Power Politics Detrimental To Stability

The personal self-expression in Nepali politics is animated by the passion of top leaders for apex governmental power and an interest to keep their grip on it through leveraging in other parties while strengthening strong patronage networks. The aspiration of Deputy Prime Minister Upendra Yadav, chairman of Janata Samajwadi Party (JSP) to become Prime Minister by unsettling the current coalition government of CPN-UML, Moist Centre, Rastriya Swotantra Party (RSP), JSP and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Socialist) for an alternative political equation comprising NC, JSP and CPN (United Socialist) led the split of his own party and the beginning of cracks in its power base. Party leaders from both sides view this political casualty more as a result of an internal power struggle for leadership than the penetration of the geopolitical game though they did not rule out the role of the establishment to split it for the sake of survival of the present coalition government.  

At the moment, any manoeuvers for an alternative coalition government devoid of concrete policy steps looks something frivolous.  The splintered group of JSP having seven legislators out of 12 led by Ashok Rai bluntly criticised Yadav for his paternalistic attitude in taking decisions without proper consultation with the party’s rank and file and approached the Election Commission (EC) for the registration of a new party as per Political Parties Act, 2073. The EC has already recognised this party. Yet, the legitimacy of the national status of both remains problematic. This group has vowed to strengthen the ruling coalition led by Prime Minister Puspa Kamal Dahal Prachanda who wanted the revival of left unity. Leading only a minority faction, Upendra Yadav will continue to face political backlash in the days ahead. 

Personality clash

Personality clash and power bargaining led many other leaders such as Baburam Bhattarai, Mahanta Thakur, Sharat Singh Bhandari and Rajendra Mahato to derelict and desolate him. It is increasingly spiralling his political clout and constituency in downwards slope.  A not-too- dissimilar trend persists in CPN (Unified Socialist) led by Madhav Kumar Nepal who too aspired to become Prime Minister and emerge in the centre of politics from his substantially weakened role as having only 10 legislators at his disposal. He had criticised the current coalition government for not performing well in the interest of the public, posing threat to new order and, consequently, intensified his parleys with NC president Sher Bahadur Deuba and JSP president Yadav for a change in political equation and to share Prime Minister’s post on rotational basis. 

Nepal, sensing a bumpy political situation, had expressed dissatisfaction over the UML chair K. P. Oli-Prachanda duo for not implementing previous consensus on giving it vice-chairman of National Assembly and one legislator to be nominated by the President, delay in giving support to provincial government of the far-west and undermining his party’s dignity even maintaining unconcern to it. The efforts of Nepal and Yadav are, however, foiled astutely by Prime Minister Prachanda and Oli. Prachanda, however, does not want to alienate Nepal and has acted as a bridge between him and Oli so that the latter does not become overpowering like in his previous tryst in power-sharing.  There are, however, dim glimmers of fulfilling hope stirring for both Nepal and Yadav due to events of party factionalism unfolding in ways that go against their ambition. 

Due to pressure from his party leaders Nepal changed his attitude, lent support for the stability of the current coalition government and preferred to wait for his turn to Prime Minister’s post on a rotational way. The electoral trend indicates that if the declining tendency of Unified Socialist mounts, many leaders find fewer reasons to stay in the party but switch sides. The clash of egos of Oli and Nepal does not make them comfortable to go together unless Oli supports Nepal’s aspiration for power as a precondition for their parties’ unity and adopts a policy of political realism by wisely solving their personal idiosyncrasies.  This can avoid Nepal’s warning of the growing turbulent political landscape and corresponding calculation and speculation of manoeuvres of various political forces. 

The organisational strength of CPN-UML is still strong despite a sense of desperation in some younger generations of leaders over leadership and policy differences. Its ability to win parliamentary seats in the recent by-elections demonstrates that conservative, populist, radical and new parties are pushed on the sideline of politics. Nepali Congress leader Shekhar Koirala is hobnobbing with Oli to form a grand coalition government of NC and UML for political stability, good governance, electoral reforms and common economic policies and shunt small parties’ manoeuvre for power which are the causes of eternal political instability in the nation. The outcome of this initiative is less likely to bear any positive outcome. One of the reasons for Prachanda to shift the coalition from NC to UML was NC’s proposal of not forming an electoral alliance with the Maoist Centre in the future. 

