True peace will come not from silencing dissent, but from listening to it
President Ramchandra Poudel, one month after the formation of interim government, took initiative to break the ice by inviting party representatives and the members of the government, including the interim Prime Minister at his office to create an environment for the general election scheduled for March 5.
The meeting raised some hope to provide solutions to the country's current political situation amidst growing fears that Nepal is moving towards an unprecedented constitutional crisis. Although the Prime Minister's address to the nation last week tried to clarify the interim government's priority to hold elections on time, it significantly failed to present a road map on how the key mandates such as holding elections, combating corruption, maintaining law and order, and restoring peace in society would be fulfilled.
There are many challenges for the interim government to hold a timely election. The cooperation of major parties in the election process is a must. However, CPN-UML, which gained over 2.5 million votes in the 2022 election has formally spoken about the legitimacy of the interim government and is calling to restate the parliament, instead of fresh elections. On the other hand, the Nepal Congress which gained over 2.7 million votes in the 2022 election, has not given a public statement about the election. However, some of the Nepali Congress leaders reportedly are working closely with UML to file writ petitions at the supreme court demanding the restoration of the house of representatives and might invite judicial intervention in the process. The CPN Moaist Center and other political parties have so far supported the election but their position may change depending on the situation developed thereby. Also, with constant threats to property and the lives of older representatives, political parties might try to avoid the elections unless security circumstances normalize.
Given the previous precedent of the Supreme Court on the dissolution of the House and formation of the government, there is substantive legal grounds for courts intervention. However, judicial action in this process which may be constitutional, may not be acceptable by the people at large; given the agenda of the movement and sacrifice of the people in the Gen Z movement. Therefore, the interim government should immediately take all necessary measures to get the support of the political party for the election, thereby avoiding litigation.
The security situation of the country also seems not to be favorable for the election in March. Nepal police faced unprecedented losses in personnel, property, and weaponry across the country. According to reports, more than 486 police offices and barracks were attacked. In addition to property damage, an estimated 1,276 rifles and pistols were looted during the protest ,along with 98,491 rounds of bullets. Weapons, uniforms, vehicles, and communication equipment were torched or stolen, leaving several police units nonfunctional. The interim government, particularly the Home Ministry, has not taken effective measures to investigate these losses or to find and seize weapons. Police morale is equally down, and no steps have been taken by the interim government to appease this vital section of Nepal's security apparatus. This significantly heightens security risk and potentially jeopardises a free and fair election.
The other challenge for the timely election is budget and logistical preparations. According to the Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry estimated that 15,000 jobs could be impacted from the riots. The estimated collateral damage from the revolt is valued at almost Rs 3 trillion nearly equal to half of Nepal's GDP. All these factors combined place the timely conduct and budgeting for the elections under serious uncertainty. Earlier, in 2022, Nepal's election commission had spent Rs 6.3 billion to hold the elections. Allocating such a fund towards elections at a time of such an economic crisis needs significant strategising, which the interim government seems to have little homework to show for.
If the government fails to hold the election as scheduled, two exceptional scenarios may arise: either the reinstatement of the House of Representatives, or the possible dissolution of the Sushila Karki government to form a new interim Government with a broader mandate to amend the Constitution and hold elections. Both options, however, are far less desirable than conducting elections as scheduled. The first option would place the country in the hands of a parliament that many voices of the Gen Z movement had sought to remove. The second would bring further uncertainty as the interim government loses its mandate and creates a power vacuum in the country.
Therefore, the government must act immediately to restore confidence among political parties by appointing their representatives to the cabinet, enabling them to participate in the election process with reduced risk. It should also appoint an experienced and mature Foreign Minister capable of engaging development partners to help create an environment conducive to elections.
Finally, the government should bring together all forces, including those who disagree with the current Constitution, in a roundtable dialogue to facilitate a consensus-driven constitutional amendment process. For the amendment process, the government should form a high level commission to study the required constitution amendments. Furthermore, a number of issues raised by the different groups also need to be addressed if Nepal is to move forward from periodic conflict which appears every 10 years of regime changes. These issues include, among others, the electoral system, the model of federalism, secularism, and constitutional monarchy. While these issues were settled by constitution and through the constituent assembly, some political parties disagree with the decision of the constitutional assembly stating that all the people should directly make their choices in this relation. Therefore, a referendum would provide a direct democratic mandate, turning contentious divisions into a unifying national exercise.
Nepal's history is replete with painful reminders of missed opportunities for unity in 1990, 2006, and 2015. Each time, political settlements were achieved through exclusion rather than consensus, and each time, those left out of the process became the catalysts for the next wave of unrest. The lesson is clear: peace that excludes even a fraction of the population is temporary.
Finally, true peace will come not from silencing dissent, but from listening to it. The call of this moment is for national unity, a unity that recognizes accountability without revenge, justice without hatred, and reform without destruction. Only through such a reconciliatory and
participatory process can Nepal build a republic worthy of the hopes and sacrifices of its people.
Sharma is a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of Nepal and former Minister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs
