Tag Archives: Democracy

The Turmoil in Kathmandu, the Road Ahead for Nepal

Posted on by
Reply

Published in the Hindu on Sptember 27, 2025

The Gen Z protests that erupted in Kathmandu on September 8, 2025,  snowballed rapidly, taking the Nepali government by surprise. The excessive police reaction led to an explosion of public anger, and the rapidly evolving situation forced Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli to quit the following day, creating a vacuum that even the Gen Z protestors were unprepared for.

Following talks between the Gen Z representatives and the Chief Of Army Staff Gen A. R. Sigdel, former Chief Justice Ms Sushila Karki was sworn in as Interim Prime Minister on September 12, with the mandate to conduct fresh elections within six months. The current parliament has been dissolved, an apolitical cabinet of  experts is taking shape, and calm has returned to the streets.

Elections have been fixed for March 5, 2026 but questions persist. How will the Gen Z organise themselves around a political platform? Will the established political parties be ready? Meanwhile, suggestions are afoot for amending the constitution but this may open a Pandora’s box in the absence of process legitimacy.  

A turbulent phase in India’s neighbourhood

The decade of the 2020s has witnessed political changes in India’s neighbourhood – in February 2021, the experiment with democracy in Myanmar collapsed as the military assumed full control; later in 2021, the Taliban returned to Kabul as the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan; in mid-2022, the Aragalayamovement in Sri Lanka forced President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee the country; in Pakistan in May 2023, the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan led to widespread protests but the military took charge of the situation; and, in August 2024, protests in Bangladesh gathered momentum forcing PM Sheikh Hasina to quit and leave Dhaka. Hardly surprising that analysts would look for patterns that can fit their models or conspiracy theories.

However, each of these changes has its own history. Sheikh Hasina had been in power since 2009 and the recent elections had been disputed even as she cracked down on the opposition. In Sri Lanka, the Rajapaksa family had been ruling since 2004 with a short interregnum. Myanmar and Pakistan have had long spells of military rule; the military has remained in the driver’s seat – openly as in Myanmar or behind the scenes, as in Pakistan. Afghanistan followed the familiar pattern of failed interventions by the United States – since Vietnam in the 1960s, and in 2021, when it had become apparent that continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan would not help matters.  

If there are similarities, these are primarily the dominant role played by the youth in the protests and secondly, the higher levels of youth unemployment compared to the total unemployment in these societies. While overall unemployment levels in Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka are between 4-5%, youth unemployment is above 16% and in Nepal, above 20%. Politically, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have had political stability given long tenures of the Rajapaksa brothers and Sheikh Hasina respectively but this led to nepotism, corruption and increasing disdain for democratic accountability.

Nepal’s political transition

In contrast, Nepal’s political trajectory has been different with frequent government changes. Since 2015, when the constitution was adopted, there were seven governments but with the same leaders playing musical chairs, UML leader Oli thrice and both Maoist leader Prachanda and NC leader Sher Bahadur Deuba, each twice. It created a curious internal stability where cronyism, nepotism and corruption flourished, within the outward instability that prevented job growth and economic development.

Nepal’s political transition began 35 years ago. The 1990 Jan Aandolan replaced Panchayati Raj with multi-party democracy and circumscribed the monarchy to a constitutional role. However, intra-party rivalries provided fertile grounds for the monarchy to play favourites. A Maoist insurgency surfaced in 1996 and over a decade, gradually engulfed large parts of the country claiming 17000 lives.

It took 17 years before the political parties came together to work out a peace process that permitted the Maoists to come overground and emerge as a political party. During this period, there were 15 changes of government and one spell of direct rule by King Gyanendra that sparked the second Jan Aandolan in 2006, forcing him to restore parliament and the elected government.

In 2008, an elected Constituent Assembly declared Nepal to be a republic ending the 240-year-old monarchy and began drafting a constitution for a federal republic. Instead of the given two-year deadline, the constitution was promulgated after seven years in 2015. More time was spent on government formations and these seven years witnessed six PMs. Maoist leaders served twice, UML leaders twice, NC once and an interim government was created under Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi for electing a second constituent assembly in 2013. 

The 1990 and 2006 Jan Aandolans were spearheaded by the political parties to wrest political power from the monarchy but the 2025 Gen Z protests reflect a broader frustration with political leaders of all political parties, for misusing coalition politics for amassing personal wealth.

