Political Parties
For centuries the government had been run by a number of interrelated aristocratic families. Despite the limitations of a royal ban on political parties and other impediments, political parties did exist and operated clandestinely. To escape harassment or imprisonment, many political leaders went to India, where they also received logistical and other support.
The only significant opposition to the monarchy came from the Nepali Congress Party, which operated from exile in India. Other parties either accepted and operated within the panchayat system on a supposedly nonpartisan basis or merged with the exiled Nepali Congress Party, polarizing politics over the issue of monarchical rule. Even the Communist Party of Nepal, divided on the tactical question of whether to seek the direct and immediate overthrow of the monarchical system or to work within it, had split into factions — a radical wing operated in India and a moderate wing underground in Nepal. Some party members, to gain tactical advantage over the Nepali Congress Party, entered the panchayat system with the tacit approval of the palace.
Ethnic plurality, income disparity, linguistic diversity, pervading regional loyalties, underdeveloped communications, and a paucity of written and electronic media also hindered party organization. The dominant high-caste political leaders were more interested in sharing or gaining access to power than in developing lasting foundations for party politics.
Reportedly, before political organizations were banned, there were sixty-nine political parties, most of which were characteristically fluid in their membership and inconsistent in their loyalties. Personalities rather than ideologies brought individuals and groups under the nominal canopy of a party. Fragmentation, recombination, and alliances for convenience were the outstanding aspects of party behavior.
The demonstrations and protests characterizing the pro-democracy movement gained momentum in 1990. Unable to contain the widespread public agitation against the panchayat system and the mounting casualties, and fearing for the survival of his own monarchical status, King Birendra lifted the ban on political parties on 08 April 1990. The unrest persisted. In the midst of continued violence, a royal proclamation on April 16 dissolved the Rashtriya Panchayat and invalidated provisions of the 1962 constitution inconsistent with multiparty democracy. The next day, the king named Nepali Congress Party President K.P. Bhattarai, a moderate who had spent fourteen years as a political prisoner, as prime minister and head of the interim government. The government also freed all political prisoners, lifted control of all domestic and foreign publications, and established a commission, known as the Mullick Commission, to investigate the recent loss of life and property.
There was a phenomenal rise in the number of political parties — particularly between May and September 1990 — as strategic maneuvers to participate in parliamentary elections and find a niche in postelection Nepal occurred. The Nepal Sadbhavana Party (Good Will Party), one of several regional and ethnic parties, was founded in April 1990. It aimed at promoting the interests of the Tarai Region, including the expulsion of the Hill people from Tarai and the establishment of a special relationship with India in the framework of nonalignment. A forum for people of Indian descent, the party also favored the introduction of Hindi as the second national language. Its ideology supported a democratic socialist society. Other Tarai Region parties included the Nepal Tarai Unity Forum, the Nepal Tarai Association, and the Nepal Tarai Muslim Congress Party.
The panchayat system finally ended in May 1991, when general elections, deemed "generally fair, free, and open" by an international election inspection team, were held. Approximately 65 percent of the populace voted. Although more than forty political parties registered with the election commission, only twenty political parties—mostly small, communist splinter groups—were on the ballot. The Nepali Congress Party won 110 of the 205 seats in the House of Representatives, and the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist) won 69 seats. Previously operating in exile and behind the scenes, the various communist and other parties and coalitions became a powerful presence in the newly constituted bicameral Parliament. Nepal continued its gradual move toward a multiparty democracy.
The leading parties were the NCP and the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist or UML). Yet instead of alternating in power in stable fashion, these parties have been torn by individual leaders seeking partisan gains, with the result that despite reasonably fair and free elections, government has been highly unstable. From 1991 to 2002, there were 11 different governments, under five different prime ministers. The leaders of a third party (the United People’s Front) that had won nine seats in the 1991 elections, but which was excluded from government by the Electoral Commission in the 1994 elections, gave up on Parliamentary action and launched the Maoist insurgency in 1996.
