Nepal: House dissolved once more. Fresh Election will be held in November

 Nepal is fighting against the COVID19 infection this time. At the same time, the political forces are playing games that the only for the centre to capture the leadership of the government. It may be harmful to the newly practising democratic republic country.  Now, the issue of House dissolution is entered in the Supreme Court that will decide the further situation.

    On May 22, the president of Nepal, Bidhya Devi Bhandari, dissolved the House of Representatives in accordance with Article 76 (7) of the Nepalese Constitution. Altogether, she called for a general election on November 12 and 19. Before this, the House was also dissolute five months (20 December 2020) ago, but the court rejected it and the house was revived again because of an unconstitutional step.

The opposition alliance is protesting the dissolution. Perhaps they are preparing to launch a movement in the name of regression and going to knock on the door of the Supreme Court. At the same time, the country is also most affected by the second wave of the Covid 19 Pandemic. The country is in lockdown now. The situation is very critical due to the lack of Oxygen, Ventilators, Vaccines and hospital beds. It is a constitutional condition that an election should be within six months after the dissolution of the House. There is doubt that the election will be held in time for the pandemic. It is time for a stable government but the political parties are involved in self-interest oriented misdeeds-people are mostly commenting.

 

Since one year ago, Nepal has been in a political deadlock caused by a faction squabble within the ruling Communist Party of Nepal. was formed about three years ago by the unification of the Nepal Communist Party Nepal (Unified Marxist and Leninist), commonly known as UML, and Maoist Centre (MC). That party swiped up the election and brought about a two-thirds majority in the House of Representative. The government was formed under the leadership of one of the Party Chairman Khadga Prasad Oli.

With the passage of two years, other senior party leaders began to surround Prime Minister Oli in order to share important political appointments. At the climax of the squabble, Prime Minister Oli disbanded the House of Representatives in order to save his party's head. Although the court denied the dissolution, saying it was unconstitutional. They were kicked out of the Chairmanship of the party and from the general membership of the party. This action was not in favour of the Interim legislation of the Party. It was necessary to pick the majority in the Parliamentary Party to kick out the Prime Minister, but they were not in the majority in the body. Although the anti-Oli faction is collecting the signatures of lawmakers to file the impeachment and no-confidence motion against President Bidhya Devi Bhandari and Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli respectively. Being cordoned off, PM Oli dissolved the House of Representative that was denied by the court.

In another context, a court case had already been filed against the ruling Communist Party of Nepal's registration name. At the same time, the court abolished the name of the Communist Party of Nepal and gave it a chance to change the name on 7^th March. The Election Commission also sent notice to KP Oli and Prachanda, two chairmen of the Party, to rename their party within fifteen days, but they did not care about it. Consequently, the unified party NCP was divided and the CPN UML and Maoist centre revived again as their old positions. As the elected Chairman of the CPN UML, Oli returned to a comfortable position because his opponent Prachanda retained his position as Chairman of a different Maoist Centre and Madhav Nepal, a senior leader who remains in the UML, became a weaker force than Chairman Oli.

It should have been a time of political clarity following the division of the Nepal Communist Party, but it is still unclear because the Madhav Nepal faction of the UML was still not loyal to their Chairman KP Oli. This faction had only 28 lawmakers out of 121 UML in Parliament. That was not sufficient to leave the party with legal status. After the Court’s decision of 7th March, they launched a parallel campaign against the party, and they continually violated party directions, neither resigned nor did the party take any action against them. Because the party was not fulfilling some demands. They were in an internal bargaining meeting with the party authorities. During that time, they played a vital role in defeating formal party-candidate Ram Bahadur Thapa in the upper house election. Meanwhile, when their Party Chairman or Prime Minister sought confidence in the House of Representatives, they did not support but were neutral in their opposition to the party's direction. At the second point, while Oli claimed to be forming a government under Article 76 (5), Madhav Nepal's faction was signing a paper to support the opposition candidate Sher Bahadur Deuba against the wishes of their own party. This type of anarchy played a role in the problem's too-tight knot.

The fourth scenario of the country is covered with fog. It might be the right way to form an all-party national government, but no one is ready to accept the other’s leadership. It was the time of a comprehensive political consensus, but parties are not sincere about the problem. The country is badly affected by the Pandemic this time. Is it possible to conduct an election in November? Will parties participate in the election? Questions are in life.