President Ram Chandra Poudel has reiterated that he will observe the constitution and has sought to justify concerns about the appointment of an Interim PM by citing Article 61. Art 61 merely directs the President to “promote the national unity” and “to abide by and protect the Constitution”. Since a state of national emergency was not declared, Gen Sigdel played a political role in identifying and holding consultations with the Gen Z representatives. The army also moved the targeted leaders and Ministers into military cantonments for their security. Clearly, Mr. Poudel depended on the army because it is the only institution that enjoys social respect.

Ms. Karki has identified three priorities for the Interim Government – to ensure elections on March 5; to fix accountability for the use of excessive force by the police and the arson and vandalism; and to expose and prosecute corruption in high political office. The last two will be difficult as there are reports of politically affiliated gangs infiltrating the Gen Z protests, and fast track prosecutions in Nepali justice system are unheard of.

There is a growing sentiment that the 2015 constitution that introduced a 275 member House of Representatives with First Past The Post (165 seats) and Proportional Representation (110 seats) somehow prevents the emergence of a majority government. Other ideas doing the rounds are to introduce a directly elected executive, and do away with federalism by empowering local bodies. Pushing such ideas through a constitutional commission and national referendums could create more difficulties. Any dilution of federalism or Proportional Representation system is bound to spark protests among the Madhesis, Janjati and Tharu communities.

Such moves into uncharted political territory and questionable legitimacy run contrary to Mr. Paudel’s assurance of abiding by the constitution and may jeopardise the election schedule. The established political parties need time for internal leadership churn that the old timers will resist. New political forces led by youth leaders will emerge and it is likely that some pro-monarchy elements may also sense an opportunity to recover lost ground.

Focus should be on fair elections

Fortunately, India has escaped criticism in Nepali media in connection with the current political turmoil. The restrained official statements and the phone call by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on September 18, to congratulate Ms. Karki, convey condolences at the loss of life, and assure full support to Nepal, keeps communication channels open.  

Peaceful, free and fair elections on March 5 would be best way forward for Nepal; any other ambitious moves by vested interests would only increase uncertainties generating an atmosphere of mistrust and insecurity in which the political gains of the last two decades towards a more democratic and inclusive Nepal would be at risk.

*****

Political Meltdown in Nepal was a Long Time Coming

Posted on by
Reply

Published in the Hindustan Times on September 11, 2025

 

Tens of thousands of demonstrators, describing themselves as Gen Z, converged near the parliament in Kathmandu on Sept 8, to protest against a ban on 26 social media platforms (including Facebook, WhatsApp, X, Instagram, Reddit, LinkedIn, Signal and YouTube) announced last week for failing to register under the new government guidelines. Even as the police resorted to batons, water cannons, and rubber bullets to disperse the protestors, the crowds continued to grow and by the end of the day, 20 young people (including a 12 year old) were dead, with reports of 400 injured.

The following day, anger had spread to other cities and government buildings including the parliament and Singha Dubar were set on fire. Private houses of leading politicians cutting across party lines, were torched, cars burnt and ministers manhandled. Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak had accepted responsibility and resigned on Sept 8 and the ban order was also reversed but the protestors were not satisfied. Finally, Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli realised that he needed to go and he resigned on Sept 9 in the afternoon. There are rumours that he was evacuated in a helicopter by the army to a secure location as his official residence at Baluwatar was considered vulnerable.   

Nepal’s political transition has been a long time in the making and has gone through multiple transitions. It began with the popular uprising in 1990, labelled as Jan Aandolan 1, leading to a new constitution that laid the foundations of multiparty democracy by curbing the role of an absolute monarchy into a constitutionally circumscribed role. However, in mid-1990s, a Maoist insurgency began to take shape in some of the poorer hill areas that gradually took hold and spread. Infighting between the political parties and the Palace provided a permissive environment for the insurgency to spread and by 2006, it had claimed 17000 lives.

In 2005, King Gyanendra declared a state of emergency, dissolved parliament, dismissed the elected government, and assumed direct rule. A popular pushback led to Jan Aandolan 2 in 2006 that forced him to restore parliament. A peace process between the political parties and the Maoists, facilitated by India, led to the Maoists coming overground and emerging as a political party. Elections for a Constituent Assembly (CA) took place in 2008. The 240-year-old monarchy was abolished, Nepal emerged as a republic, and the CA began work on a new constitution for a Naya (new) Nepal.

