By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel
These days, I watch Nepali television news more frequently and read broadsheets papers and online news with a high interest in observing the dreams and reality mainly in political events. The uncanny political development in the country has made our heads bow down in shame. We bid adieu to monarchy peacefully with the hope that we will be able to script our future transforming the nation — politically, socially, culturally and economically. Now, we have politicians who are more ruthless, unaccountable, arrogant, self-centred and power-hungry than all previous regimes combined.
In the last 16 years, we have witnessed 13 coalition governments led by leftist and centrist. What is very worrisome is the fact that some government could not complete even nine months let alone their full term. This itself speaks about how power-hungry and self-centred politicians are unable to bury their hatchets for the broader interest of the nation. But what is driving this trend? Why our politicians are unable to rise above their vested interests? Why do they ditch each other at the cost of national interest? I will try to provide close to perfect answer here.
Right from day one after the restoration of democracy, our politicians were engaged in blame games negating their roles and responsibilities. Their only intention is to remain in power and they would resort to any tactics to that end. The then prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala dissolved the parliament despite leading a majority government and called snap polls. Many political junkies say that the internal feud among senior leaders over power-sharing led to this tragedy. As the government were formed and pulled down in Kathmandu, Maoists waged a war which continued till 2006. By the time it ended, at least 17000 people had died and thousands were disappeared and maimed.
With the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord in 2006, we entered a new era of peace and sustainable development. In 2008, the election to the constituent assembly was held and Maoists emerged victorious surprising everyone — internally and externally. Under the leadership of Prachanda, a coalition government was formed in 2008. But a year later, the coalition government collapsed and Prachanda resigned. Madhav Kumar Nepal of the UML became the prime minister in 2009. The change did little to resolve the country’s ongoing political deadlock, particularly the drafting of a new constitution. In June 2010 prime minister Nepal resigned under pressure from the UCPN (M), which claimed the right, as the largest political party, to choose the prime minister.
But Parliament could not agree on Madhav Kumar Nepal’s replacement and he continued to remain in office until fellow UML Jhalanath Khanal took over in February 2011. By August, Khanal’s government had collapsed, and the UCPN (M)’s Baburam Bhattrai had assumed office. Negotiations in the assembly on a new constitution fared no better under Bhattarai, and in May 2012 the assembly was dissolved, and members of the government resigned. Bhattarai stayed on as caretaker prime minister until March 2013, when President Yadav appointed Khil Raj Regmi, chief justice of the country’s Supreme Court, as prime minister until elections could be held.
The parliamentary election was held in November 2013 with Nepali Congress gaining the largest seats followed by UML. After several months of discussion, the two parties formed the government in February 2014 under the leadership of Sushil Koirala. In 2015, he tendered his resignation honoring his earlier pledge that he would step down from his post once the country’s new constitution was adopted.
After the adoption of the constitution, the then-president asked the political parties to select consensus candidates. With the support of the Unified Community Party of Nepal (Maoist) and other parties, KP Oli became the prime minister. Two years later, the first general election after the country adopted a federal constitution was held. The two communists –UML and UCPN — formed an electoral alliance and won the election. KP Oli became the prime minister after a gentlemen’s agreement with Maoist supremo Prachanda. KP Oli agreed to step down halfway through paving the avenues for Prachanda to lead the remaining term. But Oli breached his pledge and dissolved the parliament in December 2020. However, it was reinstated in March 2021. In July same year Deuba, then leader of the opposition, formed a government backed by the Maoist Centre. It was a daunting task to maintain a fine balance with his coalition partners won’t be easy for Deuba, as his supporters are leaders like Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Upendra Yadav, both known as clever politicians.
In 2022, the general election delivered the fractured mandate paving the avenues for yet another coalition government. Nepali Congress and Maoist Centre formed the government under the leadership of Prachanda in December 2022. Many believed that this was an attempt to sideline the UML. In March 2023, Prachanda ditched Deuba and joined hands with UML again. In the latest episode of ditching, Oli withdrew its support to the Prachanda-led government and joined hands with Deuba inking a seven-point agreement just a few days ago and giving continuity to what has remained our trademark.
When we assess our political landscape, we will find that our politicians will not hesitate to ditch their partners and join others for their personal benefit. We will also find that leaders have only one intention- to remain in power no matter how it comes. This is not an exaggeration to say that our nation has become a laughing stock in the international arena for forming and breaking the coalition.
We grew up blaming Girija Prasad Koirala for lacking vision and missions. This generation will blame Deuba, Prachanda and Oli for their lust for power. We give them the mandate with the hope that they work in the true spirit of service. Contrary to our expectations, they are engaged in a game of musical chairs taking the nation hostage.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect People’s Review’s editorial stance.
Login to add a comment