A couple of weeks ago, the European Union Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) released Nepal’s election observation report 2017. The report drew the attention of the government and onlookers. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a strong press statement condemning it, urging the authors of the report to withdraw some controversial recommendations which ‘violated the mandate of the election obser­vation mission’. The report brought to surface—once again—the undercurrents of regional and ethnic polarization in Nepal. Many Madhesi and Janajati political parties and activists sup­ported it, while the rest of the coun­try launched into a tirade against the EU EOM, going so far on social media as to say the EU should be kicked out of Nepal for good. According to the government and the opposition, the EOM not only misinterpreted Nepal’s PR (Proportional Represen­tation) system as a ‘quota’ system, but dived into ‘unauthorized’ terri­tory in their suggestions. However, despite some poor choice of words and issue focus (possibly guided by misinformed political advisers or analysts), the report was in fact rich in content. But that content was overshadowed by the towering bold fonts and strong language used to highlight a couple of recommenda­tions. The need to reform Nepal’s electoral practices and systems was thus put on the back burner.

 

The EOM report’s reverberations are in some ways reminiscent of a time not long ago, the last time KP Oli was the prime minister: the 2015 Indian blockade. Here we find the same nationalist fer­vor that engulfed not just the political class, but the majority of people who played sheepishly to the tune. That is not to say that the EOM report is not worth criticizing or that its intentions are apolitical—there clearly was some political intent. However, in retrospect, what it has done is fuel the populism of the government.

 

If the statement from the foreign ministry focused on the ‘mal-in­tent’ of the EU EOM report, the prime minister’s statements which came a couple of days later went so far as to lump all donors into one pool and even suggested the report was payback for Nepal having sent back some ‘religious conversion’ missions a while ago. No one both­ered to check that the report clearly states that the EOM is an entity entirely independent of the EU, let alone of other donors working in Nepal. It clearly states that all opin­ions in the report are of the authors and do not represent those of any EU countries and diplomatic mis­sions in Nepal or outside.

 

As such, it was pitiful to have to watch one interview and statement after another talk about the EU as a grave enemy to Nepal as though its offices should be shut down and its diplomats sent home immediately.

 

Having said that, it is important to be vigilant about the kinds of activities that donors, including the EU, promote in Nepal. On the burning issue of the ‘Khas-Arya’, the suggestion that this group should be removed from the PR system stems from an understanding that the group is an ‘elite social group by birth’. That is 31 percent of the population and the EU should know better than to make such controver­sial statements, especially with this particular government in place and the wide public support it enjoys. It should have been clear to the EU a controversy was in the making when it drafted those recommendations.

 

All these controversies are only working to make this prime minister stronger. The nationalist wave that was created during the Indian block­ade is boosted by factors like the EOM’s report and KP Oli continues to ride that wave and the populist sentiment behind it. In the eyes of the PM, the opposition is weak, and the civil society is discredited, disorganized and politicized. The media is focused on other things. If the international community and the donors can be discredited, in Oli’s eyes, that’s one more threat he has subdued. Using populist and nationalist rhetoric to discredit the international community could give Oli even more of a free hand than he already has.