It is said that NC president Sher Bahadur Deuba too prefers a change in the government like Yadav and Nepal, but by forming an alliance of non-communist forces so that it does not have to face negative feelings of Congress voters for casting ballots to communists and easily outmanoeuvre populist, radical, conservative and nationalist onslaught along democratic line. NC and UML are political competitors with distinct nature of party organisations. In this context, it seems unlikely for UML to give consent to a grand coalition with NC by abandoning Maoist Centre which is relatively a small party but together with other left forces sharing a common political space with it. The NC is at loggerheads with RSP leadership over the alleged swindling of cooperative money and considers it acting as a Trojan Horse of UML and Maoist Centre to weaken its political clout. 

The current priority of the nation is to yield outcome-oriented performance and respond to the questions posed by the attentive public, reduce the scale of political vices, conclude transitional justice, harness necessary resources in search of a sustainable future and improve the lot of local communities.  The formation of coalition government of left parties has comforted China but it has already developed bitterness with India over Nepali decision to print new map of Nepal in its currency. In reaction, the Indian establishment has stated that it does not change condition and reality. Nepal needs to constantly talk to India on this matter and other contentious issues as well as take creative diplomatic steps with Russia to resolve its population being recruited in the army. In this geopolitical context, Nepal may be a palatable Prime Ministerial option for India which neither Prachanda nor Oli prefers. 

Even if this option is realised, the diminished political base of his party does not make the government either stable or efficacious to enforce discipline in society and deliver public goods and services. Political parties in Nepal require building inter and intra-party trust in many issues including the issues of development so that better hope will return to the hearts of ordinary people. The weariness in politics marks the growing political and governmental instability. It is a barrier which poses a problematic condition for national progress, good governance and settlement of many national issues including the bondage of poverty, inequality, joblessness and migration. If ordinary Nepalis continuously suffer the effects of feverish politics, their willingness to produce the power of leadership becomes drowsy. The swing in power equation or frequent reshuffle of executive and development officials may not help achieve constitutional vision. 

Instead it can easily weaken the trust of people in public institutions. The implications of suffocating politics of high scale are that it affects both the performance of federal and provincial governments and offers opportunities for special interest groups to wield disproportionate influence over political outcomes through their links to the executive branch of the government. It also indicates the de-institutionalisation of political parties and predominance of personality cult in leadership. The democratisation of internal life of political parties is a reasonable solution to uneasy adjustment of Nepali politics. There are other problems:

First, when many leaders of mainstream parties face legal charges of grand scale corruption, junior leaders, cadres and voters cast them in a negative light and share public perception of the crisis of governance especially in the areas of distributional outcome.  Second, when party ideology, policies and processes are sacrificed for leaders’ passion for power the surge of contradictions overwhelms the efficacy of the party. Mainstream media often highlight the negative points of how Nepali parties have deviated from their original goals, strategies and means and failed to make democracy a win-win game by compensating the losers and creating their stake in it. Third, Nepali parties are created to serve the nation and people not only leaders and power elites. The later tendency can easily erode the institutional and social base of politics. 

Feedback 

Continuous feedback from people, local party committees and people’s collective voice can reform Nepali parties and boost their ability to become accountable, responsive and outcome oriented. So far Nepali parties have mobilised all three platforms- government, parliament and streets but independent observers view that the performance of government has been less satisfactory to change the living condition of people. Nepali leaders have sufficient stamina, skill and aptitude to organise agitation but their weakness on governance, policy learning and political adaptability, overpromise to people and inability to deliver public goods continue to erode their impersonal image. People are no longer over dependent on leadership now which is hovering around their family and clients’ network and often switching sides expecting desirable social change in the nation.

 Birth of new parties, split of old parties, and erosion of their electoral base owing to voter’s de-alignment are the principal reasons. People’s level of political consciousness does not match with the leaders’ paternalistic attitude that fears the consequence of change for their prosperous, if not glorious, political career. Likewise, pulling national politics to opposite extremes or acting as opportunistic flip-flopper can easily erode the middle path and weaken the struggle of Nepalis for social modernization, economic recovery and an effective foreign policy. Nepali leaders must be wise enough to bridge the chasms that divide them on matters of political values and shared political culture, generate collective political will and pursue worthy national initiatives rather than conspire against each other for betrayal and forget about it while sharing power with any political combination regardless of public and national purpose.

(Former Reader at the Department of Political Science, TU, Dahal writes on political and social issues.)