RSP’s Dual Test: National Unity and Institutional Credibility

# Muna Chand

Two controversies that emerged after the first general convention of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) have placed Nepal’s new political force under serious scrutiny—both ideologically and institutionally. The first concerns the proposal to abolish provincial assemblies or restructure the provincial framework. The second involves the revelation that the party’s digital membership database included a significant number of individuals below eighteen years of age.

The first issue is intertwined with Nepal’s state structure, national unity, and geopolitical security. The second pertains to the legitimacy of political parties, statistical reliability, and internal accountability. Though seemingly unrelated, both controversies share a common underlying question: will the RSP remain merely a vehicle for popular discontent, or will it evolve into a national party with clear policy directions, legal discipline, and institutional responsibility?

For Nepal, the debate over state structure is not a routine administrative matter. Situated between two giant powers to the north and south, with limited territory, constrained economic capacity, open borders, a multi-ethnic society, and a long history of external influence, national unity is the country’s most strategic asset. For this reason, shaping Nepal’s governance architecture requires not merely theoretical appeal but a solid grounding in the nation’s geography, history, demography, economy, and security realities.

Federalism typically evolves in countries with vast territories, historically distinct political units, clear regional autonomy, or states formed through consensus among diverse entities. Nepal, however, is not a federation of previously independent states. Modern Nepal was forged through a long process of national unity-building. Despite its small size, its mountains, hills, and plains are interlinked through economic, cultural, and security relationships.

In such a context, while administrative decentralization is necessary, creating structures that generate parallel political sovereignties carries inherent risks. When federalism leads to ambiguous division of powers among central, provincial, and local levels, administrative duplication, unnecessary political positions, costly frameworks, and policy inconsistencies, state effectiveness weakens. A fragile state structure can become a convenient channel for external influence.

It is therefore unsurprising that proposals to abolish or restructure provincial assemblies have emerged within the RSP. There is widespread public sentiment that Nepal’s current provincial structure has failed to justify its existence. Frequent government changes, ministry fragmentation, political bargaining, unproductive expenditures, weak legislative outputs, and financial dependence on the federal government have kept provinces disconnected from citizens’ daily lives.

However, pointing out the weaknesses of the provincial structure is not enough. What matters is clarity on the alternative governance model. If provincial assemblies are abolished, how will regional development plans be formulated? Who will coordinate between central and local governments? How will regions with distinct geographical and cultural characteristics be represented in policy-making? How will financial allocation and administrative accountability be determined?

For Nepal, a viable alternative could be a strong unitary state with empowered, decentralized, and autonomous local governance. Autonomy here does not imply separate sovereignty or distinct national identity. Rather, it means granting local and regional bodies sufficient decision-making authority—within the framework of the constitution and national laws—over development planning, education, health, agriculture, local infrastructure, language and cultural preservation, and service delivery.

Under such a system, national security, foreign policy, currency, major natural resources, national infrastructure, citizenship, and fundamental economic policies would remain with the centre. Powers related to local needs would be devolved to local governments. This would achieve genuine decentralization of policy and services while maintaining uniformity in national law, civil rights, and the state’s core direction.

The solution to Nepal’s current challenges does not lie in reverting to extreme centralization. The excessively centralized governance of the past failed to adequately address the needs of remote areas, Madhesh, Karnali, Himalayan districts, and marginalized communities. Therefore, adopting a unitary model should not mean a return to the old administrative centralism. What is needed is a system that combines national unity with genuine local self-governance.

The idea of making ethnic identity the primary basis of state-building is even more sensitive. All castes, languages, religions, and communities of Nepal are equal stakeholders in national life. The state must protect their languages, cultures, traditions, and representation. However, linking a specific territory to the political ownership of a single caste or community can raise questions about the equal rights of other citizens residing in that very area.

Most districts and regions of Nepal have mixed populations. Citizens from various caste, linguistic, religious, and cultural backgrounds have lived together for generations. In such a society, constructing state structures on the basis of ethnic nomenclature or historical claims risks strengthening the politics of ownership rather than representation. This can foster a divisive “us versus them” mentality.

Respecting identity is necessary, but turning identity into political boundary lines is not. The state can preserve languages, cultures, traditions, and historical heritage. It can ensure proportional representation, social justice, and access to opportunities. But civil rights must be guaranteed on the basis of equal Nepali citizenship, not ethnic geography.

Nepal’s nationality is not the proprietary domain of any single caste, region, language, or religion. It is the shared political identity of all citizens of the mountains, hills, and plains. Ethnic or regional grievances should not be ignored, but their resolution must be sought through equal rights, equitable development, and impartial state behaviour—not by creating new divisions.

