visions on the foreign policy they want to implement if they get the mandate to form a new government after the Nov 20 elections. In essence, there are no fundamental differences in their foreign policy. It’s only that some parties are more vocal on some issues, where others are implicit. There is a similar view among parties that Nepal should not become a part of any military alliances and should stick to the non-alignment policy. They also wish to adopt a balanced relationship with India and China. In its election manifesto, the NC has pledged to adopt an independent and balanced foreign policy in line with the UN charter, the country’s long-standing non-alignment policy, and Panchasheel. Similarly, the party has opposed the policy of joining any military alliances and blocs. The document also talks about bolstering regional organizations such as the South Asian Association for Regional Organization (SAARC) and The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC). And, in a veiled reference to China’s Belt and Road Initiatives (BRI), the party’s manifesto states that priority will be given to economic diplomacy with a preference for grants rather than commercial loans.  On the BRI, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, time and again, has given a message to China that it wants grants to construct infrastructure projects and does not favor commercial loans. The party further states that it would take a decisive step to resolve the existing border disputes with India and China, but there is no specific mention of the map issued by Nepal, which led to a falling out between Nepal and India.  The ruling party also mentions that Nepali soil will not be allowed to use against any neighboring countries. However, it remains silent about the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) and Belt and Road Initiatives (BRI). The grand old party also talks about the diversification of Nepal’s trade and transit policy. The main opposition CPN-UML’s election manifesto, meanwhile, states that the party would conduct an independent and balanced relationship with the international community with priority given to neighboring countries. It says that it would adopt a policy of amity with all, enmity with none, and a relationship based on sovereign equality. Our foreign policy will be based on the UN charter, the principle of Pachasheel, mutual benefits and respect, international commitment/responsibility, and justice, the document says, national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence will be strengthened.    On the issue of borders, the UML says in its manifesto that Nepali territories in Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura and Kalapani, as well as other international borders will be protected.   And in a reference to the 1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty signed with India, the party says all treaties will be reviewed and amended to protect Nepal’s welfare and new treaties will be signed based on necessity. CPN (Maoist Center) has explained in detail the foreign policy it wants to implement if the government is formed under its leadership. Considering the current geopolitical situation, friendly and proximate relationships will be maintained with both neighbors, the party’s document says. It goes on to state that Nepal will be freed from all sorts of foreign military activities and will be declared a zone of peace.  Like the NC and the UML, the Maoists have also pledged that Nepal will not become a part of any bilateral and multilateral military alliances.  And on the issue of border dispute, the party has said that open borders with India shall be controlled and regulated. The party has clearly stated that the Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1950, the Tripartite Agreement of 1947, and other treaties related to trade and treaties with India should be reviewed and if necessary canceled. It has also pledged to address the problem of Gorkha soldiers. The pro-monarchy party, Rastriya Prajatantra Party, has also proposed reinstating the zone of peace proposal, which was introduced by King Birendra in the 1970s. The party also talks about adopting a balanced foreign policy based on non-alignment and Panchasheel. With the neighboring countries, the party has vowed equidistance policy. It has also vowed to scrap all unequal treaties signed with other countries. CPN (Unified Socialist), a member in the five-party coalition, in its election manifesto, says that it wants to establish a cordial relationship with neighboring countries based on international law, the UN Charter, Panchasheel, and policy of non-interference. But unlike other parties, the Unified Socialist’s election manifesto does not talk about border disputes and unequal treaties.

