Submit your Article

Freedom of peaceful assembly is an inalienable democratic right. The logic for this is self-evident—or it should be. When people are denied their right to protect peacefully, often, they don’t meekly back down. They rather take up more violent means of protest. Suppression of peaceful assembly, however odious the personal and political beliefs of its participants, also tends to backfire. For instance, by preventing the royalists and Hindu state proponents from protesting peacefully, the federal government is, arguably, adding to their popularity.

The logic on offer for the suppression of these protests is credible enough. It is unsafe for hundreds of people to assemble, often without adopting any safety measures, in the middle of a raging pandemic that has already claimed over 1,500 Nepalis. But by the same token the mass gatherings of other political parties should also have been banned. Yet opposition parties like Nepali Congress and JSPN have been holding similar political gatherings unhindered. Even Prime Minister KP Oli has been photographed in recent times addressing mass gatherings around the country. Singling out the monarchists, who are every bit Nepalis as most dedicated Congressis or communists, is thus hypocrisy.  

If the Nepal Communist Party-led government wants to regulate such pandemic-time mass gatherings, the ruling party should begin with its own gatherings. The better strategy is to ensure proper Covid safety measures are being followed in these protests, not to ban them outright. There have also been reports in credible media outlets that while a section of the NCP is for allowing the pro-monarchy protests, another faction wants to crack down on them. In other words, the government handling of these protests is based as much on internal NCP political calculations as it is on public interest.

Monarchy and Hindu state are historical relicts out of tune with the changing times. It is best not to give them any room for revival. Make no mistake. Millions of Nepalis are frustrated, even angry, with the Oli government’s wasted two and half years in power. As the main opposition parties have also failed to hold the government to account, public discontent is on the rise. It is only natural for many disappointed and disillusioned Nepalis to seek alternatives. The federal government’s recent display of insecurity will make them question their past electoral judgements even more.

The co-pilots of their self-proclaimed jet called the Nepal Communist Party now don’t even want to talk to each other. At the time of unification of CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center) in May 2018, KP Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal had promised to together safely land the jet, taking the country a step closer to the institutionalization of the new federal democratic republic. Old enmities would be buried, they told the country, and they would henceforth work to realize the new party’s motto of “Prosperous Nepal, Happy Nepalis”. People had a hard time believing these two ambitious men. 

Their suspicions are being borne out. The unity was not between two communist parties, it is getting increasingly clear, as it was a marriage of convenience for the two co-chairpersons. Leading a party with near absolute control of the federal apparatus, Oli wanted to run his government unopposed for five years. Nor would he have to relinquish party leadership. Dahal, for his part, wanted to lock-in party chairmanship going into the first NCP general convention. He had also been promised government leadership midway through this parliament’s term. Even if he didn’t get to the PM’s chair, the calculation was, he would vastly increase his old over the party. 

Sans any ideological mooring, the two communist parties’ unity was always going to be shaky. Yet while few believed the two leaders would easily set aside personal interests in favor of national interest, they had hoped the NCP government would at least serve out its five-year term—something no post-1990 government had done. Such stability would also bring prosperity. But it turns out there is only a tenuous connection between stability and prosperity. 

As badly as PM Oli has performed, most Nepalis don’t want the ruling party to split. Another unmistakable lesson of the fragile post-1990 polity is that powerful parties are a prerequisite for democratic stability. Had the big parties succeeded in resolving their inner conflicts, the country would not have had to witness decades of instability, violence, and stunted growth. The NCP can still be saved if its top leaders, starting with Oli, ditch their short-term calculations and work for the party’s long-term future. Or is that asking too much of the leaders who were at the vanguard of the movement to usher in recent democratic changes?

Kathmandu valley could again be locked down in the third week of December as the festive season winds down. The mayors of Kathmandu, Lalitpur and Bhaktapur as well as the chiefs of smaller local-level units in the valley have suggested the same. They fear the covid situation in the valley—with now nearly 100,000 covid-positive cases, and close to 500 deaths—is getting out of hand. Anecdotal evidence suggests unreported cases will easily outweigh the reported ones. Without a more active intervention, the number of positive cases could explode and the valley’s hospitals be overwhelmed.

The local bodies’ leaders have asked the federal government to ramp PCR testing as well as contract-tracing. They also want additional hospital beds for serious patients. We hope the government, everyone from the prime minister down, is listening. The six months of the previous lockdown could have been used to drastically reduce virus-spread had they been coupled with mass testing and more effective contract-tracing. Yet most federal, provincial and local representatives appeared content to do nothing more, as if they expected the pandemic to die down with time. Protests erupted against the draconian measures aimed at curbing freedom of movement, even as the government seemed clueless of the end-goal.

With millions of livelihoods on the line, people are in no mood for another protracted lockdown. The authorities must hence come up with a clear roadmap on mass testing and contract-tracing—and a set timeline. Many started flouting the previous lockdown and other restrictions when they sensed the government’s indifference to their fate. After not working for long, they also got increasingly worried about their livelihood. Heavy-handed police interventions to force people into their homes or to arbitrarily fine the rule-breakers were counterproductive too.

Make no mistake. It won’t be easy to convince Kathmandu folks to again agree to hole themselves up in their homes—for any length of time. The government messaging is important. Can it convince them about its seriousness this time? If not, the government should brace for another revolt, more ferocious this time. The previous lockdown’s lesson was clear enough: you cannot take people for granted. 

It’s not for us to say whether Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli should resign. The party he jointly chairs with Pushpa Kamal Dahal has near two-thirds majority in the federal lower house and Oli was chosen the prime minister as its parliamentary party leader. At least until the next elections or so long as the Nepal Communist Party remains intact, the party has legitimate claim to the top post. And choosing the prime minister is undoubtedly the NCP’s sole prerogative. Yet the media and the people also reserve the right to pass judgment on his government.

The Oli government has been a disappointment. It promised so much, and delivered so little. From the wretched state of the national economy to the abysmal handling of the Covid crisis, its failures are a legion. This is partly why there is disquiet in the ruling party. The shoot-from-the-hip Oli was never going to be universally popular in the NCP. Yet his rival factions would have been silenced if people had expressed their faith in Oli’s leadership. As it is, the intra-party rifts threaten to tear the NCP apart.

PM Oli on Nov 4 accused rival factions in his party of conspiring to unseat him and reaffirmed his commitment not to resign under any condition. Meanwhile, his chief rivals like Dahal and Madhav Kumar Nepal have had enough of Oli’s ‘go-it-alone’ attitude. And these in-party disagreements are once again threatening to boil over. Dahal and Nepal are both canny politicians who will not miss a chance to pull Oli down. Yet they justly accuse the prime minister of mishandling the pandemic, of enriching his cronies, and of ignoring (even mocking) healthy public criticism. Oli has also been reluctant to share power even though his party espouses ‘collective leadership’.

The prime minister has two options. Either he has to accept the charges levelled against him and resign. Or, if he is determined to stay put, he has to mend his errant ways and justify his continued government leadership. At least that is how things work in a healthy democracy. Oli must show through his deeds that he is accountable to the people and the parliament. People elected him to power for more than his oratory skills.