“Hitler, who dreamed of conquering the world, was alone when he died. Therefore, abandon the Hitler style.”

            These startling words belong to Madhav Kumar Nepal, the chair of the Unified Socialist party of Nepal. He is directing this threat toward current Prime Minister, KP Sharma Oli, and his recent discussions of amending the Political Parties Act of 2017. 

            However harsh Madhav Kumar Nepal’s words may be, the heart of this claim, a comparison of Oli’s recent actions with a well-known autocrat, is not misplaced. 

Prime Minister Oli’s discussion of an amended Political Parties Act, that would make it easier to switch parties or form new parties, represents an attempt to use existing democratic mechanisms to simultaneously erode opposition and consolidate his own coalition’s power.  

            The Political Parties Act of 2017 was Nepal’s previous legal framework to dictate the formation, operation, and regulation of political parties. It was nullified in 2021 during a period of intense democratic backsliding. 

According to Purushottam Poudel, a political reporter at the Kathmandu Post, this has left a “legal void” when it comes to the formation and registration of new political parties. 

            Specifically, the nullification of this law has created a significant gray area for whether dissidents in preexisting political parties can split from their home party to form a new opposition party or to join another party. 

            Since 2021, power players in Nepali politics have repeatedly considered resurrecting an amended Political Parties Act that particularly benefits their party in the present moment. Prime Minister Oli is the latest in this series of leaders to weigh the possibility of reviving the act. 

            An understanding of Nepal’s political system and Oli’s political history is necessary for proper comprehension of how the Political Parties Act could be beneficial to Oli and represents an exploitation of democratic mechanisms. 

First, the political system. Nepal has 7 major political parties. These parties battle for a majority in the bicameral legislature, which consists of a House of Representatives and a National Assembly. The Prime Minister is the head of government and is typically the leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives. Therefore, a majority in the House of Representatives is crucial for a Prime Minister to remain in power. 

            Next, Oli’s political career. Due to this system, Oli has risen and fallen from power many times. He played a significant role in democracy movements in the 1980’s and the implementation of the current constitution in 2015. He was prime minister in 2015, stepped down in 2016, then made it back to the office in 2018. In 2018, he created a significant coalition by joining the two communist parties in Nepal, Unified Marxist-Leninists, and the Maoist Centre into the Communist Party of Nepal. In 2020 and 2021, following the breakdown of this coalition, Oli dissolved parliament and called for new elections, which was ruled as unconstitutional by Nepal’s Supreme Court. He was ordered out of office in 2021. He regained the office this year. 

In sum, Oli has a complicated legacy that includes significant achievements for Nepal and troubling authoritarian tendencies. 

            So, what does the Political Parties Act have to do with any of this? 

Well, currently, Oli’s party, the Communist Party of Nepal, is partnered with the Nepali Congress, and this coalition narrowly holds the majority. This coalition could benefit from increased interparty mobility. 

            The Unified Socialist Party of Nepal is experiencing a serious factual feud, and there are many members of the party who want to split off and form new parties. The disintegration of this party would benefit Oli’s coalition. 

            Additionally, the seven members of the Janata Samajbadi Party in the House of Representatives, have expressed interest in merging with Oli’s party. This merger would make Oli’s party the largest in the House of Representatives. 

            Therefore, by entertaining a revamp of the Political Parties Act, Oli is considering an action that would solidify the power of his party and in turn, his position as Prime Minister. 

            Why is the concerning for democracy in Nepal? 

            Across the field of political science, scholars stand in consensus that actions taken to weaken or eliminate opposition are a threat to democracy. 

            According to legal scholar Ozan Valor, this is even more troubling when it is done under the guise of healthy democratic mechanisms. Valor classifies leaders who exhibit this type of behavior as stealth authoritarians. These are leaders who use democratic mechanisms in order to consolidate power and legitimize their actions.  

More specifically, political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt use a sports analogy to provide a roadmap to the mechanisms stealth authoritarians exploit. These mechanisms include capturing the refs, sidelining the other players, and changing the rules of the game. Prime Minister Oli is primarily guilty of sidelining the other players or limiting the power of the opposition. By supporting greater interparty mobility in this particular political moment, Oli is attempting to weaken the strength of any opposition coalition that would threaten his position as Prime Minister. 

            This behavior is concerning because by working through a law that was democratically enacted, Oli can claim that his actions are legitimate. Additionally, Oli can hide behind the claim that he is trying to clear up the laws surrounding political party membership for the sake of Nepal’s democracy. 

            The people of Nepal should ignore his claims, and instead, they should heed the warnings of Madhav Kumar Nepal and see this as the anti-democratic action that it is.