Opposition up in arms against government
Opposition parties have recently intensified their criticism of the government. They have raised issues such as the ruling coalition's attempts to amend the constitution and the government's reluctance to convene the winter session of parliament. Additionally, they have criticized the administration for bypassing standard legislative procedures by introducing ordinances.
The government’s move to introduce constitutional changes has sparked significant debate. When the two ruling parties—the CPN-UML and the Nepali Congress—formed an alliance, they signed a seven-point agreement that included revisions to various constitutional articles as a key component. The ruling parties argue that these amendments are necessary to ensure stability at both the central and provincial levels, which they view as a prerequisite for effective governance.
One major focus of these proposed reforms is the electoral system. The Congress and UML have proposed replacing the current Proportional Representation (PR) system, which they claim fosters instability. Under the current arrangement, 165 members of the Lower House are elected through the first-past-the-post (FPTP) method, while 110 are chosen through PR. The PR system allows smaller parties with fewer FPTP seats to wield significant influence in government formation. The proposed reforms include shifting the PR system to the National Assembly and electing all House of Representatives members via FPTP. They also suggest reducing the total number of PR seats from 110 to 60.
However, these proposals have faced strong opposition. The Maoist Centre and Madhesi parties have expressed concerns over the potential impact of such changes. The Maoist Centre, in particular, argues that eliminating the PR system from the House of Representatives—or relegating it to the National Assembly—undermines the foundational principles of Nepal's federal democratic republic, which aims to protect the rights of marginalized communities.
Madhesi parties have also opposed the proposed reforms, especially suggestions to raise the electoral threshold for national party eligibility from 3 percent to 5 or 6 percent. They argue that such changes would significantly disadvantage smaller and regional parties, potentially reducing their representation in parliament. Further, the ruling parties’ plan to streamline Nepal's governance structure—by reducing the total number of federal, provincial, and local representatives—has drawn criticism. Proposals to lower the number of local units from 753 to 500 and provincial lawmakers to save resources have left smaller parties feeling excluded and marginalized.
Despite their ambitions, the ruling parties face a significant hurdle: they lack the two-thirds majority in parliament required to pass these constitutional amendments. Meanwhile, the opposition has accused Prime Minister Oli’s administration of deliberately delaying the winter session of parliament, which is nearing its end. By avoiding parliament, the government has enacted major laws through ordinances, angering opposition parties such as the Maoist Centre and others.
These ordinances, which address issues related to investment, business, and land, have been welcomed by the corporate sector but criticized by opposition parties for undermining democratic norms. The opposition fears that the administration's reliance on ordinances over parliamentary debate sets a dangerous precedent for democracy.
One particularly contentious issue involves a potential ordinance that could split smaller parties facing internal discord. This legislation could result in parliamentarians returning to their original parties, weakening smaller factions like the Unified Socialist. For instance, four or five lawmakers might leave the Unified Socialist and rejoin the UML if this ordinance is implemented. Similarly, the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) could face internal splits due to tensions between its leadership and estranged members.
The government’s delay in convening the winter session is also seen as an attempt to avoid parliamentary confrontation over sensitive issues, such as the legal troubles facing RSP Chair Rabi Lamichhane. By delaying the session, the administration hopes to resolve Lamichhane’s case and shield itself from opposition attacks.
These developments have widened the rift between the government and opposition parties. However, the opposition currently lacks the numbers to pose a significant threat to the administration. For now, the government remains secure, though political tensions continue to simmer.
The author is a freelance journalist
UML must learn to respect dissenting voices
The nation’s main communist party, the CPN-UML, is now dealing with internal problems. Following the expulsion of senior leader Bhim Rawal and the suspension of two female leaders, Binda Pandey and Ushakiran Timalsena, carried out under the watch of party chair KP Sharma Oli, an alarming trend of intolerance towards dissenting voices emerged, implying that the party lacks democratic culture. Rawal was removed after years of criticizing Oli, which prompted him to run for chairman of the party at the 10th convention in Chitwan. Pandey and Timalsena were suspended for voicing concerns about the party and its leadership receiving land contributions for party offices from a tainted businessman accused of tax evasion and the Lalitaniwas land scam.
A week after his dismissal, Rawal established his new patriotic but non-communist party, accusing Oli of turning the UML into a personal domain in which fealty to him is essential for life. This tendency of purging or marginalizing opponents inside the UML is not new, but it has become more prominent under Oli’s term. Notable senior officials have left the UML due to internal disagreements. Madhav Kumar Nepal and Jhalanath Khanal, both former prime ministers, quit the party to create the CPN (Unified Socialist) after years of disagreement with Oli’s leadership. Similarly, senior leader Bam Dev Gautam has removed himself from the party, claiming that it has no space for leaders like him since he, too, is a critic of Oli. These departures indicate a culture of intolerance.
Political experts claim that under Oli’s leadership, the UML has become a party controlled and dominated by the Oli supporters. Leaders such as Shankar Pokhrel, Ishwar Pokhrel, Bishnu Rimal, and Gokul Baskota are often seen attacking individuals who criticize Oli. Meanwhile, personalities like Pradip Gyawali, Yogesh Bhattarai, Yuv Raj Gyawali, and others who have demonstrated a hatred for following Oli’s lead, have been marginalized. Open discussion on party leadership choices has been restricted, increasing concerns among those who hold grudges against Oli and his staunch supporters. Following Rawal’s expulsion and the suspension of others, many UML leaders remained silent, highlighting the party’s underlying fear.
The infighting within the UML is not unique. The CPN (Maoist Center) faces a similarfaces a similar problem: almost no one can speak out against party head Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s policies or actions. Inside the Maoist party, Dahal has faced claims of marginalizing dissidents while consolidating his control as the party chair.
Former Maoist leaders Baburam Bhattarai, Mohan Baidhya Kiran, Biplav, Ram Bahadur Thapa Badal, and Top Bahadur Rayamajhi are among the leaders who left the party after falling out with Dahal.
The examples described above show Nepal’s socialist parties’ hypocrisy. Despite their dictatorial character, these parties often claim to be the advocates of democracy. The UML, for example, has often declared its support for democratic ideals in manifestos and public statements. However, the behaviors of its leaders reveal a different tale.
Rawal’s removal, together with the suppression of other dissident voices, points to this inconsistency. As Rawal pointed out in his harsh critique, Oli’s leadership has reduced the UML to a “shadow of its former self,” violating the very principles on which it was founded. The same may be argued for other communist parties, particularly the Dahal-led Maoist Centre, that have disliked opposition in parties, though they have claimed that they followed democratic norms in the nation’s polity.
Unlike the communist parties, the Nepali Congress (NC) has taken a more democratic approach to controlling internal dissent. While the NC is not as ideal as many of its staunch supporters believe, it has tolerated major disagreement inside the party without resorting to expulsions or suspensions. NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba, General Secretary Gagan Thapa, and senior leader Shekhar Koirala often disagree on key matters pertaining to the party, politics, and the nation, yet the party has managed to retain a sense of tolerance of dissenting voices.
The contrast between the NC and the leftist parties underscores the need for introspection within Nepal's communist factions. To maintain credibility and cohesion, parties like the UML and Maoist Centre must cultivate a democratic culture that values dissent as an essential component of organizational health. Leaders must recognize that open debate is an opportunity to address flaws, not a threat to authority.
If the UML continues its authoritarian trajectory under Oli, it risks further fragmentation, as seen with previous high-profile defections. Similarly, the Maoist Centre must learn from these lessons and prioritize inclusivity and transparency. Only by fostering democratic values within their structures can Nepal’s political parties claim legitimacy as proponents of democracy on the national stage.
