– SAGOON Bhetwal

The opinion piece originally appeared in the Online Khabar. Please read the original article here.

Nepal transitioned into a federal state of government after the promulgation of the Constitution of Nepal in 2015. One remarkable achievement since this shift has been the significant arrival of women in politics.

A total of 14,352 (40.96 percent) elected representatives in the 2017 local election and 14,407 (41.22 percent) elected representatives in the 2022 local election were women.

Nepal Institute for Policy Research (NIPoRe) recently completed research on ‘Nominations and Electability: The Role of Gender Norms in Nepal’s Local Elections’. The institute, with the support of Advancing Learning and Innovation in Gender Norms (ALIGN), undertook this research to bust stereotypes that are against the political engagement of Nepali women.

As a part of the team, I had the chance to meet and analyse interviews that took place with more than a dozen of women in politics who have had the experience of running for elections, with some who have also been elected to the local government.

Meeting women in politics, witnessing the work they have accomplished, and listening to their aspirations gave me a sense of pride and representation as I first-hand watched women hold spaces and make decisions.

Getting to know women in politics

As I reflected back on the conversations that allowed me to know about women in politics from close, I was able to note similarities between them that qualify as factors that can increase meaningful political engagement of Nepali women.

It is with financial independence, support from family, and education that women can pave a political path for themselves in their community and beyond.

These women have had a history of engagement in their community as they contributed to its welfare in any way possible. While some were active members of the student unions, others have remained socially active through community initiatives while a few were also a part of the Maoist insurgency.

These women in politics have since then continued their engagements as teachers, social workers, and members of women’s associations within political parties.

Almost all these female politicians we interacted with came from some kind of political background and/or had parents and partners who have been supportive of their political interests.

One of the respondents from Rukum said, “When there is support from family, the society also looks at women in politics positively.” Having a supportive family does make a difference in the political participation of women, especially when one has to tackle gender norms that society at large imposes on women.

Importance of financial independence and education

The other factor that was largely emphasised in most of these conversations was financial independence and financial decision-making. The above-mentioned research has also stated how, according to political parties, the winnability of a candidate is defined by their ability to finance elections.

National Population and Housing Census 2021 of Nepal found that only 23.8 percent of families have their land or housing or both in the ownership of a female household member. While this is a very low percentage (although a slight increase from 2011), the bigger concern remains on the decision-making autonomy of such assets.

With limited authority and a low rate of labour force participation, managing finances for female candidates in elections is an arduous task. This acts as a limitation and barres women from running for elections despite being interested and possessing leadership ability.

Another factor that the female candidates we interviewed stressed was the need for education for women and girls. When asked — What should be done to encourage more women in politics and local government?— they emphasised education.

Most of them had acquired education up to or above the high school level. Four of these interviewees were engaged in the teaching profession prior to joining active politics. They shared how their educational background added as an attribute to their profile and how it build their confidence to create a political pathway for themselves.

And so, efforts are needed early on to ensure more women become candidates and acquire chief executive roles in local government. In a patriarchal society that has long seen men at the forefront of politics, it isn’t an easy task to create your hold where you rightfully deserve.

The difficulty starts right at the beginning when contesting for nominations within the political parties and it persists even after. It is hence crucial that we put in efforts to build their ability and also support them throughout their political journey.

– ANUSHA Basnet

The political representation of women in Nepal has improved markedly since the overthrow of the monarchy and the implementation of a federal system. Legal provisions implemented by the Government of Nepal can be largely attributed to this increase in women’s political representation. Article 84 of the Constitution of Nepal states that at least one-third of the total women elected in the federal parliament need to be women. In terms of the local level, Section 17(4) of the Local Level Election Act 2017 states that a political party must field a woman in either the mayor/ chairperson or deputy mayor/ vice-chairperson position. It is also legally mandatory to appoint a female ward member and a Dalit female ward member at the ward level. While all these provisions have ensured the political participation and representation of women, the past two elections have shown that there is still work needed to be done with regard to the proper implementation of these provisions so that meaningful political participation of women can be ascertained. 

In the 2017 local-level elections, 40.95 percent of the total elected representatives were women. There was a slight improvement in 2022 with women being 41.21 percent of the total elected representatives. However, in both elections, the target set to achieve 50 percent representation of women was not met. In addition, to fulfill the legal provisions political parties ended up fielding a large number of women as candidates for Deputy positions in 2017. In contrast, in 2022, due to the political parties forming coalitions, only one candidate was fielded by one political party in mayor/ chief and deputy positions which could be either of the genders. Because of this, the tickets went largely to male candidates while drastically decreasing the number of female candidates. The nominations reflect this – while 3593 women were nominated as deputy chiefs in 2017, 3077 women were nominated as deputy chiefs in 2022 (Data from Election Commission). Furthermore, while it is mandatory for all ward levels to have one Dalit women member, 176 units and 123 units in 2017 and in 2022, respectively, did not field Dalit women candidates.

These incidents show that creating legal provisions is not enough to ensure the participation of women, rather, constant supervision is needed to ensure the correct implementation of the legal provisions. Although the Election Commission has been active in responding to the concerns raised regarding women’s participation in the electoral system, it has still been one step behind with its decisions coming after loopholes have been utilised by the parties. Women’s rights activists and legal experts are the ones who have been raising the alarm on this trend of political parties utilising legal loopholes to shaft women in their nomination and offered positions. Few female cadres and leaders have also raised their voices against their party’s reluctance to give candidacies to women. 

In 2017, the political parties were criticised for giving women candidacies in only deputy/vice-chairperson positions. In 2022, parties were again criticised for using coalitions to give candidacy only to male candidates. In the case of Dalit women representatives, a major criticism remains that parties only look for Dalit women to field as candidates during election time. 

While the public and activists can draw the attention of political parties to the task, the onus remains on political parties to encourage the political participation of women from grassroot level and to fulfill and even exceed the provisions as guaranteed by the constitution. Unless the political parties take lead on this issue, women’s political participation and representation will always be on the margins.

This blog is a part of NIPoRe’s blog series on Women’s History Month 2023

– SANTOSH Sharma Poudel

The column originally appeared in The Diplomat on 6 March 2023. Please read the original article here.

