By P.K.Balachandran/Daily Express
Colombo, December 21: When Nepal’s Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli recommended the dissolution of parliament to President Bidhya Devi Bhandari and she did the needful promptly on Sunday, no eyebrows would have been raised.
The never-say-die Oli would never have given in to the opposition within his own party, the Nepal Communist Party (NCP), or the opposition in parliament, both of which had been vociferously demanding his resignation for ruling Nepal arbitrarily.
Oli was flouting inner-party pacts and decisions and threatening to bypass parliament and rule by issuing Ordinances.
In November, Oli was confronted by a massively resurgent Monarchist movement which wanted both democracy and federalism to be abolished in favor of monarchy. Oli weathered that storm, but Nepal was in a state of utter confusion. If Oli had stepped down then, Nepal would have been in deeper trouble as there was no consolidated opposition to give a stable alternative government. Perhaps it is just as well that he has taken his customary tough stance now and is staying in power to give Nepal a modicum of stability.
The latest development is rooted in political instability which is endemic in Nepal. If Oli had resigned, it would have paved the way for the 23 rd. change in Premiership in Nepal in 69 years.
First and foremost, the NCP is deeply faction-ridden with one faction led by Prime Minister and party Co-Chairman K.P.Sharma Oli (a traditional communist) and the other led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal alias Prachanda (an ex-Maoist). The two had merged their respective parties to form the NCP. The NCP had obtained a two-thirds parliamentary majority in the 2018 elections and had also won in six of the seven provinces. But the promise of stability, a singularity of purpose and ideological unity soon began to ring hollow.
The NCP seemed to be constantly heading for a split down the middle. Interestingly, Nepalese governments have collapsed mostly because of schisms in the ruling party. Oli was wanting to rule by himself but Prachanda was not allowing him to function, he alleged. Oli had, in fact, told Prachanda that he intended to split the party “in a friendly way”. But Prachanda would have none of it.
In April this year, in a bid to facilitate a split, Oli had tried to issue an Ordinance, according to which, for a political party to split, a 40% vote in either the parliamentary party or the party central committee would do. Getting 40% in both would not have been necessary as stipulated earlier. But the Ordinance was withdrawn under public pressure.
Oli was belligerent despite the fact that 31 out of 44 members of the NCP Standing Committee were against him. Observers said that Oli was cleverly exploiting Prachanda’s tendency to dither, though ideologically the latter was an extremist, being a Maoist.
In his quest for power, Oli had issued another Ordinance in April on the Constitutional Council. The Constitutional Council is a key agency that appoints officials to various constitutional bodies, including the country’s top anti-corruption agency. Oli’s Ordinance was meant to enable the Council to take decisions on the basis of majority vote rather than consensus. But, like the Ordinance on splitting political parties, this also was withdrawn under public pressure.
Oli’s one-upmanship resulted in a split in the NCP in December 2019. The Samajwadi Party (SP) had left the ruling-coalition. The SP quit because Oli had failed to honor his promise to amend the constitution to accommodate the demands of the Madhesi community (people of Indian origin) living in the southern provinces. Oli is an anti-federalist. He had said that provinces were but “administrative units” under the federal government. The SP’s leaving denied the NCP government a two-thirds majority, but it enabled Oli to pursue his political and ideological agenda on the constitutional issue unfettered.
Oli had also been acting completely arbitrarily in appointing ministers and ambassadors without prior consultation with Prachanda who was Co-Chairman of his party. Oli almost always had his way in administrative matters partly because he had the unstinted support of the country’s President Bidhya Devi Bhandari, who belongs to Oli’s faction in the NCP.
Notwithstanding the failures of his administration, his scant respect for the constitution, the flouting of political promises, his brinkmanship vis-a-vis India, Oli was generally expected to survive as he had chutzpah which Prachanda lacked.
Additionally, he had the support of the main opposition party, the Nepali Congress, which had taken a clear position that the five-year tenure for the NCP government was the mandate of the electorate.
Just as there are charges of widespread corruption against Oli, there are charges against Prachanda too. It is said that, overall, Oli’s public image as a decisive nationalistic leader is better than Prachan
By P.K.Balachandran
When Nepal’s Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli recommended the dissolution of parliament to President Bidhya Devi Bhandari and she did the needful promptly on Sunday, no eyebrows would have been raised.
