A year of rhetoric, broken promises, and weak governance for Nepal’s Oli

Nepal Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli has completed a year in office with the two largest parties — the Nepali Congress and his own CPN-UML — continuing the coalition that they forged with several promises, including amendments to the constitution, good governance, and a boost to development.

While promises have remained largely unfulfilled, public dissatisfaction has grown.

Analysts describe Mr. Oli’s one year in office as unsuccessful across key sectors — governance, legislation, development, and foreign relations.

“It’s a disaster on all fronts,” says Hari Sharma, a political commentator. “If we were to talk about achievements, there is nothing visible… nothing that the people could really feel.”

When Mr. Oli signed a seven-point deal with Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba on July 1 last year — which set the stage for Mr. Oli’s fourth stint in power starting two weeks later on July 15 — the message the duo tried to convey was that a strong and stable government was what Nepal needed to usher in stability and ensure good governance.

With Congress, the single largest party with 88 seats, backing Mr. Oli — whose Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) holds 79 seats — they controlled a comfortable majority in Parliament. But even on the legislative front, the government’s weakness was starkly exposed, triggering public outcry.

Amending the constitution was a core agenda of the two parties. They peddled the idea that the electoral system envisioned by the constitution, promulgated 10 years ago, made it nearly impossible for any single party to secure a majority, inevitably leading to hung parliaments and a cycle of unstable coalition governments.

They proclaimed that Nepal’s development was stymied by the lack of a stable and strong government.

But the constitutional amendment was a ruse from the outset, a smokescreen to justify their return to power, say commentators.

Whether the said amendments were even possible is a secondary question; the primary question is whether they ever truly intended to, says Ajaya Bhadra Khanal, research director at the Centre for Social Innovation and Foreign Policy, a Kathmandu-based think tank.

“As a matter of fact, constitutional amendments were never on the Oli government’s agenda. This idea was tossed around to justify the coalition of the two largest parties, which is an unusual practice in parliamentary democracy,” says Mr. Khanal. “What has actually been established over the past year is a politics of collusion, enabling the subversion of the rule of law in the interest of the ruling parties.”

Just as Mr. Oli neared the first anniversary of his government, reports surfaced that one of his Cabinet Ministers was involved in corruption. For several weeks, lawmakers have been raising issues of bad governance and irregularities.

Corruption concerns

Mr. Oli, a loquacious leader by nature, is never tired of asserting that he won’t tolerate corruption, but chooses to maintain silence on the issues of irregularities, including those involving Ministers from his own party.

“Forget achievements and progress; under Oli, corruption has been socialised. And this is even more dangerous,” says Tula Shah, a political analyst. “The normalisation of corruption epitomises governance failure.”

A couple of months ago, Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak’s name appeared in connection with a scheme under which millions were allegedly being collected from unsuspecting Nepalis going abroad on visit visas. After a hue and cry in the media and Parliament, the government formed a committee to investigate the matter. By the Oli government’s own admission, the “visit visa scam” had been going on for many years under various governments.

Analysts say pointing to previous governments is a deflection tactic by the Oli government, when it should have taken stern measures and asked the Home Minister to resign. “No government, or its leader for that matter, can avoid responsibility by claiming it has not committed corruption; checking corruption is the primary duty of any government,” says Mr. Shah. “Implementing strong measures to curb corruption is one of the ways to earn public trust, and the government has failed in this.”

Foreign relations fiasco

Nepal’s foreign policy is mainly shaped by its relations with two countries — India and China, its two neighbours.

Ever since Mr. Oli became Prime Minister for the first time in 2018 — after the promulgation of the constitution in 2015 — he has made a habit of taking India head-on. He used Delhi’s lukewarm response to the constitution and the subsequent border blockade to whip up ultra-nationalist fervor among his political base.

His relations with New Delhi have not been the best. Yet, ever since assuming office last year, Mr. Oli has been keenly waiting for a visit to India.

In November, he went to China, in a departure from the general tradition of visiting India first. During the Beijing visit, he secured a deal under the Belt and Road Initiative to carry forward a dozen projects in Nepal with Chinese funding.

However, analysts say that does not signify an improved relationship. “We have not seen any progress under that deal as well,” says Mr. Sharma.

According to him, Mr. Oli, who never misses a chance to take a jibe at India, has spent the entire year waiting for an invite from Delhi. “There is clearly a lack of trust from both neighbours,” he said. “So, on the foreign policy front as well, Oli has not been successful.”

Public dissatisfaction

From the very outset, the government has earned notoriety for being intolerant of criticism and for its vindictive attitude. Those criticising the government or people in power on social media have been prosecuted through misuse of laws.

In March, pro-monarchy protests attracted many people — though not all were calling for the monarchy’s return. Many had joined simply to express dissatisfaction with misgovernance. The way the Oli government handled the protests — two people were killed and several others injured — led to more discontent among the general public.

In recent months, even some members of the ruling parties have voiced criticism of the Oli government over its failures in basic areas like service delivery.

Improved public service delivery is one way to measure how the government is functioning, but on this front too, the current administration has failed miserably, say analysts.

“The dilapidated condition of a major highway is a clear example of the central government’s failure,” says Mr. Sharma. “Over the past year, the road has remained unchanged, which means the government has done nothing.”

A Bill related to civil service was mired in controversy after it was discovered that some interest groups from outside Parliament had influenced the insertion of a provision without lawmakers’ knowledge. After the incident was widely reported, a committee to look into the matter was formed.

But the episode exposed the weakness of the legislature, where the two big parties control enough seats to pass Bills. A few months ago, the government introduced a flurry of ordinances to change laws it claimed were hindering economic activities. That too raised questions about the “strength” of the government Mr. Oli claims to lead.

Ignoring such incidents that have eroded public faith in the government, Prime Minister Oli’s outrageous daily claims of development and governance come as an affront to the people, commentators say.

“All in all, it’s a rhetoric-filled one year for Mr. Oli,” says Mr. Sharma. “More in talk, nothing in substance.”

(Sanjeev Satgainya is an independent journalist based in Kathmandu)