The Rastriya Swatantra Party’s New Statute and the Risk of Centralized Power
Nepal has witnessed a significant shift in its political dynamics with the emergence of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP). Promising to break away from the entrenched, stagnant systems that have long plagued the country, the party initially garnered support for its progressive stance. However, the recently approved party statute raises concerns about a potential regression into centralized control.
The new statute, approved during the ruling party’s first general convention, includes provisions that are seen as a move towards consolidating power in the hands of the party chair. Specifically, Section 68(1)e grants the chair the authority to automatically vacate the position of the parliamentary party leader if they fail to follow policy directives. This provision is viewed as a tool of control, enabling the chair to exert influence over key leadership roles within the party.
In addition to this, the statute allows the party chair to nominate 51 members to the 158-member Central Committee. This represents nearly one-third of the committee, ensuring a substantial bloc of loyalists who owe their positions to a single individual. When combined with the power to remove the parliamentary leader, these measures suggest an effort to create an all-powerful chairmanship.
A History of Political Instability
Nepal’s political landscape has often been marked by instability, with many movements falling victim to the whims of powerful leaders. Traditionally, when the party chair and the parliamentary party leader were separate individuals, the chair held ultimate authority. This has led to situations where party chairs dictated cabinet formations and controlled the allocation of state resources.
Historical examples, such as the rifts in the Nepali Congress during the late nineties, serve as cautionary tales. More recently, the CPN-UML’s internal conflicts highlight how personal power struggles between top leaders can lead to national instability. The RSP was expected to be a solution to this chronic issue, offering a fresh alternative to the established order.
Tensions Between the Party Chair and the Prime Minister
The RSP’s statute also sets the stage for potential tensions between the party chair and the prime minister. A seven-point pact signed in December aimed to establish a clear division of labor between the two roles. One leader was to manage the party, while the other handled government affairs. However, this balance is now at risk, as the prime minister becomes subordinate to the chair’s mandatory policy guidance.
If the government pursues a path that diverges from the chair’s vision, the parliamentary party’s leadership could be forfeited. This suspensive veto risks creating a pliant government, undermining the constitutional spirit of a parliamentary democracy where the executive must be accountable to the people rather than a party boss.
The Expectations of the Young Electorate
The mandate the party received in March’s snap polls was rooted in the Gen Z uprising of September. The young electorate did not vote for a new version of the old autocracy but for a transparent alternative. They demanded good governance and practices that foster it. If the party allows the chair to hold unchecked powers, it loses its moral high ground, becoming indistinguishable from the decaying establishment it seeks to replace.
The strength of the RSP lies not in the shadow of a singular “supreme leader” but in its commitment to democratic principles. Devolution of power is now an urgent necessity. There must be a clear legal and political separation between party management and state governance.
The Path Forward
The party should also return the power of the veto over the parliamentary party leader to the general membership. Good governance is the outcome of judicious distribution of authority. The RSP must choose between the comfort of old habits and the courage displayed in its original convictions.