The Parliaments run by the NCP and UML over the period from 1991-2001 achieved little or nothing for most of the Nepali population and were increasingly viewed as corrupt and irrelevant. With the onset of the insurgency, the ineffectiveness of the government became palpable, and in 2002, the King dissolved Parliament and suspended elections.
In cities where party networks remain strong, internal party structures have not matured into truly democratic organizations that encourage breadth of vision, allow dissent, and award leadership roles to those demonstrating talent and genuine popular appeal. Instead, the parties are dominated by powerful individuals in tight control of all decision-making and promotions. In this system, advancement within the party hierarchy depends upon loyalty, longevity and family, rather than talent, intelligence or political acumen. Party Central Committees function primarily as rubber stamps for the leaders' fiats, and dissenters are routinely suspended from the party. Thus, ironically, after struggling for decades against the feudal, hidebound hierarchy of the Palace, the democratic parties have created autocratic fiefdoms of their own, perpetuating the same systems of patronage and privilege they had criticized in the royals.
The parties' hierarchical structure left them largely ignorant of popular concerns and, consequently, largely unable to frame a vision for Nepal's future that resonates with the electorate. Instead of developing a thoughtful, broad-based platform, the parties are reverting to the same old limited bag of tricks -- protests/general strikes/more protests -- in a bid to gain popular support for their movement. The parties's hope that agitation will regenerate the fervor and spontaneous mass support of the 1990 pro-democracy movement, however, has not been realized for a variety of reasons.
First, the failure to broaden their message makes the agitation appear to the general public suspiciously similar to the same old self-interesed power struggles the parties have subjected the electorate to for more than a decade. Second, in 1990 democracy was a great and glamorous "unknown" that average Nepalis hoped would bring them higher living standards and greater security -- a hope that all too plainly has not been met. Third, the overwhelming concern for most Nepalis -- especially those outside the capital -- was the insurgency. Battered by Maoist strikes and violence on one side, they had little appetite for pro-democracy strikes and violence on the other. Moreover, since the insurgency began under the not-so watchful eye of the same democratic leaders clamoring to be returned to power, there was little public optimism that they have suddenly acquired the wisdom and ability needed to resolve the crisis.
While the parties seemed unable to persuade the public of their ability to govern, they were even less adept at making the case to the King. The intermittent calls for a republic that punctuated some of the protests -- and which none of the democratic leaders had formally endorsed -- likely reflected more frustration at the protests' lack of success -- and their own failure of imagination in devising other means to drum up support -- than a genuine wish to abolish the monarchy.
In April and May of 2004, faced with rising agitation against the ‘regression’ (i.e., the dissolution of the elected Parliament and local officials), which included large-scale demonstrations by students and party politicians, the King responded by outlawing all public political activity in Kathmandu and ordering the arrest of leading party politicians who had participated in the protests, including several former prime ministers. While continuing popular and international protests led the King to revoke these measures within a few weeks, there was widespread concern that the King’s initial actions revealed his true preferences – to rule without public opposition or party officials.
The challenge of post-2006 political parties was that politics is no longer the reserved domain of the political elite. The emergence of the Terai political parties, the increasing call for inclusion and the entry of educated youth into National politics suggest that the population still have faith in the political process and political parties.
On 01 April 2007, the Interim Parliament unanimously re-appointed Girija Prasad Koirala to be the Prime Minister of the Interim Government. Koirala, who was also President of the Nepali Congress (NC), had presented his resignation as PM of the previous government to the Speaker shortly before. The Prime Minister subsequently administered the oath of office and secrecy to 16 ministers and five state ministers at the National Planning Commission. The names of the new ministers were then read in the Parliament in a ceremony attended by members of the diplomatic corps. The NC, the CPN-UML, the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (Maoist), and Nepali Congress-Democratic (NC-D) divided the top portfolios among themselves. Other minor parties in the Seven-Party Alliance (SPA) split up the remaining ministries: one to the Terai-based Nepal Sadbhavana ("Goodwill") Party-Anandi Devi (NSP-A), one to the People's Front Nepal (PFN), and one to the United Left Front (ULF). The parties agreed there would be no Deputy Prime Minister.
