After a long push, former President Bidya Devi Bhandari has returned to party politics as a senior CPN-UML leader. On September 24, the party’s central committee nominated her to a position that the party statute does not even recognise.

Bhandari has continuously attempted to return to the party after completing her second term in Sheetal Niwas in early 2023. She had particularly pushed to get back into the party last year after party chair KP Sharma Oli’s position weakened following his ouster as prime minister. But Oli’s strong resistance foiled her attempts.

This time around, with Oli further cornered in the party and his long-time close aides, including vice-chair Bishnu Paudel and general secretary Shankar Pokhrel, advocating for a change in leadership, he agreed to accommodate Bhandari. This, on the one hand, helped Oli retain the party chair, while Bhandari finally got the return she writhed for.

Four days after her return, she attended a party meeting in Rupandehi in her capacity as a party leader, for the first time after forfeiting her UML membership in October 2015 to become President.

At the meeting, she claimed that her return was intended to strengthen the party and work for the prosperity of the country. She also claimed that she had no political ambitions, saying she had already fulfilled her aspirations. Her actions tell otherwise. In her quest to regain a footing in the party, Bhandari has said on multiple occasions, including at least one interview, that she aimed to lead the party. Her immediate involvement in party activities and campaigning further exposes her political aspirations. Therefore, it would not be a stretch to read her return to the UML fold as motivated by the ambition to lead the party. 

Nepali politics, during Bhandari’s active decades, has seen a series of tumult. Her political life too has gone through several ups and downs. She was active in politics during tiring trials and tribulations for her family. Still, she played a crucial role in advocating 33 percent reservations for women in Parliament and in encouraging greater participation of women in politics. Her political contribution also earned her a ministerial berth and, ultimately, the position of Nepal’s first woman President. Her contributions, both good and bad, to Nepali politics have already been etched in history. Now, in her mid-60s, despite her counterclaim, there is not much left for her to contribute that she has not already done over the years. 

There is no constitutional or legal barrier to returning to politics after completing a presidential term. But political morality demands a higher standard than what the law permits. Active political engagement by a former president—who continues to receive state-funded perks, security and stipends—also raises questions of constitutional ethics and unfair political influence. Through a broader lens, a president, former or active, serves as a unifying, non-partisan figure, expected to remain above partisan squabbles rather than competing for internal party leadership roles.

By living an independent life after leaving office, as her predecessor Ram Baran Yadav has done to date, Bhandari could have preserved the dignity and impartiality associated with the presidency. She could also have erased some of the many controversies of her tenure, including her moves to abide by the executive’s directions. Instead, she has chosen to return to the very party from which she had to separate herself to become president.

This is unwarranted for a person who held the country’s highest office for two terms and took an oath to protect the Constitution. The presidency demands political neutrality and independence, and those expectations should not disappear simply because a president has left office.

Bhandari’s return may be legally permissible, but it sets a wrong precedent. It will only leave a deep scar on her already blotched record in the history books.