Submit your Article

A close neighbor and a very good friend of Nepal, India is currently holding the G20 Summit featuring global and regional powers like the US, China, India, the United Kingdom, South Africa and France. This event points at the emergence of India as a force to reckon with in a comity of nations, though the presidency of G20, representing around 85 percent of the global GDP, over 75 percent of the global trade, and about two-thirds of the world population, is part of a rotating arrangement. Remarkably, the summit comes at a time of heightened international tensions, marked by the Russia-Ukraine war, worsening relations between the US and China, India and China, among others. In such a forum, war of words between the countries that otherwise do not see eye to eye is but natural. Such exchanges surely have much more than entertainment value, though. The exchanges happening just across the border offer us a golden opportunity to observe a fast-changing world and its evolving power equations from a vantage point, and ask ourselves as to what threats and opportunities await us when the world seems to be at the cusp of a Cold War 2.0. Amid signs of winds of change sweeping the world yet again, it will also be worthwhile to have a brief look into Nepal’s contemporary history marked by some epoch-making changes. Political transformations in Nepal have always coincided with important changes in the international order, whether it’s in the 1950s, the 1990s or the early-to-mid-2000s. But let’s not see these events just as tornados sweeping the world making a landfall in Nepal. Successive generations of Nepalis have aspired for ideals like democracy, human rights and dignity, rule of law, a better future and a prosperous Nepal. These changes are reflections of Nepali aspirations, though it will be naive to separate Nepali consciousness from global consciousness and undermine the power of global waves of change. As the world is no longer a collection of isolated isles, geopolitics and geostrategy will surely have a more profound bearing, especially on small, medium-sized and instability-plagued countries like Nepal. What should worry our rulers, though, is that Nepal and the Nepalis have not arrived, as yet, despite political movements. Worryingly, recent years have seen the global push and pull factors in full play, threatening to dislodge Nepal, a country located between two emerging giants, from its coveted position of avowed neutrality. If the past is any guide, rulers’ tilt toward one or the other camp has ended up further weakening national sovereignty. Events like the G20 should inspire our rulers to negotiate turbulent waters of international diplomacy with extreme caution.

Amid the marathon negotiations among the political parties over the election of Nepal’s third President, it will be worthwhile to turn the pages of the Constitution of Nepal 2015 and check what kind of President it has envisaged. Clause 61 (2) of Article-6 of the charter states: The President shall be the Head of (the) State of Nepal. He or she shall perform his or her functions in accordance with this Constitution and federal law. Clause 61 (3) states that the President shall promote national unity of Nepal, whereas Clause 61 (4) stipulates that the main duty of the President shall be to abide by and protect the Constitution. But have our Presidents been able to defend, protect and abide by the Constitution? Have they been able to be the symbol of national unity by rising above partisan interests? Some soul-searching on the part of our heads of state has indeed become necessary. These questions are not meant to dislodge the office-holders from their high pedestals. Rather, they are meant to make sure that their successors learn from the past and manage to do justice to their role. The role of the President has indeed become significant because the executive organ of the Nepali state often shows tyrannical tendencies like its kith and kin the world over, and there’s no guarantee that it won’t show them in future. The principles of separation of powers and checks and balances notwithstanding, the executive rides roughshod over civil liberties by violating the jurisdictions of two other state organs—the legislature and the judiciary. Our decades-long experience with parliamentary democracy shows that the executive has often imposed its will on the ‘sovereign’ parliament with respective parties cracking their whips on lawmakers from their respective folds and the latter doing their mother parties’ bidding. While submitting to the whip like the hapless beasts of burden instead of casting their votes of conscience, the people’s representatives have, more often than not, done a great disservice to the country and the people. The executive has often targeted the Supreme Court, the final interpreter of the Constitution, for its refusal to do its bidding, delivering injustice to the deliverer of justice. There’s no dearth of experts, who point out that the provision of a parliamentary hearing before the appointment of judges is a bid to ensure the appointment of chosen candidates. While not immune from such transgressions, the permanent opposition—the fourth estate—has time and time again stood against the executive’s tyrannical tendencies. As the protector, defender and the adherent of the Constitution and as the symbol of national unity, the President has a great role to play and ensure the implementation of the charter in its letter and spirit. For all this, the President needs to be more than a rubber stamp. It’s high time for the political parties to choose a candidate that manages to fill in those big shoes that this position demands.

