In the last decade, three political leaders have captured Nepal’s democracy and the state. They control the political parties, and through them, the whole nation. They have complete control over the affairs of the state; no high-level corruption is possible without their consent.

Yet, in the last few months, new kinds of political competition, with deeper structural roots, are playing out. But the problems are so entrenched that changes to the status quo look difficult in the near term.

The future of Nepalis will depend on how this conflict plays out, whether we will be able to solve our most persistent problems and reap the benefits of democracy.

Political competition

The first type of political competition—among the largest three parties—is the most banal, yet the most threatening. What looks like a game of musical chairs is aimed at shoring up the powers of three individuals and their factions. In the process, they have the potential to rig political systems in their favour so that changes to the status quo become more difficult.

In the latest round of the game, Nepali Congress (NC) leader Sher Bahadur Deuba and Prime Minister KP Oli have forged an alliance, “kicking out” Pushpa Kamal Dahal from power. Both parties have shown a temporary commitment to fighting the next election on their own strength without forging a political alliance, and, maybe, avoiding another round of betrayal by Dahal. It is no surprise that Oli blamed Dahal for trying to “incite malcontents and create unrest.”

On his part, Dahal is on a nationwide campaign, trying to shore up support. He has alleged the NC and the CPN-UML of trying to push back the country towards a two-party system, initiating regressive changes in the constitution, allowing more space to geopolitical pressures and dissuading anti-corruption initiatives. A Maoist Centre leader, Giriraj Mani Pokharel, claimed that Dahal’s anti-corruption initiative was the primary reason for his ouster.

Behind the NC-UML nexus is another perceived threat: The rise of new parties, political figures and political movements. It seems as if the ruling coalition is intent on weakening the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) and Mayor Balen Shah, who represent emerging aspirations for a new kind of political culture.

As if the threat from “neophytes” was not enough, leaders of the three major parties are facing competition from within their parties.

In the UML, as discontent and indiscipline grow, former President Bidya Devi Bhandari appears to be reorganising the party base, offering an alternative to PM Oli’s leadership. In the NC, young leaders like Gagan Thapa and Bishwa Prakash Sharma are pushing for a paradigm shift in party organisation and leadership.

Even within the MC, Dahal feels the threat from two different factions, forcing him to claim that he remains above the position of party president—given that he has been globally recognised as the leader of a political movement. He said he would one day hand over the party to a special team and play a different role, but that day has not come yet.

Competition among and within political parties and political movements is visible. What remains invisible, yet has the potential to transform politics, is the shifting political psychology of the public.

The rise of a new generation of citizens, who are dealigned with traditional parties, fed up with corruption, and want broad-based reforms in the economy, is not so simplistic. However, it has the potential to upend traditional politics and pose a direct threat to the interests of existing leaders.

Entrenched problems

Since October 2015, only Dahal, Deuba and Oli have become prime ministers, playing seven rounds of musical chairs. Yet, they are the ones to complain the most about political instability. By the end of 2027, it would be 12 years since the promulgation of the constitution, and despite all the “instability,” only three would have shared the premiership eight times. Unfortunately, they will most likely be the ones to continue until 2032. This is a unique kind of political stability, although unwanted.

Another undesired challenge is the role of geopolitical engagements in Nepal. On the one hand, geopolitical actors continue to play the traditional role of allies and “trusted friends.” However, a more controversial process is also taking place, that of elite control and resource capture. Despite claims to the contrary, senior party leaders accept that China and India have the leverage and means to influence political careers and party viability. So far, we’ve seen that both China and India have influence over major political parties, meaning that party polarisation towards either China or India has not been feasible.

Geopolitics offers local political elites the opportunity to entrench themselves and capture more resources than those coming from outside. Pokhara International Airport is one example. This issue needs closer scrutiny.

Political reforms and change in leadership are closely linked to corruption and kleptocracy.

It is common knowledge among Nepal’s bureaucracy and experts that, in the last two decades, none of the major corruption cases would have been possible without the consent and willful inaction of the Council of Ministers. It is no secret that electoral politics is becoming extortionate and is driving corruption. So is party politics. Top leaders need an inordinate amount of money to maintain control over the party.

In the last two decades, corruption in Nepal has become so systematised that it has led to an elaborate kleptocratic network. The network is patronised by influential political leaders and run by several key individual “brokers.” The kleptocratic network that pervades political parties, the bureaucracy and the judicial system, partners with the state machinery to steal from the ordinary people, consumers and the state. The kleptocracy has developed impunity to protect its members and ensure that resources continue to flow up.

The kleptocratic system, most of the time, is undifferentiated with crony capitalism and policy corruption. Crony capitalism is especially prevalent in procurements, natural resources, finance, health and education sectors. Given the robust but hidden linkages between politics and business, this will continue in the near future. As long as crony capitalism remains strong, a fair and competitive market will remain a mirage for the younger generation of professional entrepreneurs and expatriate well wishers.

Conclusion

Sadly, the current political course is unlikely to change soon. A lot of energy and political power is needed to dismantle kleptocracy, enact critical reforms in the electoral and political systems, and transition to a fair, competitive and broad-based market system.

As long as political elites control the state and the prospect of political and economic reforms, changes will not be possible without their consent. The only way out is either to wrest off their power or align their interests with potential reforms.

In this context, growing discontent among the people and emerging political competition have the potential to widen the space for changemaking.

It’s time to recognise that, maybe, we need disruption. We’ve had too much stability, of the unwanted kind.