The upcoming General Election is at least two years away. But within the ruling Nepal Communist Party-United Marxist Leninist (UML), its waves have already surfaced in the name of leadership change, sparked by the formal announcement of former President Bidya Devi Bhandari's return to active politics.
Sensing a direct threat to his authority, Party Chair and Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli moved swiftly to block her path, proposing a new rule that "a person who has already served as President cannot be allowed to return to politics." Despite resistance from a few members, Oli's proposal was approved by the central committee. This is not an internal party dispute; it is a direct struggle to seize the reins of power. Proving the point, Bhandari’s response was swift and defiant. In a press meet held immediately after the decision, she issued a public challenge, declaring that no one could strip her of her party membership while also insisting she has no "lust for power."
But if in politics, words and deeds were ever the same, this whole affair wouldn't be such an ugly drama.
When Oli, a person who played a major role in making her President for two terms and had been in the same faction for three decades, does not believe her, then why does the general public need to believe it? Leaders who are fatigued from carrying Oli's bag were excited by Bhandari's announcement, but having seen the fate of those who opposed Oli in the past, they choose to remain silent for the sake of their own futures.
This makes the UML leaders look like helpless characters in a crude drama. The irony is that this cowardly silence is not a disease limited to the UML; it is an epidemic across all of Nepal's political parties. The fear of being denied an election ticket for opposing the leadership ensures most politicians stay silent at decisive moments, only opening their mouths when they themselves face injustice. This is a great malady in itself.
The strangest part is that these same spineless leaders, who cannot clearly state their views in party meetings, are the ones roaming through villages and cities, shouting slogans about transforming the nation. A clear example of this is the "Mission '084" (2027 AD) slogan that most leaders have been chanting. Along with the UML, parties like the Nepali Congress, CPN (Maoist), Rastriya Swatantra Party, and even the RPP are all promising that the country will be transformed after the next election. And the dark humor is, they started shouting this slogan from the moment the 2079 BS (2022 Ad) election was over.
UML Statute Convention: Mission 2084 could be jeopardized if di...
This reveals a stark truth: our legislators are not focused on making policy, but preparing for the next power grab. This ritualistic election cycle cannot bring real change to people's lives. After all, General elections, in most cases, are not revolutionary; their nature is reformist. They are designed to transfer power peacefully and until now are seen as the best tool to punish or reward rulers through the ballot. This system works well in the right place. But unfortunately, just as a single medicine cannot cure all ailments, this process does not guarantee a good outcome in every country. We see this in nations like Burundi in East Africa or Nepal in South Asia, where most of the leaders spend extravagantly on elections, influencing the public's vote by offering feasts and favors. Once in power, politics becomes a high-stakes business venture designed to recoup their investment and serve vested interests.
Currently, different leaders from various parties are facing accusations of unethical acts, but the parties feel no guilt or responsibility to investigate. Instead, they act as if the '084 election is a magic broom that will sweep away the country's widespread instability, corruption, inflation, and anarchy.
No matter what speeches our leaders give, we are people of a poor country, our loved ones cross oceans to build skyscrapers abroad, yet struggle to build a single home here. While this system has various hearing committees for political appointments, it has no forum for the silent anguish of a wife whose husband returns in a coffin.
We are living in an illusory and bizarre democracy, where state mechanisms have almost failed. Here, police stomp their boots on street vendors selling vegetables from their carts, yet appear powerless against those who smuggle hundreds of kilos of gold through the airport. This hypocrisy and hollowness is not confined to the government; its radar covers every spectrum of society. Our society is one where a Dalit who loves someone from a so-called upper caste is thrown into a river. Our judicial system acquits a politician accused of burning people alive, citing the fact that the bodies were never found.
A few months ago, after a foreign donor stopped providing aid, our rural health facilities ran out of Balvita and Vitamin A capsules. In Bajura, malnourished children who were brought to a local hospital died because of a shortage of therapeutic food (RUTF). Unfortunately, this tragedy did not touch Kathmandu or Singha Durbar.
Is Democracy Just an Election?
If we consider democracy a body, then in Nepal, its vital organs like heart, liver, and lung are in their final stages. Our legal system is compromised, there is no rule of law, the people's will is ignored, and human rights are lacking. Even as we elect more than 35,000 representatives across all levels—from the Federal Parliament to local bodies—very few are capable of representing the people in the true sense. Our democracy feels like a patient on a ventilator, kept alive only by the artificial oxygen of elections. Only a few individuals have become prime minister repeatedly in past decade, with the same faces recycled in the ministry. In every election, we have the right to cast a vote, but no real choice.
History is our witness. Change didn’t come from the ballot box alone; it came because conscious citizens used their right to protest and demand it. When the USA began its election process in 1789, landlords would chain their slaves with shackles before going to cast their votes. Black people finally gained the right to vote in 1870, but many states refused to accept this law. They created hurdles like literacy tests and poll taxes in an attempt to exclude Black voters, a tactic that succeeded for another 90 years in some states, until Martin Luther King Jr. led the peaceful revolution of the 1960s. Imagine if they had simply waited for an election to grant them their rights.
We have an example from our own neighborhood as well. In India, elections were held even when it was a British colony. If those elected representatives had real power, why would Mahatma Gandhi have needed to lead a freedom struggle? Or, if the restricted elections of Apartheid era in South Africa had the power to bring change then why did Desmond Tutu and Mandela have to fight?
These revolutions and struggles of conscious citizens worldwide prove that a citizen's duty does not end with casting a ballot. Continuous peaceful struggle and creating pressure are necessary.
What Next?
Approximately 160 countries across the world hold elections regularly, whether fair or a drama. If regular elections were a panacea, the world map would look very different. Burundi and The Central African Republic would have developed. Nor would communist-led China have lifted 800 million people out of poverty in 40 years.
Democracy's true meaning is to bring positive change in people's livelihoods—something we have yet to experience. In our country, it doesn't matter whoever comes to power; the style and function remain the same.
Our electoral system is not designed to transform a country; at best, it is an opportunity to prevent it from becoming worse. Therefore, passively waiting for 084 is just a waste of time.
We must exercise continuous vigilance over the current government. The more we hold them accountable, the more likely they are to introduce reform programs. But the groups that should be doing this—our civil society, media, and professional organizations—are weak and divided by politics. They cannot lead this fight. This is why a forceful intervention by independent youth is needed. A new, unified citizens' movement, free from partisan politics, must be forged to revitalize this space. This movement must demand substantive reforms like the Right to Reject (where voters can say no to all candidates) and the Right to Recall (which allows citizens to remove an underperforming representative before their term ends) in our electoral process. The latter would also help to reduce the ongoing misuse of the proportional representation system for nepotism and personal interests.
Only when leaders fear that their power is in crisis will they begin to act efficiently.
(The author is a student of Political Science)