Remember February 13, 2023? We appear to have a very short memory, so asking this question becomes all the more necessary. For those who remember, the day comes as a rude shock. Why wouldn’t it? After all, that was the day when there was a total breakdown of law and order in the Capital, broad daylight. That day, a mob descended at the Gongabu bus park area, vandalized a temporary police beat along with two patrol vans, rampaged and looted a mobile phone store, while transporters were staging a protest against increase in penalty for traffic rule violations and for fulfillment of other ‘cherished’ demands of theirs. Where was the law enforcement while all this mayhem and violence was going on unabated at a nerve center of the country? Or rather, where was our all-powerful state? A state that leaves no stone unturned when it comes to ensuring a very comfy existence for its VIPs and VVIPs by providing pay and perks galore, all with the taxpayer’s hard-earned money. A state that takes the security of this privileged lot quite seriously, whether it’s off the road or on it, with security detail that does not give two hoots to the inconvenience of the commoners. A state that unleashes its brute force even against those, who are on emergency duty, for the sake of ‘security’ of members of our powerful political elite, whizzing past crowded roads on motorcades equipped with security detail. Where on earth was the state on that day? On that day, when the artery called the Ring Road partially shut and strained the Capital’s mass transit system, causing much inconvenience to the public, where was the state? Where was the state when terror reigned supreme? In deep slumber? And what on Earth were all those ride-sharing companies doing by going offline when the public needed them the most? Was it not the state’s duty to ensure that they run their services? For members of the gullible public, who were on the site on that fateful day or who watched the horror unfolding on the screen, this total breakdown of law and order brought back the horrors of a civil war. But it was peacetime, right? Fast forward February 16. Police have arrested a couple of individuals accused of involvement in the incident after orders from the government. What propelled the youths to take the law in their own hands? A culture of impunity, despair or something else? And what exactly happened to the law enforcement’s chain of command? Last but not the least, where was our all-powerful state on that fateful day? The government investigation should find a definitive answer to this question, among others, and make the report public instead of keeping it under wraps.

The rabble-rousing press conference by Rabi Lamichhane earlier this week has created a schism in Nepali society regarding its perception of the media. On one side are those who are lapping up Lamichhane’s claim that mainstream media is the enemy of the state, that publishers, editors and journalists are guided by corporate greed and are deep in corruption. And then there are others who see his boisterous condemnation of the press as a mere temper tantrum. It was clear that the leader of Rastriya Swatantra Party was angry at the media for covering the story about the validity of the citizenship he furnished to contest the election of Nov 20 last year. The case landed in the Supreme Court and Lamichhane went on to lose his status as Home Minister and Member of Parliament. It was also clear that his ad hominem diatribe filled with personal gripes and insults was aimed at pandering to his supporters. In doing so, he has sown a seed of distrust against the press. This could have a far-reaching impact on democracy, giving rise to politics of populism, where serious journalism is supplanted by misinformation and disinformation, which is taking hold in different parts of the world. In the age of social media, it is far too easy to distort the truth and bend the narrative. The role of traditional media is to bring out the truth, to report and to scrutinize those in power. Nepali mainstream media has been doing just that, and ever so proudly. If anyone, Lamichhane should know this better as a former member of the media fraternity. His TV show was based on the very concept of scrutinizing the powers that be. He should also know that the very media houses, publishers and journalists that he tried to discredit have always played a role of a bulwark to defend democracy and the rule of law. By delegitimizing the press in a Trumpian fashion, Lamichhane has put democracy in peril. He has also betrayed his own supporters, who, disenchanted by old political parties, voted him to power. People who voted for Lamichhane certainly did not want him to act in such a vindictive and bitter manner. That he had presented invalid citizenship to contest the election is true, and the Supreme Court passed down its judgment accordingly. Meanwhile, the media simply did its job and reported the story. Losing the home ministry and parliament seat should have been least of his concern, what with his widespread support base. But his anger and ego got in the way. Rather than fessing up to his transgression, he went on to play the victim card and portrayed the press as his cruel persecutor. Lamichhane’s attempt at incitement and intimidation is thoroughly condemnable. When a leader tries to undermine the credibility of the press, it creates space for propagandists and authoritarians.