Is there a specific reason why not a single Nepali PM has lasted an entire term?

6 thoughts on “Is there a specific reason why not a single Nepali PM has lasted an entire term?”

2. Nepal is a Parliamentary Democracy, that has its traditions from the Indian and British Parliaments, where there are not fixed terms for each Parliament’s term.

   This makes sense if you have parties that are to win majorities, but it becomes problematic when you add more and more parties into the mix, where parties will become opportunistic to get into power.

   And to a larger extent, this is a much more democratic system than an American 2-party system, or even the British First-Past-the-Post system. But it causes constant political instability.

   I think the only way to solve this, is if voters vote for a majority government for the first time.

   Or another option in my opinion, would to change our current Constitution to include an amendment that enforces a fixed-term for Parliament of Five Years, whilst adding Term Limits to Office Holders to disincentivise constant Power Struggles.

   Endnote:
   It is not like short term governments can’t bring about radical change either; if they have the drive to pursue their agenda, they can demand major concessions from their alliance partners.

   Man Mohan Adhikari’s first Nepali Communist Minority Government, was able to command the House, to pass major social welfare programs whilst only being in power for a total of 9 months.

   Reply

3. If you go through commentaries then it’s always about individual squabbling. Then, why do during Panchayat under Shah dictatorship, prime minister kept on changing?

   In any political system, the individuals are mere facade or representing of correlative social structures. In Nepal, if you check the name of Presidents then most of them have first name “ Ram”. In other words a head of state other than a Hindu is almost impossible Nepal, meaning it’s a Hindu majority country. Same could be said of Islamic countries or Western like US where religion and also race really matters.

   So coming back to your question, let me rephrase it: why social structures of Nepal couldn’t sustain multiparty or west minister western political system known as democracy especially in providing a stable governments and leaderships? Add a counter-argument: but why Indian political system had been series of long stable governments?

   I can provide lot of readings and reasonings: let’s hear from others. One information that India the biggest chunk that came out of British India had a long history of representative government especially in local governance as early as 1892.

   Lastly, democracy is product of class consciousness. Sadly, since 1990s like many of Reddit users, our “ class generations” have left Nepal permanently, including almost 90 percent of my family, friends and relatives.

   Let’s hear your points of perspective.

   Reply

4. The first government after election cannot fall down for 2 years , after that Tamasha starts .

   Reply

5. I think there are a variety of factors behind not a single Nepali PM lasting for full 5 years. The main reason is intra party conflict, basically power struggle between top leaders and that usually happens when there are strong factions inside the party and not one top leader that everyone accepts, like BP Koirala in Nepali congress for example. Other people say foreign influence also plays a role.

   Let’s forget the first general election where NC got two thirds majority in Parliament. Mainly due to personality clash and King Mahendra wanting direct power, he dissolved BP Koirala’s Govt otherwise i do believe that Govt could have completed its term.

   Let’s look at examples after 2047 Constitution:

   1. **2048 election**- Nepali Congress gets direct majority in Parliament but KP Bhattarai loses the election (his supporters said GP Koirala was responsible), so from the start there’s factional battle and eventually Koirala dissolves Parliament in 2051 after 36 of his own party MPs failed to show up. It is intra party struggle.
   2. **2056 election**- NC again gets majority and during that election, they said KP Bhattarai is their PM candidate, he wins and becomes PM but after 9 months he is removed. Then GP Koirala becomes PM, then there’s Royal massacre, Koirala resigns and Deuba becomes PM, he dissolves Parliament, gets fired by the King, is reinstated again and then a coup.

   So, during both these times the main reason was intra party conflict.

   Then we had interim Constitution in 2063, and during both 2065 and 2070 elections, no single party got majority and so the chances of one single PM was nil.

   **2075 election**- This was another golden opportunity, as UML and Maoists united, formed a single party which had direct majority in Parliament. Oli and Prachanda struggle happened and Deuba then became PM.

   Our election system right now is such that, it is almost impossible for one party to get direct majority in Parliament. So, chances of coalition Govt is always there and in that case, chances of one PM for 5 years is very low.

   Reply

6. Not since 1990 no pm after Juddha Shumsher has lasted till 5 years.

   Reply

7. They are playing pass pass. Players are politician and sarkar is the ball to pass

   Reply