After seven years, Nepal adopted its new constitution but the promise of a New Nepal remains a distant dream. A key reason has been weak economic development, lack of employment opportunities, growing corruption, and frequent changes of government. In the 17 years since it became a republic, Nepal has had 15 governments. The situation didn’t improve even after 2015 when the new constitution was adopted, with the last decade accounting for nine of the 17 governments.

Part of the reason is that in none of the elections since 2008 did any party manage to obtain a clear majority necessitating coalitions. This explains the political instability of short-lived coalitions. However, there has been a strange stability too, in that the leaders of the three major parties, Nepali Congress (NC), United Marxist Leninist (UML), and Maoist Centre, have been taking turns in leading the incestuous coalitions and garner the loaves and fishes of office. In the process, corruption grew visibly and the groundswell of public disenchantment was just waiting for a spark that was provided by the ill-conceived ban on the 26 social media platforms, leading to Jan Aandolan 3.   

However, there are differences. The earlier two Jan Aandolans were spearheaded by the political parties, primarily the NC and the UML and had the clear objective of wresting political power from the Monarchy and had an identifiable leadership. The Jan Aandolan 3 rejects the leaders of all political parties and there have been calls for dissolution of the parliament and even revising the constitution.

Second, there is no visible leadership. The 35-year-old Balen Shah, a rapper turned electoral phenomenon, the surprise winner to be elected Mayor of Kathmandu in 2022, is trying to emerge as a leader in Jan Aandolan 3. On September 7, he conveyed support to the protestors and after keeping quiet for a day, came out after PM Oli’s resignation urging restraint.

Another name doing the rounds is the 38-year-old Sudan Gurung, who founded the NGO Hami Nepal (Our Nepal) in 2015 following the devastating earthquake to ensure that humanitarian assistance was delivered efficiently where it was most needed by mobilising youth volunteers. During the past decade, his NGO has been successful in mobilising resources for communities impacted by floods and landslides that take place with depressing regularity. Hami Nepal was heard as a slogan during the protests.

Other than conveying sorrow at the loss of innocent lives, wishing a speedy recovery to the injured, India has expressed hope that “all concerned will exercise restraint and address any issues through peaceful means and dialogue.” To ensure security and with an eye to the forthcoming Bihar elections, the border has been sealed. For the present, this is adequate even as the government remains vigilant and monitors developments to see the political actors that emerge out of the political churn of Jan Aandolan 3.

*****

Stress Test For American Democracy

Posted on by
Reply

Published in The Hindu on 20th January, 2021

The oldest democracy has been subjected to its most severe stress test; it came to the brink, stared at the abyss and just managed to clear it. The U.S. may have survived the test but considerable damage has been done; defining pictures of 20000 National Guard troops deployed in and around the Capital and an outgoing President who has been impeached a second time in his term, a week before he relinquishes office, have hurt US self-image as also its global standing. It is a grim reminder that democracy, however deeply rooted, can’t be taken for granted and needs constant nurturing and protection to prevent its descent into populism and mobocracy.

A Polarising Election

The stress test began two months earlier when incumbent President Donald Trump refused to accept the election outcome, alleging that his victory had been stolen through fraudulent means. The 2020 election was the most polarising the U.S. has seen and what happened on 6 January was its reflection. The certification of the results by Congress will get Mr. Trump out of the White House but Trumpism will be a much tougher challenge to deal with. In an election that saw the highest turnout (nearly 67 percent) since 1900, if Joe Biden won over 81 million votes, Mr. Trump managed an impressive tally of 74 million. The county wise election map of the US reveals that Mr. Biden won in 509 counties that account for over 70 percent of US GDP, while Mr. Trump won in 2547 counties that provide the rest.

Even though media channels including Fox News had called the results by 5 November, Mr. Trump refused to make the traditional concession speech, insisting that the election had been rigged. Legal challenges were mounted by his supporters in many states. By end-November, the recounts had been completed and legal challenges disposed of. The election result remained unchanged. Attorney General William Barr, a known Trump supporter, announced on 1 December that the Justice Department had not uncovered any significant fraud that could have affected the results of the presidential election. On 14 December, the Electoral College met in each of the State capitals to formalise the Biden victory by casting 306 votes for Biden/Harris versus 232 for Trump/Pence.