On February 27, the Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli-led Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) withdrew its support for the Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led government. The CPN-UML ministers resigned en masse, bringing down the curtain on the seven-party coalition government that was formed in Nepal barely two months ago.

To start with, this was a coalition of strange bedfellows, with parties with opposing agendas and ideologies coming together. Their lust for power was their common agenda.

Prime Minister Dahal will likely continue to lead the next government with the support of the Sher Bahadur Deuba-led Nepali Congress (NC) and six smaller parties. This marks a return to the pre-poll alliance of 2022.

Differences over the election of the new president, scheduled for March 9, provided the immediate cause for the downfall of the coalition government. In a power-sharing agreement between Dahal and Oli, the former had agreed to support the CPN-UML’s presidential candidate. However, Dahal reneged and decided to support the NC’s candidate instead.

The president is the ceremonial head of state, who is to perform all functions “on the recommendation and with the consent of the council of ministers.” However, the presidency has effectively become a permanent, untouchable veto-wielding power. Elected for five years by an electoral college, the president can only be impeached by a two-thirds majority of the Parliament, a number beyond the current fractured coalitions in Nepal. Therefore, current President Bidhya Devi Bhandari faced no consequence for approving the dissolution of the parliament twice, despite the Supreme Court reinstating parliament both times, and holding off approval of the citizenship bill despite a constitutional mandate.

Oli is miffed at Dahal’s intransigence. He knew he would control all the government strings if the president was his lieutenant. He headed the largest party in the coalition by a mile; his party leads both houses of parliament and the commissioners of many constitutional committees are his acolytes. Dahal, though the prime minister, would have been a lame duck.

That was obvious to Dahal too.

Dahal was able to play the NC and CPN-UML to remain at the center of Nepali politics despite his party winning only 29 of 275 seats in the federal parliament. That the NC voted to support his government earlier this year, despite Dahal ditching it at the last minute during government formation, did not go unnoticed.

Sources close to Dahal argue that he was taken aback after Oli showed no remorse for his attempts to dissolve the Parliament twice in 2020 and 2021 during the parliamentary address.

Dahal and Oli do not share a cordial personal relationship. Oli’s CPN-UML and Dahal’s Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Center (CPN-MC) merged to form a powerful Nepal Communist Party in 2018, with the two as co-chairs. However, the union barely lasted for two years because of the rift between the two leaders. They clashed in the public domain, attacking each other personally.

Their coming together after the 2022 elections to form a government was instrumental and not a rekindling of their relationship. Dahal’s interest in being the prime minister and Oli’s interest in breaking the NC and CPN-MC coalition led to their partnership. However, the coalition shattered as soon as interests diverged again.

Meanwhile, Deuba maintained a dignified silence and did not criticize Dahal even after the Maoist leader “betrayed” him to form the government with Oli’s support.

After pulling out support, the CPN-UML has insinuated that Dahal came under “foreign influence.” CPN-UML General Secretary Shankar Pokharel said that “external powers did not prefer the current government [of which CPN-UML was a part], and were potentially instrumental in the government change.” India and the United States were especially active this time, he observed, noting that “the [foreign] power centers did not want the CPN-UML to dominate the government.”

Visits by India’s Foreign Secretary Vinay Mohan Kwatra and four retired army generals in February and the flurry of visits by U.S. officials lend some credence to the allegations. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) chief had also requested to visit Nepal, but the Nepali government felt it was not an appropriate time.

According to some analysts, India prefers a “controlled chaos” in Nepal. A strong and unified government in Nepal is not seen by officials in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs or its embassy in Nepal to be in India’s interest.

Additionally, the India-Nepal relationship was at its lowest ebb during Oli’s reign (2018-21) over the territorial dispute between the two countries. Although India and the U.S. are much closer than they were in the past, especially when it comes to China, New Delhi is concerned about increased and direct U.S. engagement in Nepal because it undercuts Indian influence in Nepal.

Nepal’s increased geostrategic importance and the implementation of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), a $500 million grant for infrastructure projects, has led to the increased U.S. presence. With the NC set to join the government, it brings into power the coalition that ratified the MCC in February last year.

There is no denying the role of external powers, but it would be foolhardy to discount the role of the personal vested interests of key Nepali leaders in Nepal’s current political instability. The lust for power is the main reason why Dahal left his electoral alliance partner, the NC, and formed a government with the support of the CPN-UML. It explains why Oli assured Deuba that he would not support Dahal for prime minister till the last moment, only to do a volte-face. These are merely the results of instrumentality where the only currency is power. Because the leaders do not want to spell this out publicly, they hide behind blaming “hidden interests” and “external powers” for the political instability.

– BINITA Nepali

The opinion piece originally appeared in the January 2023 Issue of New Business Age Magazine. Please read the original article here.

Nepal ranks first in South Asia and second in Asia in terms of the share of women representatives in the parliament. However, it ranks 123rd in the world in terms of the number of women holding ministerial posts. Women in Nepal have been assigned ministerial roles at general ministries only. It demonstrates the reality that, despite increased female political participation, women are not trusted to exercise authority and manage resources at the key ministries that have the potential to make major policy implications in the country.

In 2008, a mixed-model election system [First Past the Post (FPTP) and Proportional Representation (PR)] was introduced to encourage positive discrimination of women and other marginalised and unrepresented groups in the country. However, the political parties have exploited the PR system and turned it into the sole route for women to enter politics.

Political parties are reluctant to field women under the FPTP system. Therefore, to ensure constitutional adherence, women are brought onto the PR list. Only 9% the FPTP candidates in the 2022 federal and provincial elections were female. Most of the female candidates were fielded in fiercely competitive constituencies, with the less competitive seats going to the supposedly “strong” male leaders.

As per Article 84 of the Constitution of Nepal, at least one-third of the members elected from each political party to the federal parliament must be women. Therefore, at least 92 of the 275 members of the new federal parliament must be women, as there are currently only 19 women (32.2 percent), in the 59-member upper house. As only nine women were elected directly, the remaining 85 seats have been filled through proportional representation. It means there are just nine women in the top decision-making positions, as it has been found that the directly elected representatives – more than 95% of whom are men – hold greater sway over resources, authority, and influence than those who come via the PR system in Nepal’s parliament.