In this context, the RSP’s stance on federalism requires greater clarity. If one party document proposes abolishing provincial assemblies while another speaks of restructuring provinces, the official policy remains ambiguous. “Restructuring” and “abolition” are not synonymous. One is a reform concept; the other entails a fundamental alteration of the existing constitutional framework.

The RSP should not use the proposal to abolish provincial assemblies merely as a slogan to attract popular sentiment. It must present a detailed blueprint for a strong unitary and decentralized governance system—specifying which powers remain at the centre, which devolve to local levels, the future of existing provincial administrative structures, personnel management, and cost reductions.

Proposals to reduce the number of local units must also be grounded in facts and geography. In Himalayan and remote areas, large geographic spreads and low populations may make local governments distant from citizens. In cities and densely populated areas, consolidation of local units may be feasible. Thus, applying a uniform mathematical formula across the country would be impractical.

From the perspective of national unity, the proposal to make local governments party-less also demands serious debate. While excessive politicization of local bodies—which are primarily development and service-delivery institutions—has created problems, it is not certain that party-less elections would eliminate political influence. Even if official party symbols are removed, informal coalitions, economic influence, and power groups may remain active. The fundamental question, therefore, is not whether party names appear on ballots but how transparency, accountability, and citizen oversight can be strengthened.

Alongside the federalism debate, the RSP’s underage membership controversy has exposed another institutional weakness. News that more than 35,000 individuals below eighteen appeared in the party’s membership records raised legal and ethical questions. Under prevailing law, membership in a political party requires a Nepali citizen who has completed eighteen years of age.

The RSP has clarified that these individuals were not approved members but raw data of applicants in the digital system. According to the party, the age discrepancies arose from calendar selection, data entry, or other technical errors. While this explanation weakens allegations of a deliberate scheme to enroll minors, it does not eliminate the question of institutional responsibility.

If these were merely applications, why were they included in the membership count? Why was there no clear classification between applicants, individuals under verification, approved members, and active members? Why was age and citizenship verification not conducted before the official report was made public?

A digital political organization means more than online forms and large databases. A reliable digital system requires identity authentication, age verification, duplicate entry control, privacy protection, cybersecurity, and independent auditing. A party that presents technology as a symbol of modernity must uphold equally high standards of statistical discipline.

The inclusion of minors in a political database is a particularly sensitive issue. The party must clarify how such data was collected, how long it was retained, who had access, and how it is being removed. Collecting political data on minors carries not only legal but also ethical responsibilities.

This issue is not confined to the RSP. Nepal’s older political parties have long shown tendencies to inflate membership numbers, duplicate names, fail to renew membership regularly, and count inactive individuals as active members. The flaw exposed by the RSP’s digital system has highlighted a systemic weakness in membership verification across Nepal’s party system.

The Election Commission must establish uniform membership standards for all parties. Separate records for applicants, verified members, and active members, age and citizenship verification, duplicate membership identification, and regular auditing are essential. A system where parties claim hundreds of thousands of members without verification is inconsistent with democratic accountability.

For the RSP, these controversies are not merely crises. The party can turn them into opportunities to demonstrate its ideological and institutional maturity. It can present a clear blueprint for a strong unitary, empowered, and decentralized governance system in place of federalism. It can advance a policy of inclusion based on equal citizenship and national unity rather than ethnic fragmentation. It can correct errors by subjecting its digital membership system to independent scrutiny.

But if the party mistakes popularity for policy clarity, the problems will deepen. Exploiting public dissatisfaction with federalism is not enough. It must offer a credible structure that balances national unity, geopolitical security, administrative efficiency, and local self-governance.

Nepal does not need a weak centre and competing regional power centres. Nepal needs a strong state that treats all citizens equally, is clear in its national interests, sensitive to local needs, and administratively decentralized. The primary political identity of a Nepali citizen must be equal Nepali citizenship. Caste, language, religion, and region are sources of cultural richness, not boundaries of political division.

The RSP’s real test is not how popular its proposal to abolish provincial assemblies becomes. It is whether it can present a governance system that genuinely decentralizes authority while preserving national unity. On the membership controversy, the core question is not merely whether a technical error occurred but how much transparency, legal discipline, and corrective capacity the party demonstrates after the mistake has been exposed.

A new party’s credibility is not determined by impressive speeches or large membership numbers. Clear ideology, lawful membership, democratic decision-making, and unwavering commitment to national interest alone define the value of a political institution.

Nepal’s future lies neither in power-void centralization nor in a weak federal structure that risks fragmentation. Its safe path lies in the combination of national unity, equal citizenship, effective decentralization, local autonomy, and accountable governance. If the RSP can present a clear, practical, and nationally beneficial policy in this direction, it will gain the opportunity to become a truly alternative force in Nepali politics.