The results were conveyed to the Congress for certification, but Mr. Trump had still not given up. He continued to urge Vice-President Pence, who was to chair the Congress session on 6 January, to use his authority to question the returns submitted from the swing states. Mr. Pence demurred, pointing out that he had no “unilateral authority” to overturn the electoral votes submitted.

Mr. Trump had been urging his supporters to stage a protest in Washington against the certification, sending out tweets, “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild”. On that day, addressing his protesters, he sent them to Capitol, urging, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore”. Hours later, the mob had stormed Capitol, disrupting the proceedings. The dedicated Capitol police force proved inadequate and the National Guard was called in. Five people died. After a day that will be remembered as one of the darkest days in U.S. history, Congress certified Mr. Biden’s victory clearing the way for him to be sworn in the 46th President of USA on 20 January.

Yet, the shock at the events and Mr. Trump’s role in inciting his supporters led to growing demands for him to step down. Mr. Pence was reluctant to invoke the 25th Amendment (it was designed to deal with a president suffering incapacitation) leading to the House passing an impeachment motion on 13 January. The charges framed included “threatening the integrity of the democratic system, interfering with peaceful transition of power and imperilling a coequal branch of government”. While many Republicans did hold Trump responsible, they were reluctant on impeaching and finally, only 10 of them supported the motion that was carried by 232 votes against 197.

The fate of the impeachment motion is uncertain in the Senate. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell though privately supportive of impeachment, has not indicated how he would vote. Given the requirement of two-thirds majority for conviction and the Senate at fifty-fifty, it is difficult to gauge if there will be 17 Republican Senators needed. In 2019, Mr. Trump was impeached by the House over his dealings with Ukraine but cleared by the Senate. For the Democrats, the impeachment is as much about Mr. Trump as it is about indicting Trumpism. For the Republican Party however, it is a polarising moment. The question its leaders need to introspect over is why they allowed Mr. Trump to take over the GOP. A recent poll suggests that 64% of the Republican voters remain convinced that the election was stolen. GOP’s challenge is how to reject Trumpism while retaining the Trump supporters.

The brutal reality is that in 2016, Republicans held the House, the Senate and won the White House but in the last four years, they first lost the House and now have lost both the White House and their Senate majority. This is despite the record turnout and in the process, the country has been badly divided. Purging GOP of Trumpism will not be easy especially if Trump does plan to run again in 2024. That is why there is talk of invoking the 14th Amendment provisions by which a simple majority in the Congress can bar Mr. Trump from running for any federal office.

Populism and Social Media

Somewhat belatedly, Twitter and Facebook removed Trump’s accounts and along with a number of other right-leaning platforms linked to QAnon. Apple and Google stopped carrying the right-wing chat group Parler App while Amazon declined to host its data on its servers, effectively killing it. This has led to legitimate questions about free speech, the monopoly of social media platforms, the viability of their economic model and who should determine policy in the digital public domain. The European Union is accelerating consideration of new rules to guide content moderation policies of social media networks.

In How to Lose A Country (2019), Turkish writer Ece Temelkuren writes about how a democracy descends into populism, majoritarianism and finally authoritarianism. Opposition is delegitimised, the leader claims to represent the real people, who claim title to victimhood thereby aggressively claiming their dignity; and the elites become either irrelevant or, worse, instruments of oppression. Terms of political discourse shift, secular liberals become “sickular libtards”, facts are questioned and an alt-reality takes shape firing up the believers. This risk is not new but social media is a tool that aids such manipulation.

The U.S. is not the first democratic society to face this threat and even as Mr. Biden tackles the challenges of COVID-19 and economic recovery, his real challenge will be rebuilding the traditions of democratic discourse aimed at enlarging the centrist consensus. With Ms. Harris casting the tie-breaker in the Senate, Democrats control the Congress, though taking recourse to this thin majority will only exacerbate divisions and mutual recriminations. That is the legacy of Trumpism that must be undone if U.S. democracy has to successfully graduate from its stress test.

*****