The country also fell short of meeting the target of having 50% women representatives in the local units. Only 14,407 (41.21%) out of the 34,953 elected in 753 local units were women. Of them, only 25 women have been elected to top or decision-making posts (13 mayors and 12 chairpersons). Moreover, women were sidelined in the guise of political coalitions during the recent local, provincial, and federal elections. Consequently, fewer women today hold leadership roles at all three tiers of government, owing to political parties’ aversion to promoting women to decision-making positions. To put it another way, Nepal missed out on the opportunities that more women in decision-making positions would bring.

First, more women in politics means a more inclusive democracy. A study shows more women in decision-making roles, with their inclusive and cooperative leadership styles, result in tangible gains for democracy. This entails better service delivery, stronger collaboration across racial and political boundaries, expanded social safety nets, and a more sustainable future.

Moreover, other research links women’s political participation to improved governance, transparency, and low levels of corruption. As women are often seen to be more trustworthy and honest, it is hoped that their increased participation in politics will reduce corruption. In 2011, Mexico replaced all of its male traffic cops with female cops to curb corruption, since women are seen as more trustworthy. New Zealand has the highest level of female representation (49.2%) of any parliament in the Asia and Pacific Region and the sixth highest in the world. Now wonder, the country ranks first out of 180 in the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (CPI). Whereas, Nepal  ranks first in South Asia in having more women in national parliament (32.7 percent) and is 117th out of 180 in the CPI. Undoubtedly, Nepal needs more proactive women leaders who would guarantee more inclusive policies and responsible institutions that combat the pervasive corruption.

Second, more women legislators mean a more stable, inclusive, and vibrant economy. Researches show that gender equity has favourable economic gains for everyone and that the presence of women in politics corresponds with a wider economic impact.

India showed much improved socio-economic growth with greater gender-sensitive spending on programmes related to health, nutrition, and education when women were present in a decision making role. Likewise, women’s political leadership and women’s broader engagement in the economy are intertwined. Thus, if Nepal wants more women at work, it should prioritise raising the number of women in elected offices.

The government, which remains dominated by men as of now, repeatedly attempts to prohibit women from being involved in the economy. One recent example is the government’s effort to implement a law requiring women under the age of 40 to get permission from their family and local ward chair before travelling to the Middle East and Africa. In Nepal, 74% of women are involved in agriculture. Only 15.7% of agricultural work is performed by men, while the rest 84.3% is performed by women. However, they have no say in the earnings from farming and endure various types of discrimination (such as access to land, water, seeds, and training, among others). Yet, the government does not consider it essential to implement women-friendly farming policies, training, or materials.

Thus, women’s participation in two of the most important economic factors, remittances and agriculture, is minimal. This would be drastically different if more women were in positions of legislative power. More women in decision-making positions would fight against such discriminatory restrictions that limit women’s full participation in the economy and create a vicious loop: women don’t have money, they can’t win, therefore they are chosen through PR.

Third, there is significant evidence that women politicians are changing the way politics work by introducing policies in areas that aren’t usually talked about at the political table, like domestic violence, women’s reproductive health, and maternity leave, and by broadening perspectives on other policy areas. This has been seen in France, Sweden, South Africa, Rwanda, and Egypt, among others. Increased policymaking that prioritises welfare, healthcare, education, families, water and sanitation, women, and minorities is also linked to the number of elected women. Here, the New Zealand experience serves as the best example.

Women politicians not only propose such policies but also tirelessly work to put them into effect, as Margaret Thatcher rightly stated: “In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a woman.” A study done in the US has found that congresswomen provide 9% more government programmes annually to their home districts than their male counterparts. And women are 10% more effective lawmakers and pass twice as many bills on average than men. The increasing instances of gender-based violence, rape, early child marriage, acid attacks, and girls’ trafficking are tearing the country apart. With Nepal’s political class becoming more and more apathetic, it is certain that greater representation of women in decision-making positions will increase efforts to put an end to these issues.

Nepal cannot afford to ignore women. It must ponder seriously what might be done to avoid losing out on these costly opportunities. As was done in Rwanda (which implemented 30% gender quotas in the parliament only in 2003 but ranks first in the world in terms of the proportion of women, 61.25%, in its national legislature due to rigorous implementation), one of the most important recommendations is to implement the legally mandated gender quota with adequate political finance regulations to support it, as the exorbitant cost of political elections is a significant barrier for women who are interested in running for elective office.

The patriarchal attitudes of Nepali society and local political parties that “women cannot win,”  which limit women’s electability and winnability in the elections must be challenged by raising awareness of the importance that women could offer to overall political governance and public service delivery. As women cannot be what they cannot see, elected women should get more media publicity to inspire other women to pursue leadership positions. Lastly, there should be more training and networks for women who want to run for government. For example, a cross-party and cross-country network for women politicians could be set up. 

– SANTOSH Sharma Poudel

The column originally appeared in The Diplomat on 27 December 2022. Please read the original article here.

This year’s Christmas brought a “surprise” in Nepal. Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Centre (CPN-MC), which won only 32 seats in the 275-member lower house of parliament in the recent general election, was appointed prime minister after he secured the support of seven parties, including the party led by arch-rival Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli of the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML).

Sher Bahadur Deuba, who believes that he is destined to be the prime minister of Nepal seven times and was expecting to be the premier for the sixth time, was left out to dry, although his party, the Nepali Congress (NC), won the largest number of seats.

The timely election and selection of the prime minister is an achievement for Nepal’s nascent democratic process. Yet, the formation of the government reeks of a democratic deficit. CPN-MC, which stood a distant third and won only 11 percent of the votes, will lead a government that excludes the largest party. Nepal’s parties have ignored the “mandate of the people.”

As expected, the November 20 election produced a fractured result. The NC emerged as the largest party, winning 89 seats in the federal parliament. CPN-UML, CPN-MC, the National Independent Party (NIP), and the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) rounded off the top five, winning 78, 32, 20, and 14 seats, respectively. The newly-elected parliamentarians took the oath of office on December 22.

