Rastriya Swatantra Party Convention Criticized for Lack of Newness and Democratic Practices

I do not consider the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) a party of alternative politics. I consider it a new party. At the same time, it is a political alternative. It has become a party for people who could not fit into the old parties or who wished for a new party.

But in what sense is it alternative politics? If it is alternative politics, it should be able to offer alternatives to our traditional values, beliefs, culture, character, and the things considered bad, right? I don't see any alternative to that.

There is no novelty in its ideology either. Now it has started saying 'social democracy' after removing 'constitutional socialism'. The term 'constitutional socialism' itself was misleading, it is not a political concept at all. Therefore, the debate on terms like social democracy has been within the Nepali Congress for a long time, even before RSP. Moreover, even UML, after abandoning Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, although it has not removed it from its name.

But they say that 'multi-party people's democracy' is also a kind of social democratic program. Therefore, concepts like constitutional socialism or social democracy do not offer any new principles. The debate on more important principles is also narrowing down globally. They are overlapping with each other.

Therefore, debating about whose principles are what is becoming futile in the world now. For example, ideologies like 'End of History', 'End of Ideology' have not been formed. I do not give much importance to what they write in their documents regarding principles, nor do I analyze based on that.

My emphasis is on how the government and the party they are running are working in practice. And, regarding the convention of parties that claim to be new and alternative, they did not do what European parties do, which is to go for mass democracy or elections from party members. If their party had 500,000 members, electing the chairman and central committee from those 500,000 would have been something new in democracy. It would have been an intensification of democracy, an practice of something that has been happening worldwide but not in Nepal. They also called a convention of about 4,000 people, and they could not manage it well; chaos was seen within it. From the next day, people started leaving the convention venue dissatisfied. Out of the approximately 43 hundred people, only about 29 hundred voted for the central committee.

Only about 13 hundred votes were cast for the officials. If no one challenges the legality of that convention and the Election Commission accepts it, then it was a convention. Otherwise, it was not a convention, and its legality would be questioned. After not even 50 percent voted, the legality is bound to be questioned. First, I don't know what it means legally, but politically and morally, its validity is questioned. Second, being a new and modern party like theirs, they should have held the convention in a technologically friendly manner, related to the timetable. Third, in intra-party democracy, it was seen that they tried their best to make the senior leader and chairman unopposed. They also made legislative provisions accordingly. That was also not a new good thing. If democracy is to be intensified, all key positions should be competitive. There were even reports that a person who announced their candidacy for chairman was removed from the convention representatives. If that is true, that is also not a good thing.

According to media reports, they imposed a very large nomination fee to prevent people from becoming candidates. While it was enough to contest elections for the federal parliament with 10,000, they set it at 21,000 to contest for the central committee. In the world, one supporter and one proposer are enough, but they made provisions for 21, 41, or 51 supporters. Such things seem to be an attempt to shrink intra-party democracy. Another thing is that documents were presented, there was no group discussion, no presentation. Looking at all these things, I don't think the RSP's convention was particularly new and exciting. Although it fulfilled the formalities. When any party holds a convention, it should also review its government. The government and the party are different things. A party forms the government, but the government does not form the party. The government comes and goes, victory or defeat can happen in every election, the government can fall, but a party is a long-term institution in a democracy.

In this sense, the party should review the government. I haven't heard anywhere that they reviewed the government. This means that they support all the government's actions, then that's something else. This implies that Balen's government has done everything well. We must also understand that they supported the price hike. We must also understand that they supported the bulldozer in the slum settlements. It seems we have to say that RSP's convention also supported the statement that Nepal has encroached on India's border.

According to RSP's perspective, Nepal has indeed encroached on India's border. At least if the party could have said in its document that this statement is wrong and it wouldn't hurt if the Prime Minister apologized, then that would be something. Therefore, if critical thinking is not seen in RSP, it will give birth to another type of sycophants, blind devotees. RSP has become another cult rather than a democratic party with critical thinking. Yesterday, we suffered so much from Oli's cult. When the Maoists emerged in the 1960s, people tried to make Prachanda like a god. Because of that cult, Prachanda fell today. The cult of the campaign 'I Love You KP Ba', 'I am a Jhola' led to the downfall of UML. Now another cult has come. What will be the future of this cult, we will have to look back and see. And I did not find a qualitative difference.

RSP is also something seen in old parties. For example, in the Congress convention, Sher Bahadur had made Prakash Sharan Mahat the general secretary candidate. Gagan and Bishwa Prakash won from the other faction. His attempt to form a faction or get the person he blessed elected failed. In the UML convention, an election was held between Shankar Pokharel and Surendra Pandey, Oli's support was for Shankar Pokharel, and Shankar Pokharel won. RSP's practice was just like that of UML, not even as much as Congress.

In Congress, there was a faction of Sher Bahadur Deuba, and factions of Shekhar Koirala, Gagan Thapa. In UML, there were factions of Bidya Bhandari, Ishwar Pokharel, Surendra Pandey, Shankar Pokharel, KP Oli, which is not a concern. In the Nepali Communist Party, there were factions of Prachanda, Madhav Nepal, etc. There were factions of Baburam and Baidya, which is not a concern, that is natural.

Why criticize politics? My concern is whether the basic impartiality and neutrality of the convention were maintained. What happens if the establishment itself, like the state, conducts elections and says, 'Let this party win'? The Election Commission, the chairman of any party, is its establishment, right? It should be able to remain neutral in the elections held among the remaining party members.

It is useless for us to speculate whether Ravi and Balen will fight or not. Especially when Ravi Lamichhane is supporting all the government's actions. If he has to break away tomorrow, what excuse will he give? For that too, shouldn't it have been critical from now on? This means that Ravi Lamichhane has 100 percent support for the Balen government so far. And it is not our concern whether their relationship is good or not.

We should not wish for any party to split or fight. But what will happen among their supporters and cadres due to the way they are running the government, the way they are running the party, and the power negotiations between the two leaders is the main thing. What happens between Ravi and Balen is not my concern. Regarding the government, many of their MPs, cadres, and convention representatives heard that those who cannot manage a convention of four thousand people cannot manage a country of 30 million. It was also heard that if this is the kind of party, it is no different from the old ones, and this party will not last long. It was also understood that most of those who left without voting had disagreements and dissatisfaction with the convention process. These things are important. We have to see what these things will do to their party's grassroots support base.

Within 100 days of the convention, some government actions, such as bulldozing slum settlements and failing to manage them, have led to people living in holding centers in dire conditions. There is also the issue of price hikes during this period. There is also the issue of Balen speaking irresponsibly in parliament, saying that Nepal has encroached on India's border. There is also pressure on the CIAA. Due to that, there is also the possibility of a shortage in the capital.

(Based on a conversation with analyst Dambar Khatiwada)