By Babbler

When the President retires from the President’s House but returns to the party office

Nepal’s republicanism appears to have produced a remarkable political innovation: the President may leave the presidential palace, but apparently cannot leave party politics behind. The highest constitutional office has become, for some of its occupants, less a destination than a temporary stopover before returning to the familiar comforts of party hierarchy.

Bidya Devi Bhandari, who served two terms as President of the Republic, has returned to active politics in the CPN-UML, the party led by former Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli. Having occupied the country’s highest constitutional office, she is now back in the political arena, where Oli remains the party chairman. It is an extraordinary journey—from the ceremonial heights of Shital Niwas to the ordinary calculations of party politics.

Bhandari has reportedly justified her return by saying that the party is in crisis and that she wishes to contribute to its revival. Apparently, the nation’s former head of state has discovered that the party needs her more urgently than the republic needs her impartiality. Perhaps the UML’s crisis is so severe that even the former President must report for political duty. In Nepal, party loyalty evidently has a longer shelf life than a presidential term.

The Constitution of Nepal does not expressly prohibit a former President from returning to party politics. Nevertheless, the spirit of the office demands political neutrality, impartiality and dignity. A President is expected to represent the nation as a whole, not merely the party that helped elevate its candidate to the presidential palace. Although Bhandari’s return may be legally permissible, it raises a legitimate question: was the presidency a commitment to the republic or simply a sabbatical from party politics?

Bhandari is not alone in this political homecoming. Nanda Kishor Pun, who served two terms as Vice-President, has also returned to active politics and become associated with the Nepali Communist Party led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal. Apparently, the vice-presidential office has not extinguished his political appetite either. Once the constitutional term expires, the old political engine starts again, and the former occupant is ready to rejoin the convoy.

One might reasonably ask whether Nepal’s presidential and vice-presidential offices are intended to cultivate impartial statesmanship or simply to provide senior politicians with a prestigious retirement package before their next political assignment.

Supporters of republicanism may argue that former officeholders retain their democratic rights and that a return to politics is not, by itself, evidence of the system’s failure. That argument deserves consideration. Yet the recurring movement between party leadership and supposedly non-partisan constitutional offices raises questions about the political culture underpinning the republic.

The monarchy, too, must be examined historically rather than through rose-coloured spectacles. After the 1990 restoration of multiparty democracy, King Birendra reigned as a constitutional monarch under a system that formally separated the Crown from day-to-day party competition. The monarchy was not free from controversy, and its record should not be romanticised. Nevertheless, its constitutional role was institutionally distinct from the partisan careers of elected politicians.

Meanwhile, incumbent President Ram Chandra Paudel has faced criticism from political opponents over the exercise of his constitutional role. Allegations of favouring the Nepali Congress should be judged against specific decisions and constitutional obligations, rather than treated as established fact. A President’s credibility depends not merely on personal assurances of neutrality but also on whether the office is seen to stand above partisan interests.

The deeper problem is that Nepal changed the head of state without necessarily changing the habits of its political class. The palace disappeared, but the appetite for power, patronage and party loyalty survived the transition remarkably well.

Perhaps Nepal’s republican experiment needs a new constitutional convention—not necessarily to restore the monarchy, but to remind politicians that the republic belongs to the people, not to political parties. A President should be the guardian of the Constitution, not a party leader in ceremonial disguise.

Otherwise, Nepal may have to introduce a new political designation: President on deputation, party politician on retirement, and national statesman only on official occasions.

If this is the republican achievement after years of political struggle, perhaps the republic has not failed because it abolished the monarchy. It has failed to convince its political leaders that the nation is greater than their parties.

QUOTES OF THE WEEK

Those who garland Marx and Mao while ridiculing Prithvi Narayan Shah and his descendants cannot save or build this country. They can disrupt the existing order, but they cannot put things in order.

I, too, respect Marx, the philosopher and economist, but the nation comes before ideology!

–Rabindra Mishra

—

A systematic conspiracy is underway to institutionally dismantle the Nepal Police and the Armed Police Force.

On the one hand, an unruly lawmaker from the ruling party is baselessly attacking the top leadership of the Nepal Police, while the Home Minister and the party chair remain silent. On the other hand, the Home Minister himself is consumed by baseless personal vengeance against an Additional Inspector General (AIG) of the Armed Police Force, a senior-ranking officer who has devoted 30 years to uninterrupted service.

Such governmental recklessness aimed at destroying the Nepal Police and the Armed Police Force is no ordinary matter. The country is sliding towards an institutional vacuum. Institutional integrity is becoming a victim of arbitrary whims.

Wake up before it is too late!

—Muma Ram Khanal

—

The Nepali people did not bring the republic!

Did the republicans, driven by fear, not hide and lock away in a warehouse at Singha Durbar the bundles of public opinion surveys showing support for a Hindu kingdom and the monarchy?

The republic was brought by masters of euros and dollars abroad through their submissive pawns, such as Bharuram and others.

The matter is clear!

–Deepak Gyawali

—

Barely a month and a half after the devastating flood wreaked havoc in the Bhotekoshi River in Rasuwa, we had to hear early in the morning about another destructive flood in the Budhigandaki River in Gorkha!

Are we truly victims of nature, or is all this merely the consequence of climate change? It has become essential for all political parties, academics and citizens to develop a common understanding of this issue so that we can fight this shared battle together.

The government must give this serious thought!

–Baabajee

—

A National Identity Card alone is not sufficient to open a bank account, obtain a mobile phone SIM card or acquire a driving licence. Instead of making anything easier, the rule that creates obstacles when people do not have this card has only added to their hardships.

Apparently, an order has been issued not to make the National Identity Card mandatory for operating bank accounts! When will similar restrictions be removed for other services?

–Madhu Raman Acharya

—

There is a growing impression that democracy is now on its way out in many countries. This is because, although elections should be the means of bringing about political change, there appears to be a growing tendency to seek changes of government through street movements and protests.

The time has come for us Nepalis to think seriously about our country’s history, identity and distinctiveness.

Let us engage in an open debate on a modern Panchayat system suited to Nepal’s soil. Instead of blindly imitating foreign ideologies to solve our country’s problems, let us seek a system suited to our own needs, culture and circumstances.

The country is ours, the future is ours, and therefore, the responsibility for the country is ours as well.

–Shashank Ghimire

—

From a technical perspective, building reliable roads connecting Kathmandu with the rest of the country is not particularly difficult. However, our state system has never paid adequate attention to developing the technical capacity required to build such infrastructure.

Planning is always makeshift, while infrastructure investment becomes a money-making opportunity for a select few!

–Surya Raj Acharya

—Excerpted and translated by Sushma Shrestha.