Parties had jostled for electoral alliances before the elections. Two major alliances contested the polls: a five-party ruling coalition led by the NC, which included Dahal’s CPN-MC, and the opposition coalition led by the CPN-UML. As the election results started to pour in, leaders of political parties engaged in negotiations on government formation. Deuba was confident that the ruling coalition would endure. Dahal repeated the same in public until he made a volte-face at the eleventh hour on December 25.

Primarily, two parties were vocal about their claim to lead the government: NC and CPN-MC. Within the NC, Deuba was challenged by a young leader, Gagan Thapa. While Gagan Thapa remains popular among the general populace and represents the change of generation from the old to young leaders, Deuba has a significant numerical advantage within the NC. Thus, the NC elected Deuba as the leader of the parliamentary party, who is also the party’s prime ministerial candidate, over Thapa by 64-29 votes. Meanwhile, the CPN-MC selected Dahal unopposed.

With this, the contest narrowed down to one between Deuba and Dahal. The two leaders had agreed to take turns leading the government, but neither was willing to concede the chance to lead the government first. Deuba felt he had the natural claim to the leadership first because his party was the largest by a mile, and he was confident that Dahal and Oli would not get back together. Dahal claimed it was his turn after Deuba led the government from 2021 to 2022.

Meanwhile, Dahal was engaging Oli’s CPN-UML through his trusted lieutenants. Oli was waiting in the wings to drive a wedge in the ruling coalition.ADVERTISEMENT

The president invited leaders to claim premiership with majority support by December 25. Deuba was steadfast in his claim of the premiership as the day loomed. Then, Dahal left the coalition and indicated his ditching of the alliance, saying it had “lost its relevance.”

The next day, Dahal received the support of the seven parties, including the CPN-UML, to become the prime minister for the third time. So it is déjà vu, and 2017 again, though the left parties have weakened significantly and needed support from newer parties.

Politics has created strange bedfellows in Nepal in the past. However, this coalition trumps them all.

Besides the CPN-MC and CPN-UML, the coalition includes the four-month-old NIP, the conservative RPP, Madhes-based Janata Samjbadi Party-Nepal (JSP-N) and Janamat Party (JP), and ethnic Nagarik Unmukti Party (NUP) as well as three independent members of the parliament.

Among the coalition partners, the CPN-MC and the CPN-UML largely share common agenda. They were instrumental in introducing federalism and making Nepal a secular state. However, Oli has has indicated his aversion to federalism and secularism in recent times. At a personal level, Oli and Dahal share a tumultuous relationship.

If the two communist parties are from Venus, other coalition partners are from Mars. NIP ran on a “no, not again” platform, attempting to usurp anti-establishment votes. NIP’s leader, Rabi Lamichhane, had said that he would not be a part of any government led by the establishment leaders. The RPP ran on the agenda of reviving constitutional monarchy and the Hindu state. NIP and RPP seek to undo the provincial structure. JP contested against the JSP-N, accusing the latter of ignoring the Madhesi people’s issues in their lust for power. NUP ran on an anti-establishment platform, arguing that the Tharu community in the mid-Terai needed to be freed from the establishment’s control.

The coalition partners have come together in their lust for power. There is bare-knuckle bargaining going on for ministerial portfolios and other political appointments, including in provinces. It can be seen in Lamichhane’s appointment as the deputy prime minister and home minister. There is a court petition against Lamichhane, a Nepali citizen-turned U.S. citizen-turned Nepali citizen, regarding his citizenship. Yet, he now leads the ministry which issues the citizenship certificate. It symbolizes that the coalition is devoid of ethics too.’

Given the breadth of the coalition, Dahal’s focus will be to maintain his hold on power. He will lead the government for at least two years, for the constitution mandates that a no-confidence motion cannot be introduced against a prime minister for two years. However, we can expect a revolving door for the ministerial portfolios. The council of ministers will likely report to their party leaders, not necessarily to the prime minister, weakening the government. It will be a huge miracle if there is a smooth transfer of power to Oli after two years. It will not be a surprise if a new coalition emerges then.

China and India quickly offered “warm congratulations” to the new Prime Minister.

Some Indian analysts believed New Delhi was readying to welcome Deuba as the prime minister. Others, such as former Indian envoy to Nepal Ranjit Roy, had expressed the need for India to engage all parties, big and small. Nepal’s relations with India had normalized under the Deuba-government after it had hit a new low during Oli’s tenure over Nepal’s new map in 2020.

New Delhi is not very fond of Dahal. In its early stages, his party called India an “expansionist” force. He has accused New Delhi of orchestrating his ouster from prime ministership in 2008 and insinuated that New Delhi plotted to kill him. However, he has changed his tune in recent times. During his visit to New Delhi earlier this year, he visited the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) headquarters. He met with many senior leaders although Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi snubbed him. However, New Delhi still considers Dahal unreliable.

Meanwhile, China could not have been happier at the moment. China had nudged CPN-MC and CPN-UML for a communist unification in 2017 and had tried its best to keep the unified Nepal Communist Party (NCP) together when it was on the verge of splitting at the end of 2020. Beijing was less engaged this time but will cheer the communist-plus coalition.

Deuba, known in Beijing as a pro-India leader, cold shouldered the Belt and Road Initiative, a pet project of Chinese leader Xi Jinping, arguing that he prefers grants to loans. Deuba led the ratification of the $500 million American grant, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), despite vocal Chinese opposition. He has been wary of the Chinese Communist Party as it has invested in party-to-party relations with Nepal’s communist parties.

Dahal shares a better relationship with Nepal’s northern neighbor. His fondness for China will be of concern to the U.S. American engagement in Nepal has increased tremendously in recent years and could slow down during Dahal’s term.

However, Dahal has been pragmatic, if unimaginative, about Nepal’s relations with the two neighbors and the U.S. He has been in politics and power long enough to understand the importance of all three major powers and their interests in Nepal. Therefore, we may not see any significant turn in foreign policy like he frequently does in national politics.

In saying that, the new government has a gamut of issues that require immediate attention. The Deuba-led government had put off the difficult decision on the Agnipath scheme of recruiting soldiers in India. Dahal will have to deal with that controversial issue now. Border disputes with India and China need his immediate attention too. The most pressing will be how Nepal engages India, China, and the U.S. amidst the Sino-Indian regional tension and the Sino-American global tussle. It will also be the issue with the most far-reaching consequences for Nepal’s security.

