Submit your Article

The effects of climate change are visible all across Nepal: the melting glaciers, drastic changes in rainfall patterns accompanied by unseasonal floods and landslides, thick smog in cities, loss of crops, new diseases. Yet the country does a poor job of making its case before the global community, largely because it lacks robust data to back its anecdotal claims. Thus while the likes of Bhutan and Bangladesh, two of its South Asian neighbors, have been able to garner global attention thanks to their data-driven approach, Nepal’s cries for help in dealing with climate change continue to fall on deaf ears.

During the recent UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, Nepal made common cause with other Least Development Countries (LDCs) and highlighted how these countries suffer disproportionately from a changing climate even though their own carbon footprints are negligible. The group also made an impassioned plea for greater resources to fight climate change in their midst. But the rich countries—also the ones with the biggest carbon footprints—were noncommittal. They were reluctant to make financial commitments to amend for their historical wrongs or to help other countries deal with climate change.

Also read: Editorial: Undercutting federalism 

At COP26, Nepal also highlighted the growing vulnerabilities of those living in mountainous areas and linked a spate of recent natural disasters here to a fast-changing climate. It committed to getting to ‘net zero’ (whereby a country sucks up more carbon than it emits) by 2045, five years earlier than its prior commitment of 2050. The problem is that both its pleas and commitments are likely to be ignored. Again, the problem is lack of research and our tendency to commit without enough homework.

As the effects of climate change become pronounced, Nepal will have to be more adept in making its case, or it will be no more than a bystander in global climate negotiations. This will mean potential loss of billions of dollars that could otherwise have gone into cleaning up our own environment and resettling and rebuilding communities most affected by climate change. A poor, naturally-vulnerable country does not have that luxury.    

Federalism is not supposed to function like this. In the federal system Nepal has adopted, each of the three tiers of government—federal, provincial and local—is autonomous, free to exercise a range of rights except in a few constitutionally-defined domains. The three tiers are independently elected as well. But what we see is the heads of major national parties chopping and changing not just the federal but also provincial governments at their will.

The chief ministers of five of the seven provinces have changed following the ouster of the KP Oli government in Kathmandu and the elevation of Sher Bahadur Deuba as the new prime minister. And the ceremonial heads of all seven provinces have also been changed—and repeatedly—well before the expiry of their five-year term. The party heads clearly see the provincial governments as no more than extensions of the government in Kathmandu, making Nepal a unitary state in all but name. It also boosts those who have always argued that the federal system is unsuited for Nepal.

Also read: Editorial: Remove Rana 

But we would know about the desirability of the federal system only after it comes into operation. The leaders of major parties seem determined not to devolve powers and to continue to be kingmakers at the provincial level as well. This not only makes the federal system unstable. It also lessens the salience of regional issues. If the provincial chief ministers and governors have to spend most of their time keeping their bosses in Kathmandu happy, they will be able to do little meaningful work in the provinces. They will also tend to ignore provincial issues that aren’t directly tied to national politics.

One could treat all these as teething problems of the new federal republic and hope they are resolved as federalism in Nepal matures. But how can it mature if its progenitors are determined to keep it in infancy? Things in fact will get worse unless our top leaders internalize the importance of federalism for Nepal.  

Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana has been in a clear breach of constitutional and democratic norms. By lobbying to appoint ministers of his choice, he has made a mockery of the hallowed principle of separation of powers. The only way to restore the judiciary’s credibility is to remove Rana from office. Nothing short will do. 

With our legislature nearly defunct and the executive severely compromised, the judiciary is the last bastion of hope to keep the torch of democracy burning. Its blatant politicization is thus deeply troubling.  

Even as the civil society, the media, and the legal professionals are now collectively demanding Rana’s resignation or, failing that, his impeachment, the country’s main political actors seem either uninterested or ambivalent. The leaders of the ruling Nepali Congress and CPN (Maoist Center) have been trying to sidestep the issue of Rana’s removal. Even CPN-UML, the main opposition, is in a dilemma. 

Also read: Editorial: Devouring democracy

There is clear reluctance on the part of the ruling coalition to remove Rana, someone directly responsible for fashioning the Deuba-led government. The UML, for its part, appears more interested in vindicating KP Oli’s House dissolution than in restoring public faith in the judiciary.

As people’s representatives, they must heed the public voice. Rana’s removal as Chief Justice has also become important to send a powerful message to future occupants of the post that they dare not cross their constitutional Rubicon. It will also discourage the unnecessary hobnobbing between the executive and the judiciary. Moreover, in light of the looming three-tier elections, the ruling coalition, and particularly PM Deuba should be mindful of the negative impact of the CJ controversy on their electoral prospects.

Even though the judiciary in Nepal has repeatedly come into controversy since the restoration of democracy in 1990, perhaps this is the most egregious case of breach of democratic norms on its part after the elevation of a sitting chief justice to the post of prime minister in 2013. These actions must have consequences. Or the whole democratic apparatus will be in jeopardy. Time has also come to rethink the process of judicial appointments, in many ways the starting point for the politicization of the judiciary.  

The Nepali Congress General Convention, now scheduled for November 25-29 in Kathmandu, is likely to be postponed for the fourth time. The party, as stipulated in its charter, must hold the gathering of its biggest decision-making body every four years. The 2015 constitution of Nepal obliges all political parties to complete their general convention every five years. Yet it has been over five-and-a-half years since Nepali Congress held its last convention, in a clear breach of its constitutional obligation.

This inability of the country’s oldest-running democratic party is a bad omen. With even Congress failing to organize its most important gathering on time, other party leaders too could find a handy excuse to postpone their conventions. And excuses are a legion in Congress. Party President Sher Bahadur Deuba has kept putting off the convention fearing that his rivals are in the ascendancy. Covid-19 became another excuse. Now the biggest roadblock is the distribution of party membership, as top NC leaders look to give (and renew) memberships to their close ones while blocking the memberships of those close to rival factions.

Also read: Editorial: Devouring democracy

The bitter membership dispute has delayed NC’s ward and district-level conventions, which in turn has affected the scheduling of the national convention. This failure of the Congress party is indicative, above all, of the lack of internal democracy among Nepali political parties, which continue to be run like fiefs of a handful of leaders. And if these parties cannot practice even a semblance of internal democracy, they can hardly be expected to display better a democratic behavior on the national stage.

The only long-term solution to this perennial problem in Nepali politics is to constitutionally set strict term and age limits on party leadership. Once there is a natural churning of leadership at the top, the practice is bound to trickle down to the lower rungs of the party hierarchy. The question is: Who will take the risk of trying to bell the old cats in the national legislature to amend the constitution to this effect? In the meantime, the likes of Deuba and KP Oli will continue to play fast and loose with legal provisions to prolong their tenures.