Twice deferred, Nepal's historic Constituent Assembly (CA) election was finally held on April 10, 2008. None of the parties succeeded in getting a simple majority in the CA. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) won 218 out of 575 elected seats, followed by the Nepali Congress with 109 seats, the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist Leninist) with 103 seats, and the Terai-based Madhesi People's Rights Forum with 50 seats. Six constituencies need to hold by-elections, five due to one candidate having won two directly elected seats and one due to the newly elected President resigning his seat. The appointed seats were distributed across the parties in the following manner CPN-M 9, NC 5, UML 5, MPRF 2, SP- 1, CPN-Marxist Leninist 1, People’s Front Nepal 1, Nepal Workers and Peasants Party 1 and TMDP 1.
On September 6, 2012, the Department of State lifted its designation of the Maoist party as a terrorist organization, after determining that the party is no longer engaged in terrorist activity that threatened the security of U.S. nationals or U.S. foreign policy and had demonstrated a credible commitment to pursuing the peace and reconciliation process. The decision applies both to the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (UCPN(M)) and the breakaway Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M).
A survey conducted jointly in 2013 by State of Democracy in South Asia (SDSA)/Nepal chapter and International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) found that an overwhelming majority of 94% of respondents approved of a system of government led by the people’s elected representatives, although the majority of respondents (56%) were not satisfied with the way democracy worked (compared to 44% who were "satisfied"). However, the same survey also found a drop in trust in the political parties. In 2013 only 36% of the respondent said they trusted political parties; a drop of 21 percentage points since earlier survey in 2007. Much of the explanation for this drop can be found in the crises in the changing political situation in Nepal. On the failure of the CA to finalize a new constitution, 69% of respondents blamed the political party leaders for indulging in power games and for in-party differences.
In Nepal, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (“NDI”) worked with 11 political parties to improve party structures, promote inter-party dialogue, and increase the political participation of women, youth and other minority groups. In selection of participating parties NDI followed selection criteria that had been implemented in other NDI activities around the world. The selection criteria focus on (1) Level of grassroots organization – the parties that have members in the CA and have established office in Kathmandu and in the Districts. (2) Base of popular support as indicated by the number of members the party has in the CA/Legislative assembly and (3) Ability to absorb the activities and funding that NDI was providing.
- Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoists (UCPN-M)
- Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) (CPN-UML)
- Communist Party of Nepal-United (CPN-U)
- Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist – Leninist)
- Nepal Marxist – Leninist (CPN-ML)
- Nepali Congress Party (NC)
- Madheshi Janadhikar Forum Nepal (MJFN)
- Madheshi Janadhikar Forum Nepal-Democratic (MJFN-D)
- Rastriya Shakti Prajantrik Party (RSPP)
- Sadvabana Party (SP)
- Terai Madhesh Loktantrik Party (TMLP)
Almost all the well established political parties which are in partnership with NDI (NC, UML, UCPN-M, CPN-M, RPP, RPP-N) and others are some of the parties that have mutated as a result of factional infighting. There are strong intra-party clashes which sometimes lead to serious consequences. Most of the established political parties have a faction that feel excluded move away to form a splinter group (NC, CPN Maoist, RPP are some examples of political parties that have a faction leave the party and form a new party). In some of the parties some leading members also resign from the party to join another party. The often stated reason was ideological but the real reason maybe a clash of personalities or personal egos. These internal problems continue to exist even if the faction that moved away return to the fold.
Most of the old establish parties have youth wings from which the youth are nurtured and prepared for leadership in the party. There are in all the old parties highly articulate young leaders who have the potential to lead but with the rule by old party leadership these entrepreneurial young leaders wait and bid their time for opportunities or quit the party in frustration. Such internal feuding cannot be resolved by an external institution such as NDI. Even with these internal challenges, the parties are keen to work in partnership with NDI.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