Dahal has shown his Machiavellian nature to grab leadership at home. We will find out if he can pull out a “surprise” in Nepal’s foreign policy.

– SAGOON Bhetwal

The column originally appeared in The Kathmandu Post on 12 December 2022. Please read the original article here.

Violence against women (VAW)—a form of severe human rights violation—has remained pervasive around the world, leaving women and girls in distress and affecting their potential. The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women defines VAW as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life.”

Unequal power relations result in domination, which is also a manifestation of VAW. This is perceptible around us, be it on the streets or in Parliament. When women engage in politics as voters, activists, and lawmakers, they face a threat and subjugation, primarily because of their gender. Women politicians, though, have been defying norms that otherwise expect them to remain passive. But violence has often been used to reinforce political structure(s) favouring patriarchy and to suppress women politicians from voicing their opinions freely and independently.

In a 2018 study carried out by the inter-parliamentary union (IPU), 85.2 percent of the interviewed women members of the Parliaments in Europe reported having faced psychological violence in Parliament. From Marielle Franco of Brazil, who was known to be a fierce activist, to Angiza Shinwari of Afghanistan, who constantly defended women’s rights, many women politicians have even had to lose their lives when they voiced against gender-based injustices. Women in politics across all borders and in all countries face similar risks and fears as they question the status quo.

What women politicians face around the globe and also in Nepal is a reflection of the wider gender discrimination that occurs across social, cultural, and economic fronts. A study conducted in India, Nepal, and Pakistan on “Violence Against Women in Politics” identified sexual favour, character assassination, verbal harassment, threats, and emotional blackmail as violence against women politicians. Such acts have taken new forms through new means in recent decades, including cases involving harassment by total strangers on social media platforms. An Analysis of Gender Violence in Social Media Against Women in Politics in Nepal found that the most common attacks on women politicians were insults and hate speech.

Ensure legal protection

We have long pushed for the political participation of women in our democracies. However, where we have failed time and again is at ensuring mechanisms in place for their security in political spaces. Our patriarchal political systems are resistant to change and violent, when challenged. And when women do so to demand equal participation, they face violence risks.

The first step towards fighting violence against women in politics is identifying and acknowledging them. This can be done by either expanding our existing laws or pushing new legislation(s). In 2012, Bolivia approved a “Law against Harassment and Political Violence against Women” to criminalise any such acts that threaten the political participation of women and their access to decision-making spaces. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)—also considered the International Bill of Rights for Women—obliges countries to take such needed “measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life.” This should entail the right of women to vote in elections, be eligible to be elected in elections, hold public offices, and contribute to formulating government policies. In Nepal, the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention) Act, 2014, does include government bodies within the definition of the workplace and has made such acts liable to punishment. Besides that, there is an absence of incorporation of the concept of violence against women in politics and also legislation that specifically covers all aspects of VAW.

Activism against VAW in politics

Feminist movements have been playing significant roles in advancing the rights of women and girls. Activism is one of the pathways forward to combat violence women face in political engagements. It works to ensure attention and initiate discourse on violence in the political sphere against women, a matter often denied. At the same time, activism can exert influence to build seriousness and even determine what institutional and legal reforms should look like. In France, for example, a hashtag movement called #levonslomerta (end the silence) was initiated by activists and politicians demanding actions to end VAW within political organisations. Such initiatives are needed to build public opinion and, more importantly, solidarity against normalised behaviours that risk women in politics.

A large force of women, 41.21 percent, are already in local governments, and many will soon join the Parliament and assemblies of the country. It becomes the responsibility of the incoming government, political parties, civil society, and elected representatives to collectively ensure that the government bodies and political spaces of Nepal are safe and have zero tolerance for VAW in politics. It also requires the combined effort of activism and reform, along with gender sensitisation at all levels.

Because the patriarchal values of our society continue to define power relations and gender roles, they undermine the position of women in power. VAW in politics differs from political violence as it is more sexualised, used to preserve the status quo and deter political engagement of women. This is even more worrisome for those with intersecting identities who are at greater risk of facing axes of discrimination and violence. The fear of violence limits the possible political activeness of women and creates hurdles for those already in the political arena to make their best contribution.

We should, therefore, realise how a threat to women in politics is, largely, a threat to our entire democracy. Or else, every time the legitimacy of women in politics is questioned, it will simultaneously raise questions on the progress that we claim to have made in terms of their political participation.

– SANTOSH Sharma Poudel

The column originally appeared in The Diplomat on 29 November 2022. Please read the original article here.

The Nepali Congress (NC), which heads Nepal’s ruling coalition, has emerged as the single largest party in the parliamentary elections held on November 20. It is followed by the Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML), the main opposition party.

While the CPN-UML received marginally more votes than the NC under the proportional representation (PR) system (where voters cast a ballot for parties), the NC’s stronger showing under the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system put it ahead in the race to form Nepal’s next government. Most of the votes have been counted, but the total number of seats won by each party will take a few more days to be tallied. Meanwhile, leaders are engaging in hectic meetings, each seeking to corner a share in the next government.

In the run-up to the voting, analysts had described this election as a defining moment in Nepali politics. Voter frustration with the establishment’s inability to deliver economic growth and good governance was running high. The victory of a few young candidates in local elections held in May indicated that young, independent, and non-political candidates can take on and win big against the traditional political elite.

However, results from the parliamentary election indicate that this was an incrementally progressive election, but not transformational. The three major establishment parties came on top. The NC and the CPN-UML were followed by the Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Center (CPN-MC) in third place. The National Independent Party (NIP), a party registered barely a few months before the election, came in fourth.

Yet this election represented a break from the past; it displayed some new facets. First, voters unambiguously expressed frustration at the establishment. Six current ministers and 60 former parliamentarians lost their bids to return to parliament. Though the three major parties avoided the worst outcome, many of their senior leaders failed to win their seats.

