In a recent televised interview, Mrs. Bidhya Devi Bhandari—the former ceremonial head of state and the first female president in Nepal’s republican history—re-emerged into the public spotlight with proclamations about returning to party politics. She cited lofty goals: to restore political stability, ensure economic development, enhance Nepal’s foreign relations, and mobilize the international Nepali diaspora. However, such declarations deserve not only public scrutiny but also academic dissection. Do her claims signify a meaningful political re-entry rooted in policy and principle—or are they emblematic of the continuing cycle of recycled leadership, plagued by contradictions and cloaked in populist jargon?
This op-ed offers a bold but respectful sociopolitical analysis of Mrs. Bhandari’s reappearance. It explores whether her return signals substantive change or simply extends the continuity of Nepal’s entrenched political oligarchy. The larger question is: can an individual who largely remained silent during moments of constitutional crises now catalyze transformation in a party and system hollowed out by factionalism, patronage, and moral decay?
Presidential Legacy or Political Convenience?
Mrs. Bidhya Devi Bhandari served as Nepal’s president for two full terms (2015–2023), a period marked by significant political turmoil and constitutional tensions. While she fulfilled her ceremonial obligations with poise, her presidency was not devoid of controversy. Her tenure is widely critiqued in academic and political circles for failing to act as an impartial guardian of the Constitution.
Indeed, in key constitutional moments—such as the dissolution of the House of Representatives (twice, in 2020 and 2021), her overt allegiance to KP Sharma Oli, and her controversial role in denying Sher Bahadur Deuba’s constitutional right to form a government—Mrs. Bhandari appeared more like a party cadre than a constitutional defender. The Supreme Court had to intervene to restore democratic order, an act that implicitly indicted her conduct.
From a sociopolitical lens, Mrs. Bhandari’s presidency underscores what political theorist Sheldon Wolin might call “inverted totalitarianism”—a situation where democratic institutions are hijacked to serve authoritarian interests, all under the veneer of legalism. In this framework, her return to party politics does not symbolize renewal but the re-legitimation of a political persona already enmeshed in elite interests.
Symbolism of the First Woman President: Misused and Missed
Let us acknowledge the symbolic importance of Mrs. Bhandari’s presidency. Her ascent was historic in a patriarchal society. But what was achieved beyond the symbolism?
Feminist political theory teaches us that the presence of a woman in power does not automatically translate to feminist or inclusive governance. Bhandari’s term saw no significant breakthroughs in women’s empowerment, political representation, or gendered policy innovation. One might argue that her presence actually functioned to neutralize more transformative feminist discourse, substituting structural change with tokenistic visibility.
Academically, we can call this symbolic co-optation, where a marginalized identity is elevated to project progressiveness, while maintaining status quo power dynamics. Her career arc closely mirrors this dynamic. By aligning herself so closely with KP Oli, her actions—and inactions—contributed more to the consolidation of masculine political power than its dismantling.
Political Stability: A Repackaged Rhetoric?
Bhandari’s first justification for her political return is to restore “political stability.” But political stability in Nepal has historically meant elite consensus—not popular accountability or institutional integrity. Her tenure as president actually coincided with some of the most unstable political episodes of the republic. So the question arises: what new tools or insights does she possess now that she did not have then?
From the standpoint of sociopolitical theory, especially institutional decay theory (see Fukuyama, 2014), one must question whether stability under decaying institutions is even desirable. Stability without reform leads to stagnation. Bhandari has not articulated any mechanism to address the institutional rot within her own party, particularly its dependence on factional loyalty, rent-seeking behavior, and the absence of ideological clarity.
More importantly, can she genuinely challenge the autocratic tendencies of KP Sharma Oli—the de facto party boss of the UML? Her entire political history post-2015 suggests otherwise. The principle of organizational dependency—where an individual’s political rise is tethered to a powerful patron—applies here. Her ascent within the UML was intricately bound to Oli’s favor. To now claim she can restructure the party without addressing this dependency is politically and intellectually dishonest.
Economic Development: Vision or Vague Promise?
Nepal’s economy remains deeply dependent on remittances and foreign aid, with negligible innovation in industrial policy or infrastructure governance. Mrs. Bhandari claims that her political re-entry will rejuvenate economic development. Yet, during her two-term presidency, she had considerable influence, even if symbolic, to advocate for visionary economic reforms. That opportunity was missed.