US President Joe Biden unveiled a new national security strategy last week. The document talks about closely working with South Asian partners. It states: “No region will be of more significance to the world and to everyday Americans than the Indo-Pacific. As we work with South Asian regional partners to address climate change, the Covid-19 pandemic, and the PRC’s [People’s Republic of China] coercive behavior, we will promote prosperity and economic connectivity across the Indian Ocean region.” The strategy further states that competition with China is most pronounced in the Indo-Pacific, but it is also increasingly global. “Many of our allies and partners, especially in the Indo-Pacific, stand on the frontlines of the PRC’s coercion and are rightly determined to seek to ensure their own autonomy, security, and prosperity.” So what will be the implications for Nepal as this region is primed to become an epicenter of the US-China contestation? Sanjaya Upadhya, Washington-based foreign policy expert, says the document describes China as the only competitor with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military and technological power to advance that objective. “Clearly, this assertion takes the US-China rivalry to a new level. As Washington would have the prerogative of defining what behavior on the part of Beijing is ‘coercive’, Nepal could expect further US assertiveness vis-à-vis our general foreign policy in the period ahead,” he says. The ongoing National People’s Congress of China has indicated how regime security would be an even more categorical concern for Beijing going forward. “In such a situation,” says Upadhya, “Nepal can be expected to experience a stiffer tug-of-war between the two global powers.” Don McLain Gill, Manila-based geopolitical analyst, says the new document highlights two important aspects of US foreign policy. “The first is the realization that China, and no other state, serves as the biggest challenge to the established rules-based order due to its global ambitions and its growing material capacity to back those very ambitions,” he says. “The second realization is the need for the US to pay more attention to the evolving dynamics of the Indo-Pacific region, given its position at the center stage of global geopolitics and geo-economics.” Within the greater Indo-Pacific, Gill reckons South Asia serves as an important sub-region, given China’s increasing strategic footprints and the consequences that have occurred due to its economic engagements that lack transparency and accountability. With a desire to promote a rules-based and fair developmental agenda, South Asian states, including Nepal, may be able to benefit from the desire of the US and other key democratic powers like India and Japan to forge an inclusive cooperative framework that will offer them a more sustainable alternative for growth, development and security. “While similar initiatives have been suggested in the past by the US, the need to effectively coordinate and plan practically based on domestic and external realities is necessary in order to forge a long-term and beneficial roadmap for the region,” adds Gill.

Since 2013, Nepali airlines have been banned from flying into Europe for failing to keep up with the international air safety protocols. The decision to blacklist Nepali airlines from entering the European skies was taken after a series of plane crashes that occurred particularly in 2010, 2011 and 2012.  Nepal has since been urging the European Commission to delist its airlines from its blacklist stating that there has been a substantial improvement in aviation safety. Now, Nepali officials seem hopeful that the commission will lift the ban soon.  In the first week of October, a three-member technical team from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency visited Nepal to discuss the aviation safety issue. Besides holding discussions with the officials from Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN), the team also visited some private airlines companies.  The team is set to seek further clarification from CAAN on some issues before submitting its report to the commission, which will then take a final call on whether to lift the ban. Officials in Nepal are buoyed from their talks with the technical team. Jagannath Niraula, spokesperson for CAAN, says the EU representatives appreciated the progress made by Nepal in the areas of aviation security.  “This time we are 99 precent optimistic that the commission will remove us from its blacklist and our airlines can fly to European skies which will be a big boost to our aviation industry.”   The audit reports show that Nepal has indeed made improvements in aviation safety. In April, a report by the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program, under International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), showed that Nepal’s air safety ratings have improved significantly, achieving a 70.1 percent score, which was 66.76 percent in 2017. The score was eight percent more than the global average of 67.2 percent. Audits were conducted in 2009, 2016 and 2017 respectively.  According to CAAN, Nepal made significant progress in its oversight capability since the initial audit of 2009.  In 2018, ICAO awarded Nepal with Council President Certificate in recognition of its achievement in resolving its safety oversight deficiencies and implementing other international safety standards. CAAN officials have since been doubling down on their effort to remove Nepali airlines from the EU blacklist.  But there is one remaining issue that remains unresolved. Despite improvements in air safety, CAAN has failed to make institutional reforms. Splitting CAAN into two entities, one a regulator and the other a service provider, is a long due issue. A bill in this regard is pending in Parliament and political parties have not prioritized the bill.  Some fear the failure to break up CAAN could delay the delisting process. But CAAN officials, by and large, seem confident that the improvement made in aviation security is good enough for the EU to delist Nepali airlines from its blacklist. CAAN’s Aviation Security Report 2021 states that in the past 10 years, fatalities related to airplanes have registered a continuous steep drop, though the same for helicopter accidents has increased between 2011 and 2021.  During the period of 2011 and 2020, the highest number of plane accidents was recorded in 2016. There were four airline accidents that year. Likewise, the highest number of fatalities was observed in 2012 when 34 lives were lost. In 2020, there was one accident without any fatalities.  The improvement in aviation safety was in large due to the four-year Nepal Aviation Safety Plan implemented by CAAN in 2018. The plan was in line with the Global Aviation Safety Plan and Regional Aviation Safety Plan, which identified several areas of safety and took measures to address them.