Rabi Lamichhane Should Resign as Party Chairman to Uphold Moral Politics, Analysts Suggest

Rabi Lamichhane is a name that came to prominence amidst the wave of political change. Upon entering politics, he played a significant role in making the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) one of the major political forces in the country by garnering massive public support in a short time.

Amidst growing dissatisfaction with old political parties, public aversion to corruption, and the search for new leadership, he presented himself as a representative of 'moral politics.' Because of this, the expectations surrounding him have risen extraordinarily. But the irony is that he is currently carrying various allegations and cases against himself.

This raises serious questions about his political ethics and the credibility of the RSP leadership. While time will judge whether the previous government was lenient or harsh towards him, if he truly wishes to promote moral politics in this situation, resigning from the party chairmanship would be the most appropriate and exemplary step.

It is easy to talk about morality in politics, but difficult to implement in practice. Nepal's old parties have repeatedly failed this test of morality. The politics seen by the public has often become a game of power, self-interest, and authority. This is why the public sought new alternatives. Rabi Lamichhane emerged as that alternative.

He repeatedly criticized the old parties for losing morality, spoke strongly against corruption, and claimed they would practice a different style of politics. However, it is unfortunate that cases related to organized crime, money laundering, and cooperative fraud are pending in the court against him. He cannot be absolved until the judiciary determines the truth.

This is exactly when the real test of morality begins.

Currently, allegations against Rabi Lamichhane concerning cooperative fraud, passport misuse, and some other financial irregularities are subjects of public debate. These allegations have not yet been resolved by the court. Although Rabi himself claims the accusations against him are political vendetta, the responsibility to resolve whether it was vendetta or not rests with the judiciary.

In politics, not only legal resolution matters; the responsibility of political leadership's morality is equally important. A leader might be legally proven innocent but remain under a cloud of moral questioning. We can see many examples of this in Nepali politics.

In developed democracies, there are many instances of leaders stepping down from office upon facing allegations, which often becomes a topic of discussion on the international political stage. However, such practice is very weak in Nepal's political culture.

Here, most leaders are seen trying to evade allegations by remaining in office and using their power until guilt is proven, rather than resigning. This very culture has continuously tarnished Nepali politics. If the new party and new leadership repeat this tradition, it will weaken their claim to change.

Rabi Lamichhane's message when entering politics was that the old political parties are morally incompetent. He used to say that the new generation must establish a new culture. He raised a strong voice against corruption, criticized the tendency to misuse power and authority, and assured the public that a different style of politics was possible.

Because of this belief, millions of voters supported him. But if he remains in the highest position of the party until the allegations against him are resolved, the risk of that trust fracturing increases.

An important question might arise here: Leaders of old parties are also facing various allegations; why don't they resign? So why should only Lamichhane resign?

This question might seem valid on the surface, but the answer becomes clear upon deeper examination. If the new party repeats the practices of the old parties, what is the basis for being 'new'? What is the difference between the old leaders and Rabi? If the Nepali Congress, UML, CPN, or other old parties cannot set an example of morality, the new party cannot establish its identity by merely imitating them.

A party aspiring to be a new force should challenge the old ones, not follow them. For that, they must be proven in practice and by the standards of morality.

Trust is the biggest asset in politics. Once that trust is weakened, it is difficult to regain. Rabi Lamichhane's greatest strength right now is the public's faith. If he sets an example of morality by voluntarily stepping down from his post and allowing the judicial or other investigative processes to proceed independently, that step will elevate his image further.

This should be understood not as a defeat, but as a strategic move for long-term victory. If he is proven innocent, there will be no obstacle for him to return to politics. Rather, in such a situation, he would be leading politics with an even stronger moral foundation. But if he remains in office while allegations persist, the suspicion is likely to deepen.

Examples of leaders resigning based on morality are extremely rare in Nepal's history. In most cases, leaders remain in office, and allegations fade away with time. This very trend has eroded public trust in the political system. If Rabi Lamichhane starts a different practice now, it will not just be a personal decision; it will mark the beginning of a new chapter in Nepali political culture.

Rabi Lamichhane's popularity is no coincidence. While active in the media, he raised public issues, criticized corruption, and became the voice of the common citizen. This is why the public viewed him as a personality different from traditional politics.

But if he exhibits the same old tendencies after entering politics, leading a party that is close to a two-thirds majority, that trust will not take long to weaken.

Political leadership is not just about the ability to win elections; it is also about moral courage. The ability to make the right decision in difficult situations is the hallmark of real leadership. Rabi Lamichhane currently stands at that decisive juncture.

He has two options: First, to remain in office while ignoring the allegations. Second, to accept moral responsibility, step down from the post, and facilitate the investigation.

The first option might seem easier in the short term, but it is risky in the long term. The second option might seem difficult, but it will play a crucial role in preserving political credibility.

Many leaders in Nepal have used the word 'morality,' but in practice, its meaning is often limited to slogans. If Rabi Lamichhane presents an example of morality in practice now, it will be a rare event in Nepali politics. The question is not about the individual, but about the political culture. Nepal needs not just a new party, but a new political culture.

Therefore, in the current context, the most honorable and farsighted decision is for Rabi Lamichhane to resign from the party chairmanship and allow the judicial process to proceed impartially. Remaining as the chairman of a party close to a two-thirds majority, sitting at the apex of a government led by his own party, and holding the sword of power and authority, it is not enough to simply ask the judiciary to dispense impartial justice.

Therefore, he must demonstrate his moral political culture by resigning from his chairmanship and allowing the judiciary to do its work. Because real change in politics begins not with speeches, but with actions. The time has come for Rabi Lamichhane to show that action.