Nepal’s modern political journey is a story of repeated hope — and repeated heartbreak. From the fall of the Rana dynasty to the return of King Tribhuvan as a “people’s king,” from the 1990 democratic uprising to the decade-long insurgency led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal, and now the rise of figures like Balen Shah and the Rastriya Swatantra Party — the faces have changed, the slogans have changed, but the outcomes often feel painfully similar.
The question that haunts Nepal today is simple: Why has every political transformation failed to transform the nation?
From Rana Rule to Royal Promise: Hope Reborn, System Unchanged
The end of the Rana oligarchy in 1951 was supposed to mark the birth of a modern Nepal. When King Tribhuvan returned to the throne, he symbolized liberation from 104 years of hereditary autocracy. The people believed that monarchy would now stand with democracy.
But structural change never truly followed symbolic change.
Power shifted from Rana prime ministers to palace-centered politics. Institutions remained weak. Political parties were inexperienced. Within a decade, King Mahendra dissolved parliament and introduced the party-less Panchayat system. Democracy was suspended in the name of stability.
Lesson one: Regime change without institutional reform only relocates power — it does not redistribute it.
1990 Democracy: Political Freedom, Economic Stagnation
The 1990 People’s Movement forced constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy. It was historic. Nepal adopted a new constitution, civil liberties expanded, and political parties flourished.
Yet what followed?
Frequent government changes
Coalition instability
Patronage-based politics
Corruption scandals
Weak policy continuity
Between 1990 and 2002, Nepal had more than a dozen governments. Development planning became hostage to power-sharing equations.
Political leaders mastered the art of forming governments — not governing the country.
Meanwhile:
Industrial growth stagnated
Youth unemployment surged
Migration to Gulf countries exploded
Infrastructure lagged behind regional peers
Democracy brought voice — but not vision.
The Maoist Insurgency: Revolution Without Reconstruction
In 1996, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda), launched a “People’s War,” promising to end feudalism, monarchy, and inequality.
The insurgency lasted ten years, claiming over 16,000 lives. In 2006, the monarchy fell. Nepal became a republic in 2008. The Maoists entered mainstream politics and even led the government.
It was a revolutionary moment.
But again — what changed fundamentally?
Yes:
Nepal became a federal democratic republic
Inclusion increased in state structures
Marginalized communities gained representation
However:
Corruption persisted
Federalism became expensive but inefficient
Governance remained centralized in practice
Economic transformation did not occur
The war dismantled monarchy — but it did not dismantle the culture of political opportunism.
Revolution changed the constitution. It did not change political behavior.
Federal Republic: Bigger Structure, Same Problems
After 2015, Nepal adopted a new constitution with federalism as a cornerstone. The idea was decentralization and development at the grassroots level.
But federalism in Nepal faces serious challenges:
Duplication of bureaucracy
Budget inefficiencies
Political appointments over merit
Weak local capacity
Instead of lean governance, Nepal now operates a cost-heavy political structure with limited productivity.
The economy remains dependent on remittances. Industrialization is minimal. Agriculture modernization is slow. Youth frustration is rising.
The political class, across ideologies, has failed to deliver economic transformation.
The Rise of Balen Shah and RSP: A New Wave of Frustration
Into this vacuum emerged a new political sentiment.
In 2022, independent candidate Balen Shah won the Kathmandu mayoral election — defeating major party giants. Shortly after, the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) entered parliament with surprising strength.
This wave represents:
Urban youth frustration
Anti-corruption sentiment
Desire for technocratic governance
Rejection of traditional party cartels
For many, Balen symbolizes disruption. A non-traditional politician. Direct. Administrative. Results-oriented.
But can personality-driven politics succeed where systems have failed?
Why Change in Power Keeps Failing Nepal
Looking at the past 70 years, four structural issues stand out:
1. Weak Institutions
Nepal changes leaders faster than it reforms institutions. Strong institutions outlast leaders. Nepal has focused on the latter.
2. Patronage Politics
Political loyalty often outweighs competence. Every regime builds its own network instead of reforming governance culture.
3. Policy Discontinuity
Each government reverses the previous one’s policies. Long-term economic strategy suffers.
4. Economic Dependence
Nepal’s economy survives on remittances, imports, and aid. Without production-driven growth, political stability alone cannot create prosperity.
Power changes. The model does not.
The Real Challenges Ahead
1. Resistance from Established Parties
Traditional parties have networks, funding, and grassroots presence. Disruption threatens entrenched interests.
2. Managing Public Expectations
Anti-establishment figures rise on hope. Hope can turn into disappointment quickly if structural limits become visible.
3. Economic Reform Complexity
Nepal needs:
Industrial policy reform
Investment climate improvement
Infrastructure acceleration
Governance digitization
These require coalition-building, not confrontation alone.
4. Avoiding Populism
Quick optics can win applause. Sustainable reform requires patience, compromise, and technical depth.
The Bigger Question: Is Nepal’s Problem Leadership or System?
Nepal has tried:
Monarchy
Constitutional monarchy
Multiparty democracy
Communist-led republic
Federal structure
Yet governance outcomes remain fragile.
This suggests the issue is not ideology — it is implementation capacity and accountability culture.
Until:
Institutions are stronger than individuals
Rule of law outweighs party loyalty
Economic productivity replaces political rhetoric
No new wave will fully succeed.
Final Reflection: Cycles of Hope
Nepal’s political history resembles a cycle:
Oppression → Revolution → Celebration → Disillusionment → New Hope → Repeat.
Balen Shah and RSP represent the latest chapter in this cycle. They carry the aspirations of a generation tired of recycled leaders.
But if systemic reform does not accompany political change, history may repeat itself.
The future of Nepal will not depend solely on who holds power — but on whether power is finally used to build institutions, enforce accountability, and create economic opportunity.
Until then, change in power may remain just that — change in faces, not in fate.
No comments:
Post a Comment