Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Personal tools


You are here: Home / 2021 / Short Note on the Dissolution of the Parliament in Nepal

Short Note on the Dissolution of the Parliament in Nepal

NCP (Mashal) Nepal Communist Party (Mashal), 15 February 2021


As it is known the world over, Oli government has dissolved the parliament of Nepal. It is an unconstitutional, undemocratic dictatorial and a retrogressive step. It is certain that such a step on the part of Oli government would weaken republic, secularism, nationality and democratic achievement gained by the democratic and leftist movement of Nepal.

Royalists are continuously struggling to restore monarchy and make Nepal a Hindu nation. They are happy with the dissolution of the parliament thinking that it will make political situation of Nepal unstable and it would pave the way to smash the parliamentary multiparty system together with republic and secularism.

Both Indian imperialism and American imperialism were dissatisfied with the parliament of Nepal. The former was dissatisfied with it (parliament) for it had adopted a map of Nepal in which Kalapani, limpiyadhura and a Lipulekh, which was annexed by India, were shown in Nepal. The America was not in good terms with that (parliament of Nepal) because the effort on the part of Oli government to pass the resolution on MCC had not succeeded. So, there is a ground to think that both the imperialist countries also have backed Oli government to dissolve the parliament.

However, the main cause behind the dissolution of the parliament is internal rather than external. A sharp dispute within Communist Party of Nepal (CPN) was going on since the very days of its unification. The split in the CPN led to the dissolution of the parliament. In the struggle within the CPN, Oli was in minority in both his organization and parliamentary group of theirs too. Being afraid that the majority will oust him from the posts of both presidentship of his organization and prime-minister-ship too, he hurried to dissolve the parliament.

Formally, the constitutions of Nepal had provided the prime-minister the privilege to dissolve the parliament. But new constitutions of Nepal has deprived the prime-minister with any such privilege. The parliament can be dissolved only when all alternates to form a government with majority of parliament members fail. But, the government led by Oli was in majority. So, there was no any question of lacking majority for the government. According to constitution, even if any proposal of vote of no confidence is adopted by the parliament, alternate attempts to get majority for an alternate party should be made. The parliament is dissolved and midterm election is declared. But the Oli government, without going through the process clearly mention in the constitution arbitrarily, dissolved the parliament and declared the date of mid-term election. So, it is crystal clear that such a role of Oli is unconstitutional and undemocratic. All the constitutional experts or lawyers of the country have denounced such a role of Oli as an unconstitutional. The case now is in the Supreme Court.

Although we think that the main cause behind the dissolution of the parliament is internal, meaning the struggle within CPN, the foreign powers, mainly India and America have come forward to utilize the situation for their imperialist interests.

China also is an imperialist country. But in the context of Nepal its interests differ from those of India and America. It (China) has been always opposing the expansionist policy of India towards Nepal which, considering the geo-political situation of Nepal, is very helpful to check and balance the Indian interference in Nepal. Similarly, China is against the attempt of America to bring Nepal into its Indo-Pacific Strategy through MCC. China is also against the policy of America to use Nepal against Tibet. No doubt, such a policy of China is guided by its own security points of view. In spite of that such a role of China agrees to a large extent with the national interest of Nepal. Now it seems that in the polities of Nepal the position of China has become weaker than that of America and China.

After the position of Oli had become weaker in his own organization and parliament too, it is obvious that Oli has shifted his side from China to India and America. Before the dissolution of parliament, Oli had a secret meeting with an Indian delegation led by the chief of the Raw. The meeting was followed by series of meetings with top level officials of Indian government and army or ruling party of India, BJP. It was in such background that a high-level delegation of China had come to meet Oli. From the very beginning, China has been trying to resolve the inner struggle of CPN and has succeeded for 2 or 3 years for that. When the CPN was on the point of breaking, a high-level delegation of China had come to Nepal to resolve their dispute, but in vain.

At present a country-wide movement is going on in Nepal against the dissolution of the parliament and for the restoration of the dissolved parliament. But even those parties or organizations who are against the dissolution of the parliament have no unanimity on the question of demand of the restoration of the dissolved parliament.

NCP Mashal from the very next day of the dissolution of the parliament has been organizing country-wide movement against the dissolution of the parliament and for the restoration of that. The group led by Prachand-Madhav Nepal is in the forefront in the movement on the basic of same demands. Nepali Congress and Madeshbadi organization also are in the movement. But their position is not clear enough on this questions. Both the NC and Madeshbadis are divided among themselves. The leadership of NC has organized country wide movement against the dissolution of the parliament. But it has refrained from putting forth the demand of restoration of the dissolved parliament. But opposite group of NC are struggling against the dissolution of the parliament and for the restoration of the dissolved parliament. Like the NC, Madeshbadi is also divided on the same pattern. The Nepal Majdur Kishan Party has come forward to support the dissolution of parliament. Needless to mention, the royalists also have supported the dissolution of the parliament by Oli.

All the twenty-three leftist parties or organizations had opposed the dissolution of the parliament and had organized a demonstration in Kathmandu for that. But such a unity in-action has not gone further. Many a leftist groups, meanly led by Mohan Biddhya Kiran and Biplop have put forth the program to struggle for new democratic republic/scientific socialism. Baidhya group in favour or new democratic republic. But Biplop group doesn't agree with it and has put forth the program of scientific socialism. Mashal maintaining that both the programs of new democratic republic or scientific socialism are strategical ones, it is not correct to put forth those as tactical ones. Such a differences with them has been an obstacle for our unity-in-action with them in the current political situation of the country.

In spite of it that strategically we are in favor of abolishing adjusting parliamentary system and republic too, for the time being we are in favor of defending those. On the other hand, main focus of the movement of both Bidhya and Biplop group is against the adjusting parliamentary system.

They have publicly made it clear that they have nothing to do even if the multiparty system including the republic as a whole is swept away. Thus, they have kept themselves aloof from the movement going on in the country. Maintaining that any radical changes would not take place in the country even if the dissolved parliament restored or the republic or multiparty system are kept on. Mashal have adopted the policy of uniting with all the political forces, except royalist, who are against dissolution of parliament and/or for the restoration of that. Even if we could not have formal unity-in-action with them we shall lend our support to their movement them. But our main emphasis will be on our own independent movement.

It is assumed that the Supreme court will give its verdict in about own and half week. Then after it will be known what political course the country or movement will take.


Document Actions