Second, the NIP reaped the benefits of voter frustration and has emerged as a significant force in national politics. Voters exercised their franchise in favor of establishment candidates in the FPTP but used their PR vote in favor of the NIP. The NIP apparently chipped away votes from the three major establishment parties. Each of those three parties lost about 3 percentage points in vote share compared to 2017. The NIP has received 11 percent of the votes.

Third, people’s frustration also manifested at the regional level. A new regional party led by C.K. Raut disrupted the established order in Madhes province in southern Nepal in national and provincial elections.

The election also marks a comeback of social and political conservatism in Nepali politics. The Rashtriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), a monarchist and Hindu-nationalist party, won seven seats and almost 6 percent of the votes (in the 2017 election, it won one seat and 2 percent of the votes). A liberal agenda has dominated Nepali politics since 2006.

No party or coalition has received a clear mandate. At least three parties must cobble together a coalition to form a government unless the two main rivals, NC and CPN (UML) come together. This will likely create more instability and horse-trading among parliamentarians and parties. The pre-poll alliances were bereft of any ideology. The lust for power would only intensify in such a hung parliament. Hence, there will be more instability. The grand-left coalition won a significant majority in the last election, yet its reign ended acrimoniously within three years.

More coalition partners would mean a weaker government. The prime minister-to-be will find it difficult to impose his vision on the council of ministers. In the current ruling coalition, the ministers were answerable more to their party chief than the prime minister. To ensure his government’s survival, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba could not even sack Finance Minister Janardan Sharma of the CPN-MC.

The NIP rode the anti-establishment sentiment and promise of good governance without detailing how to deliver. The party, which is more a coalition of a wide range of candidates disappointed with the establishment, is untested. It is not yet clear if the NIP will be a part of the government or sit in the opposition.

On foreign policy, all parties have touted non-alignment and “balanced” policies in their manifestos based on the principles of the United Nations and the Panchasheel. However, there are subtle differences among parties, such as the NC’s preference for grants and not loans. This is an apparent reference to funding for Belt and Road Initiative projects.

A cobbled coalition of multiple parties will be weak and not assertive in foreign policy. Neither will such a coalition change the track radically. This would neither be the best outcome for any major powers (such as India, the United States, or China) nor would it be the worst. It would also mean that Nepali foreign policy is likely to be reactive and ad hoc.

The CPN-MC and Communist Party of Nepal–United Socialist (CPN-US) have vowed to regulate the border with India and review the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship with India. However, they are unlikely to follow it up in any meaningful way, even if they are part of the ruling coalition. No party presented its concrete view on issues requiring immediate attention, such as the Agnipath scheme. India has already reached out to key leaders of the ruling coalition.

The United States has concerns over the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)’s implementation. The MCC is a $500-million grant for building energy and transport infrastructure. The Nepali parliament ratified the agreement earlier in February after a toxic debate. Similarly, China would like a more Beijing-friendly government to ensure the implementation of BRI projects.

These major global powers will jockey for influence in Nepal. The next government will have to manage the major world powers, whose interests in Nepal do not align. The next government has its task cut out. But its foreign policy can only be sorted if the domestic house is in order.

– SANTOSH Sharma Poudel

The column originally appeared in The Diplomat on 18 November 2022. Please read the original article here.

Nepal is less than two days away from voting in federal and provincial elections. Campaigning for votes ended at midnight on November 17, and the country has entered a cooling-off period before voting on November 20.

The primary contest is between the ruling coalition led by Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba of the Nepali Congress (NC) and the opposition coalition led by former Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli of the Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML). This election has marked a surge in independent candidates challenging the old guard, which has traditionally dominated Nepali politics, in ways never seen in the past.

Since 1990, when Nepal became a multi-party parliamentary democracy it has had 28 governments led by 14 leaders. Deuba has held the post of prime minister for a record five times, since his first stint in 1995. Though parties and politicians compete fiercely against each other in elections, shared interests, which include power and business contracts, do see them join hands from time to time.

New political forces have entered politics in recent years only to become clones of the older parties. Consider the Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Center (CPN-MC), for instance, which entered mainstream politics in 2006, after waging a 10-year insurgency. Today, it is no longer distinguishable from the other mainstream parties.

Over the decades, Nepal has gone through major political transformations. It experimented with multi-party democracy, an absolute monarchy and a constitutional one, republicanism, and federal republicanism. While the system changed, the actors remained the same.

At the same time, governance has gone from bad to worse. Corruption has become institutionalized. Political ideology is in a coma, replaced by petty self-interest. Power is no longer the means but a goal in itself.

This has led to extreme frustration among the people.

The Nepali people have embraced political change and newer political forces in the hope of better governance. They gave a chance to the CPN-MC and made it the largest party in the first elections that it contested after the insurgency, hoping it would provide better governance. They also gave the grand-left alliance in 2017 a chance. Unfortunately, both did not deliver the goods.ADVERTISEMENT

When they were not presented with new options, they chose between the two “known devils” – the NC and the CPN-UML.

Elections to local bodies in May this year were a game-changer. Forty percent of the candidates in the election were between 21 and 40 years of age. The election of Balendra Shah, a young and independent candidate, as Kathmandu’s mayor shook the establishment to the core. Shah’s opponents and analysts had dismissed his candidacy. But the lackluster performance of the previous mayor of the CPN-UML, poor candidate selection by the mainstream parties, and innovative and disciplined campaigning by Shah’s supporters propelled him to power against all odds.

Shah’s victory in the local polls has prompted several independent and young Nepalis to throw their hat in the ring in the general election. They are challenging the old guard.

Sagar Dhakal, a 31-year-old engineer, is running against Deuba in the latter’s home turf. Initially, Deuba was dismissive of Dhakal’s candidature and did not bother to campaign. Meanwhile, Dhakal engaged voters directly on the ground.

With Dhakal evoking remarkable enthusiasm, even among older voters, a worried Deuba rushed to his constituency to campaign. He can no longer take the constituency, which elected him in every election since 1990, for granted.

Similarly, Deuba’s alliance partner, Dahal is contesting this time from a new constituency – Gorkha, instead of his hometown in Chitwan. The former Maoist leader, who is often referred to by his nom de guerre Prachanda or “fearless one,” has given his decision to shift constituencies a positive spin. He claimed that the decision emerged from a position of strength, i.e. he can win from any constituency. His opponents, however, allege that he “ran away” seeking a safer constituency.