The never-say-die Oli would never have given-in to the opposition within his own party, the Nepal Communist Party (NCP), or the opposition in parliament, both of which had been vociferously demanding his resignation for ruling Nepal arbitrarily.
Oli was flouting inner-party pacts and decisions and threatening to bypass parliament and rule by issuing Ordinances.
In November, Oli was confronted by a massively resurgent Monarchist movement which wanted both democracy and federalism to be abolished in favor of monarchy. Oli weathered that storm, but Nepal was in a state of utter confusion. If Oli had stepped down then, Nepal would have been in deeper trouble as there was no consolidated opposition to give a stable alternative government. Perhaps it is just as well that he has taken his customary tough stance now and is staying in power to give Nepal a modicum of stability.
The latest development is rooted in political instability which is endemic in Nepal. If Oli had resigned, it would have paved the way for the 23 rd. change in Premiership in Nepal in 69 years.
First and foremost, the NCP is deeply faction-ridden with one faction led by Prime Minister and party Co-Chairman K.P.Sharma Oli (a traditional communist) and the other led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal alias Prachanda (an ex-Maoist). The two had merged their respective parties to form the NCP. The NCP had obtained a two-thirds parliamentary majority in the 2018 elections and had also won in six of the seven provinces. But the promise of stability, a singularity of purpose and ideological unity soon began to ring hollow.
The NCP seemed to be constantly heading for a split down the middle. Interestingly, Nepalese governments have collapsed mostly because of schisms in the ruling party. Oli was wanting to rule by himself but Prachanda was not allowing him to function, he alleged. Oli had, in fact, told Prachanda that he intended to split the party “in a friendly way”. But Prachanda would have none of it.
In April this year, in a bid to facilitate a split, Oli had tried to issue an Ordinance, according to which, for a political party to split, a 40% vote in either the parliamentary party or the party central committee would do. Getting 40% in both would not have been necessary as stipulated earlier. But the Ordinance was withdrawn under public pressure.
Oli was belligerent despite the fact that 31 out of 44 members of the NCP Standing Committee were against him. Observers said that Oli was cleverly exploiting Prachanda’s tendency to dither, though ideologically the latter was an extremist, being a Maoist.
In his quest for power, Oli had issued another Ordinance in April on the Constitutional Council. The Constitutional Council is a key agency that appoints officials to various constitutional bodies, including the country’s top anti-corruption agency. Oli’s Ordinance was meant to enable the Council to take decisions on the basis of majority vote rather than consensus. But, like the Ordinance on splitting political parties, this also was withdrawn under public pressure.
Oli’s one-upmanship resulted in a split in the NCP in December 2019. The Samajwadi Party (SP) had left the ruling-coalition. The SP quit because Oli had failed to honor his promise to amend the constitution to accommodate the demands of the Madhesi community (people of Indian origin) living in the southern provinces. Oli is an anti-federalist. He had said that provinces were but “administrative units” under the federal government. The SP’s leaving denied the NCP government a two-thirds majority, but it enabled Oli to pursue his political and ideological agenda on the constitutional issue unfettered.
Oli had also been acting completely arbitrarily in appointing ministers and ambassadors without prior consultation with Prachanda who was Co-Chairman of his party. Oli almost always had his way in administrative matters partly because he had the unstinted support of the country’s President Bidhya Devi Bhandari, who belongs to Oli’s faction in the NCP.
Notwithstanding the failures of his administration, his scant respect for the constitution, the flouting of political promises, his brinkmanship vis-a-vis India, Oli was generally expected to survive as he had chutzpah which Prachanda lacked.
Additionally, he had the support of the main opposition party, the Nepali Congress, which had taken a clear position that the five-year tenure for the NCP government was the mandate of the electorate.
Just as there are charges of widespread corruption against Oli, there are charges against Prachanda too. It is said that, overall, Oli’s public image as a decisive nationalistic leader is better than Prachanda’s. Oli’s greatest strength is that he is his own man with a capacity to take bold initiatives in trying times. This is enabling him to face challenges and give leadership to the NCP and Nepal.
(The picture at the top shows K.P.Oli with Prachanda)
