It is an understatement to say that much has changed in Nepal's political landscape. Up until last year, my understanding of Nepali political revolutions came largely from the Social Studies textbook. Living through one is an entirely different experience. Mostly because its very hard to see the events neutrally as you are bombarded by opinions every where you go - from the dinner table, to chiya ghars, to your cousin's birthday parties and every other social setting. The Gen-Z revolution was, in may ways, a response against the broken promises made by its predecessor revolution. RSP's overwhelming win proves that the people rejoice the outcome of the revolution. But history suggests that revolution itself is not the hardest part.
“In a revolution, as in a novel, the most difficult part to invent is the end.” - Alexis de Tocqueville
Today, Nepal finds itself divided between a large number of fervent RSP supporters and a vocal minority of relentless critics. What is entirely missing however, is the nuance in the arguments of the both sides and perhaps to find the answer, we must turn the pages of history once again.
By critics, I mean to make an important distinction. I refer to critics whose criticism is primarily rooted in their support for other political parties. I genuinely welcome the intense scrutiny that the current government faces; a healthy democracy demands it.
Many of the critics have resolved to the conspiracy that the Gen-Z protest was an inner working and was perpetrated by foreign powers. While such a possibility cannot be dismissed outright, it is no more difficult to believe that all this emerged organically from years of public frustration. One would have to overlook nearly two decades of political history to believe otherwise. After all, Nepal has not had a single government fulfill its constitutional term since being a republic.
There is little doubt that the current administration has displayed authoritarian tendencies. Balen's reluctance to address contentious issues publicly and the government's handling of land squatters point in that direction.
What is ironic, however, is that many of the same critics who label this government authoritarian defended the KP Oli government's attempt to ban the entire country digitally, arguably one of the most authoritarian decisions in recent years. No amount of legal justification or rationalization can convince the people otherwise - that their decision to do so was to silence the growing uproar against the old establishment. If authoritarianism deserves criticism today (which it absolutely does), it deserved the same criticism then.
The point I am making is, ironically, not that these critics should remain silent. On the contrary, their voices should be even louder, especially when RSP holds such significant political power. What weakens their argument, however, is invoking the past as though things were somehow better then, while completely overlooking the role the previous establishment played in its own downfall.
"There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen." - Lenin
By supporters, I mean the supporters who felt the 'bujbumps' when RSP swept the house. RSP's domination of the house is beneficial to RSP only, not the public. It is crucial that the public must see RSP not as the 'solution' to the old guard but as an 'alternative'.
The current generation has no recollection of the 2062/63 revolution but the atmosphere was similar. The monarchy was completely dismantled amid the widespread sentiment that it was the primary obstruction to Nepal's progress. Fast forward 20 years later, the same people involved in dismantling the monarchy were dragged in the streets and escaping via helicopters.
What was lacking then, what is lacking now, is the scrutiny of the public. Too often, the public has made the mistake of keeping their preferred political leaders on a pedestal, treating them as 'saviors' instead of seeing them as public servants. To mimic the PM's black sunglasses, his supporters have put on a black blindfold. Such unquestioning loyalty have always allowed the ones in power to control the narrative and abuse that trust.
History doesn't repeat, but it sure does rhyme. If Nepal aims to break the stanza, what it must do is change how it sees their political leaders. Respect sure, admiration none.