Old Political Players Resurface as New Government Fails to Deliver

Kathmandu. There is a gas crisis across the country. On the other hand, farmers are worried that agricultural production will not happen due to the lack of chemical fertilizers. Doctors, nurses, and teachers are protesting one after another. Civil servants are getting fed up with the government leadership itself. Victims of usury, microfinance, and cooperatives appear calm for a while but are not confident about getting their property back. Squatters have been displaced, but their proper management and shelter are uncertain. Instead of decreasing, the queues for education and health services are increasing. The price rise has skyrocketed, and government interest and initiative in controlling black marketing are negligible. It is difficult to get a license, passport, and national identity card. Even those who go abroad for employment hoping to support their families are stopped from going abroad due to disagreements between foreign employment entrepreneurs and the government. Despite knowing all these problems, questions are being raised about the government's performance as the government led by Balen Shah has not been able to show an effective presence in solving, regulating, and controlling basic problems. All these problems did not arise at once, nor will they be solved at once. The government appears to have faltered in taking the initiative it should have in the just resolution of the people's problems. Analysts say that the hope and expectation that the people had that the problems would be resolved at a rapid pace after the government was formed under the leadership of Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), which was formed because the old government could not work, is gradually turning into disappointment. According to them, although the RSP received nearly a two-thirds majority in the election and formed a government under its leadership, the people have not felt the expected improvement from the government compared to before the election. Entrepreneurs and businessmen are scared, and journalists and other professionals do not feel safe. Although no new scandals of corruption have been made public, leaders of the parties within the government itself have admitted that the Balen Shah government's move in terms of service delivery has been very weak and disorganized. The work style of most of the government ministers, with a few exceptions, is not only disorganized but also criticized for lacking even basic management knowledge. Whether it was the incident of the Industry Minister himself distributing gas at the Oil Corporation a few days ago or the publicity campaign at the Radisson Hotel, claiming to have found 'unauthorized gas storage', such a work style of the government is proving counterproductive for itself. This shows how mature and responsible the strong government and its ministers are. These and similar examples of the government not only clearly show the weak work style of a strong government but also the transparency, which has become nominal, can be understood from some recent appointments. Not only the opposition but also the MPs and leaders-workers of the ruling RSP party have been expressing their anger and dissatisfaction in Parliament and on social media, shedding light on how 'governance' is being conducted. The Janji Andolan (Genji Movement) of August 23 and 24 last year not only changed the government but also struck a strong blow against the stagnant political structure that had been in place for decades. The youth who took to the streets against corruption, mismanagement, lack of accountability, and the continuation of the same old faces, gave a push that led to the fall of the Congress-UML coalition government and the formation of a new government through elections, giving citizens hope that something would happen now. However, as there was no qualitative difference other than the change of faces of the rulers, the scenes of the same old political players becoming active in the field are increasing. Whether it is the political activities of Sher Bahadur Deuba's group after his return to the country or the agreement on provincial power-sharing between UML-CPN, they are gradually trying to regain their footing after the push from the Janji Andolan. Although there have been demands for leadership transfer, party reorganization, and opportunities for the new generation in those parties after the Janji Andolan and the elections on February 21, within them, efforts are being made to suppress that voice and for the old players to spend their energy on calculations to seize party power. Forgetting the clear message that the people rejected the old leadership through their votes, why are the rejected leaders trying to return to the center of politics? It has become a matter of thought. An example of this is former Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba, who was beaten at his residence during the Janji Andolan. After being treated abroad, Deuba, who returned to the country after five months of treatment, his return was welcomed by a crowd at the airport and a grand welcome in Chunadevi, as well as the fanfare in the name of a national gathering at the Miracle Party Palace in Sukedhara, sending a message that Deuba is trying to return to the mainstream of politics. Deuba, who has lost both state power and party power, has not only been trying to expand his political influence in recent days but has also sent a message that he is ready to face any potential political and legal challenges. Whether