Young, independent candidates with no background in politics are giving the mainstream parties’ candidates a run for their money. Senior NC leaders such as Prakash Man Singh and Gagan Thapa are not assured of victory in the capital. There is similar competition in some other urban centers.

Second-tier leaders from the mainstream parties, especially in urban areas, are facing a stiff challenge from political novices. These include former Lumbini province Chief Minister Shankar Pokharel, Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission Bishow Paudel and prime ministerial aspirant Gagan Thapa.

Mainstream political parties are projecting confidence before the public but express concern in private.

This is not to suggest that the independent candidates will overthrow the existing political order or come to power. On the contrary, the NC and CPN-UML are still favored to emerge as the two largest parties. However, candidates cannot take their victory as a given.ADVERTISEMENT

The challenge from the young candidates has forced the older, mainstream politicians to introspect. It has pressured them to go to the voters directly and engage them. Besides, if some challengers win, it will break the existing self-serving cartel between the mainstream parties. Also, a loss for any of the party supremos will send chills down the spine of all others.

Victories, or even a close run, for some independent candidates, will send a strong message but will not upset the current order. In a parliamentary system, parties are essential. It is more so in Nepal, where the national parties can use a whip that requires parliamentarians to vote along party lines or face a penalty, and parliamentarians hardly defy party lines.

This election is pivotal. In the lust for power, parties have sidelined ideology. Will the voters sideline traditional party/voting affiliation in their desire for good governance? We are about to find out.

– SANTOSH Sharma Poudel

The column originally appeared in The Diplomat on 10 November 2022. Please read the original article here.

On November 20 Nepal will vote in federal and provincial elections. Contesting the elections are two major coalitions, one led by the ruling Nepali Congress (NC) and the other by the main opposition, the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist Leninist), or CPN-UML. In addition, the National Independent Party (NIP) and independent candidates are seeking to upend the “natural” political order.

Political and economic issues have dominated the political parties’ agenda per their manifestos. Parties have pledged to develop better infrastructure, accelerate economic growth to over 7 percent, create 250,000 jobs per year, and provide free services such as electricity and water. Similarly, some parties are seeking to change the political system. For example, the Pushpa Kamal Dahal, aka Prachanda-led Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), or CPN-MC, and the royalist Rashtriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) have promised a directly elected head of government, and the latter has pledged to abolish the country’s provinces and create a more unitary system of government.

The manifestos have lofty goals, and many have questioned if they are achievable. The performance of parties in power has been disappointing especially with regard to delivering on promises. Where parties have little to show in progress or achievements, they have resorted to making more promises or slinging mud at their opponents. They are trading barbs on foreign policy issues as well.

Former Prime Minister and CPN-UML chief Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli has touted that Nepal’s constitution was amended to include a disputed territory with India as part of Nepal during his tenure. He has presented himself as the only leader who can stand up to Indian pressure. Describing Prime Minister and NC chief Sher Bahadur Deuba as a weak leader, he has chided him for failing to publicly and timely raise the issue of the death of a Nepali child in the Darchula district when a rock from a blast on the Indian side hit him.

Parties are divided over China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), a $500 million American grant. The NC, which steadfastly supported the MCC and led its ratification by parliament, states that Nepal would prefer grants rather than commercial loans in an apparent reference to the BRI. This reflects NC’s bias against China, according to some analysts. Meanwhile, other parties have made no such distinction.

The difference can also be seen in how to deal with India. Parties such as the CPN-MC and the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Socialist (CPN-US) have vowed to regulate the border and review the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship with India. Additionally, the CPN-MC has stated that it would raise the issue of the recruitment of Gorkha soldiers in India. The Gorkha recruitment has been a contentious issue since India launched the Agnipath scheme, whereby India would recruit soldiers on a short-term basis in contravention of the 1947 tripartite agreement between Nepal, India, and the United Kingdom. They also differ in their engagement with China. Some parties, such as the NC, have lumped minor territorial disputes with China in with major ones with India, while Nepal’s communist parties are generally mum on the country’s dispute with China.

Interestingly, the CPN-MC and the RPP have vowed to declare Nepal a Zone of Peace. King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah, who ruled Nepal from 1972 to 2001, championed the zone of peace proposal almost fifty years ago, but it was abandoned because of India’s opposition despite support from more than 100 countries. The RPP proposal is a revival of Birendra’s proposal but MC does not refer to the monarch’s initiative.

However, there is broader agreement among parties regarding the basic principles. All parties have stated that they are for an independent, non-aligned foreign policy based on the principles of the United Nations and the Panchasheel. Similarly, there is consensus among parties’ opposition to joining military alliances and commitment to not allowing Nepali territory to be used against neighboring countries.

Climate change is another common agenda. This is the first time climate change has been directly included in major parties’ manifestos. Nepal is among the most vulnerable countries to climate change. The recognition of the issue marks that the parties understand the severity of the case and the need for Nepal to engage global partners to mitigate its impacts.

Yet, the foreign policy agendas of Nepal’s parties lack imagination. The parties still seem to be hooked on a “balanced” foreign policy and hyphenating India-China and China-U.S. vis-à-vis Nepal. Nepal’s relations with India, China, and the U.S., the country’s three most important partners, are unique.

Nonetheless, parties are still attempting to equate Nepal-India relations with Nepal-China relations or to view Nepal’s engagement with China and the U.S. via a narrow strategic lens. The parties have also failed to appreciate the more significant trends in the regional and global order although the CPN-MC does mention a “new Cold War between China and the U.S.,” and the NC recognizes the growing nationalist tendencies globally.

Generally speaking, elections are mostly about domestic issues. In the words of James Carville, “it is the economy, stupid.” Yet, when domestic achievements are minimal, foreign policy plays a more prominent role. Additionally, the unique relations between Nepal and India have blurred some lines between domestic and foreign policy, as in India’s Agnipath scheme. Nepali parties have chosen a traditional and safe foreign policy with little surprises.

