In an established democracy, the political system may have enough checks to control the damage caused by an act of the highest constitutional authority in the country. But given the fragility of Nepal’s political system and proven inadequacies in the Constitution, such an act may have the potential to derail the political process and bring the constitutional apparatus to a state of breakdown.
That is what is happening, with President Bidhya Devi Bhandari refusing to approve the controversial citizenship bill within the mandatory deadline, upsetting the political apple cart of the ruling coalition. The bill, related to citizenship rights for around 5,00,000 people, and non-voting rights to non-resident Nepalis living outside South Asia, lapsed as a result. The ruling coalition had brought the bill when elections to the Federal Parliament and seven provincial legislatures had been finalised, and there were barely a few days left in the Parliament’s life. The coalition of two parties—the Nepali Congress that heads the government, and the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Centre—was hopeful the bill would help garner support in the densely populated Tarai belt adjoining India, where cross-border settlement is regular, and citizenship is an issue.
In addition, there are officially around 20,000 people of Tibetan origin—stateless—but the bill, if enacted, would have entitled them to Nepali citizenship with all rights. That would have made China suspicious since the US and European countries have pressured the Nepal government to uphold their rights. Bhandari’s act has polarised politics, with elections only six weeks away (November 20, 2022). Her act is being challenged by leaders, including Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, who is also the president of the Nepali Congress, coalition partners, and the Vice President Nanda Kishor Pun. The fact that the normal term of the House of Representatives ended two days before the mandatory 15-day deadline saved her from the ruling coalition moving an impeachment motion in Parliament. But clearly, it was the president’s determined posture that she let the bill lapse. She had returned the same bill for review to Parliament a fortnight ago after a wide-ranging consultation with people. When Parliament sent it back to her ‘as it was’, she simply acted in the manner she wanted.
That was not the sole arbitrary act by President Bhandari, who comes from the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist background. This party is in the main Opposition now. A day after the bill lapsed, her pre-recorded video message was played to a conclave in Beijing meant to promote the Geostrategic Initiative mooted by President Xi Jinping, much against the advice given by the Foreign Ministry in Kathmandu. Deuba described the president’s act as a gross violation of the Constitution by the ‘first defender’ of the Constitution.
However, the outpouring of anger and protest among the people was less than expected. Nepal was observing the Dashain festival then, which probably was another factor that was in her favour. Multiple issues, including infighting within most political parties, growing anger of people, and the undeclared detention of Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana, who technically survived an impeachment motion recently, have cumulatively added to the constitutional crisis in the country.
Altogether, 97 members of the ruling coalition gave an impeachment notice to Parliament against Rana in early March that, as per established conventions in the country, led to his automatic suspension. Parliament Speaker Agni Sapkota took immediate cognisance of the motion but spent another six months forming a parliamentary committee to examine the issue and decide whether there was merit in the case and whether the House needed to take it up for final disposal. The 11-member committee, by 6–5 majority, decided to forward it to the House, but that came barely 48 hours before the natural demise of the House. Constitutional experts assert that this motion cannot be carried forward to the next House and that it died a natural death when the House term expired.
But the ruling coalition, which believes Rana is sympathetic towards the Opposition, chose to do everything to stop him from going to the Supreme Court and put him under ‘house arrest’. A confrontation involving the president and prime minister on opposing sides of a conflict and a judiciary with its Chief Justice under detention are unprecedented situations. Nepal’s political process and Constitution are in disarray. With actors and the three constitutional wings of the state engaged in the fight, the system of checks and balances and constitutional equilibrium is gone. Can elections alone check such a rot?
Baburam Bhattarai, a key ideologue of the Maoist insurgency from 1996 that saw 17,000 deaths, announced this week that he would not contest the poll. It is unlikely that other top leaders would heed his appeal to pave the way for younger leadership, but they will face stronger anger when elections near and they set out for campaigning.
Nepal’s politics are currently polarised, with the Nepali Congress and Maoists on one side and the CPN-UML led by K P Sharma Oli on the other, and the Tarai-centric regional parties likely to align with either. The Rastriya Prajatantra Party has announced that it will contest all 165 seats for the Federal Parliament with nominal adjustments. It hopes to secure an impressive win among the remaining 110 seats under the proportional representation system with a pledge that it will restore the ‘lost Hindu Kingdom’ status.
Dethroned King Gynanendra Shah, in his video address to the Nepalis at home and abroad, recently appealed to them to rally around a strong central pole and foil the external and internal designs to turn Nepal into a playground by subverting its culture, civilisation and faith. All is not well here, and the chances of elections restoring constitutional order are slim.
Manoj Dahal
Associate Editor with Kathmandu-based deshsanchar.com