it is in the name of Hinduism or the pretext of Congress unity, he is trying to repeat politics at someone's behest or with someone's support. His challenge, 'What can others do when former King Gyanendra Shah couldn't do anything?', is not only aimed at Gagan Thapa but is also an attack on the Janji Andolan. However, in the changed circumstances, the Nepali people do not seem to trust Deuba that much. On the other hand, the situation of KP Sharma Oli in CPN-UML is no different. Oli, who was leading the government until before the Janji Andolan, not only lost the government after the movement but also suffered the biggest defeat in the party's history in the elections held three months later, when Oli was re-elected as party leader in the general convention. After the Janji Andolan, questions naturally arose about leadership in UML, and demands for party reorganization and leadership transfer intensified, but Oli succeeded in retaining party power with himself in the general convention held in Poush. After the elections, pressure has increased on Oli to step down from the party again. However, he is adamant about not relinquishing the post. The task force formed to review the elections and suggest party reorganization has concluded that the party cannot move forward under Oli's leadership. The task force has suggested leadership transfer, restoration of the age limit, extensive restructuring of the organization, and building a party suitable for the digital age, but Oli is trying to show himself as powerful by keeping those suggestions in the dustbin. Although the general cadres' sentiment is that Oli should hand over leadership to the next generation by relinquishing the post, he is busy insulting those who express such sentiments by calling them 'vagrants, greedy, and reckless'. The situation is the same in Prachanda-led CPN, formed by 25 constituent parties. Instead of emphasizing leadership change, Prachanda has started focusing on unity general conventions, power-sharing, and new political equations. The Oli-Prachanda cooperation in the provinces is a recent example of this. The resurgence of Deuba, Oli, and Prachanda is due to the fact that the government led by RSP, considered a new force, has failed to prove itself, and the people's trust is weakening. If RSP and the government led by it fail to make the mandate given by the people with great expectations fruitful, it cannot be said that those old parties and leaders will not establish the question of 'how are the new ones different?'. That is why many have started saying that Sher Bahadur Deuba's comeback, Oli's stubbornness, and Prachanda's activism are not unusual or unnatural in themselves. 'Old players are becoming active as the new ones are not managing well.' Political analyst and professor Krishna Pokharel says that those currently in state power lack political maturity, work style, and foresight. 'Those who are in government now have come up on the foundation of extreme state exploitation and failure of old parties,' Pokharel said, analyzing why the people's enthusiasm has not increased even after the new government came and the resurgence of the old ones, 'but the people's expectations are high, and they lack resources to fulfill those expectations, and their way of working also seems insufficient.' Because of this, the government has failed to show its impact, according to Pokharel. 'They did not come to power thinking that state power would come into their own hands. Therefore, they are learning and moving forward,' Pokharel said, 'but even though they are criticized for their work, they are not engaged in state exploitation.' He said that this government does not have the luxury of failing and that it is not yet time to think of alternatives if the government does not get on track. 'When the new ones are not managing well, it has helped the old parties and leaders to revive,' Pokharel said, 'but they have not been able to get rid of the old hangover. They should learn from the punishment the people gave them, but they don't seem to have learned.' Another political analyst, Bhim Bhurtel, says that there is confusion among the rulers because they do not know what change is, what needs to be done for change, and what will build the country. 'They talk about good governance, but they don't know what needs to be done for good governance,' Bhurtel told Ratopati, 'If we talk about the rule of law, the current Prime Minister, Home Minister, Finance Minister, and Speaker should also be in jail.' Bhurtel analyzes that the people trusted the current rulers in the elections, thinking that they would deliver good governance and delivery. 'I don't see any difference between the current ones and the previous ones in terms of delivering and good governance,' Bhurtel said, 'The current ones lack style, intelligence, knowledge, and don't know what needs to be done.' He said that even though they act as if good governance will happen if they say so, no one can work if they cannot follow the rules, procedures, and methods. 'Governance must be done by completing the rules and procedures,' he said, 'The people's hopes and trust have been dashed.' Bhurtel commented that it is natural for old parties and their leaders to become active, and it is wrong to establish a narrative that they are becoming active by using the rights given by law. 'Either they should be prohibited by making laws, or they have the right to engage in political activities using the rights given by the constitution and law. It is not appropriate to call it becoming active,' said Bhurtel.