Based on the manifestos, a common minimum consensus is the least of the concerns for political parties in Nepal. The bigger challenge is whether the leaders can follow their proposals and principles or make ad hoc foreign policy decisions based on personal cost-benefit analysis.

– SANTOSH Sharma Poudel

The column originally appeared in The Diplomat on 25 October 2022. Please read the original article here.

Nepal is in the grip of election fever. The main contest is between two coalitions: the ruling coalition led by Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba’s Nepali Congress (NC), and the opposition alliance led by Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli’s Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML).

These are the second round of federal and provincial elections to be held in Nepal since the promulgation of the constitution in 2015.

The “unnatural” coalitions have left many flabbergasted. Kathmandu Post, Nepal’s largest-selling English daily, was blunt in its criticism of the alliances. The elections “had been turned into a dance of undemocratic coalitions as political parties hanker to return to power, by all means, fair and foul,” it said. Another major daily, Republica, expressed ”surprise” that parties that are poles apart in political ideologies and policies have formed alliances. It could lead to a “democratic deficit,” it said. Others have called the alliances a “farce” for not offering voters real choices.

Since the 1990s, parties have formed alliances to form governments in Nepal. The 2017 election was the first time that major communist forces led by Oli and Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as Prachanda, formed a pre-poll alliance. The left alliance won the election and secured a near-two-thirds majority, although it secured just 10 percent more votes than the NC. It prompted a realization among parties of the importance of pre-poll alliances, especially in a winner-takes-all election.

There is little doubt that both alliance partners lack ideological similarity or even common policy goals. They have merely come together as a result of the political context.

The ruling coalition, which counts the Prachanda-led Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Center (CPN-MC) among others as partners, came together to oust Oli from power after the latter dissolved parliament against the provisions of the constitution, twice. The desire to keep Oli out of power has primarily held this coalition together. Apprehensive at the prospect of fighting a coalition, the opposition, too, scrambled together to boost its electoral chances.

The alliance partners are strange bedfellows. For example, the Prachanda-led MC once called its current partner, the NC, a party of the bourgeoisie that had tried to decimate it during the decade-long insurgency. Interestingly, Deuba was the prime minister who put a price tag on Prachanda’s head during the peak of the Maoist insurgency.

Likewise, the UML is the nemesis of the Janata Samajbadi party (JSP), which advocates for Madhesi rights. Also, while the UML has a history of fighting against monarchy, its alliance partner now is the Hindu nationalist and royalist Rashtriya Prajatantra Party (RPP).ADVERTISEMENT

Parties have openly said that the alliance is one of convenience to win more seats in the election. “We still have our ideological differences, but we agreed to forge a partnership to improve our electoral prospects,” JSP spokesman Manish Kumar Suman admitted. The JSP dropped out of the ruling coalition after a disagreement over seat allocation to join the opposition.

Opportunism is evident at an individual level too. Prabhu Sah, former minister for urban development, was allotted a ticket to fight as a candidate of the opposition alliance, only to do a volte-face at literally the eleventh hour. At the election office, he registered as an independent candidate after the ruling alliance assured him support.

Prachanda and Oli were comrades-in-arms during the last election in 2017. Together, they swept the federal elections and co-led a unified communist party, the Nepal Communist Party (NCP). However, the lust for power and position led to an acrimonious split in the NCP. Now, they are bitter rivals, engaged in a game of one-upmanship against each other.

Yet it would be wrong to assume that alliance partners don’t share goals. The ruling alliance has weaved a narrative that the coalition is one of necessity and more than an attempt to win the election. Its leaders assert that the alliance is necessary to safeguard the constitution from changes by regressive forces. Prachanda said the alliance was essential after Oli led Nepal toward lawlessness and instability.

The ruling alliance’s agenda is to keep Oli and the UML out of power. Oli’s attempts to dissolve the parliament and isolate Prachanda (and Madhav Kumar Nepal, chairman of Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Socialist, a splinter of the UML) in the party led to the current ruling coalition. However, political expediency is keeping the ruling coalition together for the time being.

Interestingly, parties face challenges from within the alliance.

First, many long-serving party cadres who were denied party tickets have chosen to run as “rebel” candidates, while others have bolted to the opposition alliance. This is especially the case among NC leaders, who find voting for a communist party untenable. They have filed candidacies in constituencies where the alliance is fielding a communist candidate. The party has expelled such rebel candidates. There is similar discontent in the opposition alliance. Eighteen central committee members of the RPP wrote to their chair, expressing dissatisfaction with a partnership with the UML.

Therefore, the election result will partly depend upon which alliance manages to pacify disgruntled members and get them to support the alliance candidates.

Second, leaders are concerned that voters will cross party lines to vote for candidates from a different party. This was less of a worry in the 2017 election, where both alliance partners were cadre-based communist parties. However, the current alliances are not natural. NC leaders, such as Gagan Thapa, have said that some party members find it hard to vote for the “hammer and sickle” (the communist party symbol). Therefore, senior leaders of the ruling alliance are taking every opportunity to urge party members and voters to support alliance members. It remains to be seen if voters heed their request.

Third, will alliances last post-election? Even Deuba thinks the coalition is not meant for the long term. In a training session with alliance members, he stated that the alliance should continue for a few years beyond the elections because the threat from regressive forces (read the UML) continues. In the 2017 election, the communist parties won in a landslide and even formally merged their parties, yet it barely lasted three years. Therefore, it would not be surprising if a new coalition emerged after the election.ADVERTISEMENT

Analysts are concerned that the politics-driven, agenda-less, and ideologically fraught alliances effectively deny space for genuine elections where people can vote for the parties of their choice. Others warn that such “debased culture could ultimately lead to a serious crisis in democracy.”

These warnings are genuine but may be overblown. Voters cast two votes in the provincial and federal election: one for the candidates (for winner-takes-all, 165 seats) and the other for the party (for proportional seats, 110 seats). Thus, voters still have the opportunity to vote for their preferred parties.

Also, even when parties contested by themselves before the 2017 elections, it hardly resulted in stable politics or policies based on the ideological principles of the parties or candidates. In practice, there are nominal differences in how democratic or communist parties have run the country when in power. Barring a few, parties and political leaders have placed themselves over ideologies.