This brings us to a basic question: What is her economic vision? Does she advocate for state-led growth, liberal markets, or a mixed model? There is no record of her ever articulating a coherent economic framework. Her language remains steeped in platitudes, devoid of policy specificity.
Economist Dani Rodrik emphasizes the importance of “policy space” in developing countries to experiment with economic models suited to local needs. Nepal lacks leaders who understand this. A mere invocation of economic development without structural rethinking of corruption, local governance, and foreign dependency is rhetorical at best, and misleading at worst.
Foreign Relations and Image Building: A Flawed Premise
In the interview, Mrs. Bhandari argued for enhancing Nepal’s image and foreign relations. Yet, one cannot build a nation’s external image while its internal institutions are crumbling. Nepal’s foreign policy challenges—particularly its strategic positioning between India and China—require intellectual sophistication, consistency, and transparency. As president, she never articulated a coherent foreign policy stance.
One cannot help but remember her near-absence during critical geopolitical junctures—such as Nepal’s border dispute with India in 2020, or the intensifying US-China tug-of-war reflected in the MCC debate. Her presidency was marked by silence on key foreign policy matters. To now promise diplomatic rejuvenation rings hollow without a detailed blueprint.
The Diaspora Dream: Untapped Potential or Empty Slogan?
Nepal’s diaspora community—spread from Sydney to San Francisco—is both emotionally connected and economically potent. But political leaders have repeatedly failed to construct a meaningful, institutional channel to integrate this community into national development. Bhandari’s promise to mobilize the diaspora is appealing, but again, no mechanism is suggested.
Scholarly studies on diaspora engagement (e.g., Gamlen, 2008) highlight the need for robust legal and political frameworks to enable participation: voting rights, dual citizenship, investment incentives, and inclusion in policymaking. As president, she had the moral authority to push these agendas. Yet she did not.
The Constitution and the Elephant in the Room
The more fundamental question remains: Is the current constitution itself even capable of enabling the transformation she claims to pursue? This is not merely a procedural inquiry; it is a question of political design. Nepal’s 2015 constitution, despite its democratic aspirations, has proven increasingly unable to foster inclusive governance, institutional checks and balances, or ideological renewal.
This charter, under which Mrs. Bhandari served and now aspires to reshape politics, has ironically become the very instrument for power consolidation, judicial overreach, and political protectionism. If the structure is flawed, how does one achieve transformation from within it—without first acknowledging its limits? On this, Mrs. Bhandari remains conspicuously silent.
Equally pressing is the question of monarchy—a topic increasingly surfacing in public discourse. A growing segment of Nepali citizens, frustrated with party misgovernance and elite corruption, have begun reconsidering the constitutional monarchy as a stabilizing institution. Mrs. Bhandari’s political career was built upon the republican movement, but if she returns without acknowledging this public sentiment, she risks categorically dismissing the expectations of millions.
Democracy is not about historical allegiance; it is about responding to the evolving aspirations of the people. If she re-enters politics purely to defend a decaying party order without addressing the legitimacy crisis of the current system—and without even opening dialogue about constitutional alternatives including monarchy—then her return becomes an act of political nostalgia, not leadership.
Conclusion: Between Realism and Redemption
Nepal today suffers not from a shortage of leaders but from a surplus of unrepentant ones. The return of Mrs. Bidhya Devi Bhandari, instead of sparking excitement, evokes skepticism. Her political language borrows heavily from idealistic vocabulary but lacks institutional memory, self-reflection, and concrete proposals.
A serious politician with transformative intent must begin by acknowledging past mistakes, clarifying ideological commitments, and offering concrete institutional reforms. Mrs. Bhandari has done none of the three.
Moreover, she must also confront whether the current constitutional framework—even one she once symbolized—is capable of real democratic deliverance. And more importantly, she must answer: Can she claim democratic integrity while ignoring a rising mass of citizens demanding the respectful reconsideration of the monarchy?
The nation is at a crossroads. It needs new energies, not recycled allegiances; visionaries, not functionaries. If Ms. Bhandari seeks to be more than a footnote in Nepal’s political history, she must first transcend her own past. Otherwise, her return will be remembered not as a redemption, but as a re-entry into the same circle of broken promises and fading legacies.
@HT
