The Dignity of State Institutions and Respectful Politics

The incident involving KP Sharma Oli at Tribhuvan International Airport is not merely a question of disrespect towards an individual, but a serious inquiry into the institutional processes and conduct of the state. This event has shown the risk of damaging not just the domestic image, but also the international reputation of the country. It has created a precarious situation where the conflict between the ruling party and the opposition has transcended boundaries, posing a challenge to national interest.

In any democratic system, constructive differences of opinion and healthy competition between the government and the opposition are essential. However, the use of state machinery and institutions to control or harass political rivals goes against the fundamental spirit of democracy. If Oli’s allegation of “orders from above” is true, it could give rise to the dangerous trend of politicizing state institutions. The attempt to use airport security agencies as a tool for political punishment casts a shadow of doubt on the entire security apparatus.

National security is a priority for every country. Airport security procedures must be extremely sensitive and strict. Yet, those procedures must also be legal and transparent. Treating a specific individual like a common criminal and then politicizing that treatment are both wrong. The duty of security personnel is clear, but they can only perform their responsibilities impartially when kept free from political interference. This very incident has placed the security personnel themselves in a dilemma.

Oli has mentioned, “Even former Prime Ministers, Ministers, and high-ranking government officials do not have VIP facilities at Tribhuvan International Airport or any other airport in Nepal.” This points to a lack of institutional respect and an absence of protocol. VIP facilities are not merely a luxury; they are a symbol of the formal respect the state accords to its former high officials. The absence of this affects the country’s international prestige. It is unfortunate that leaders who receive respect abroad do not receive the same in their own country.

This incident may sow seeds of doubt in the international community regarding Nepal’s democratic maturity and governance system. Foreign investors and tourists might become apprehensive about Nepal’s security arrangements and conduct before even entering the country. Foreign partners base their cooperation on benchmarks of good governance and human rights. Such incidents can negatively impact such cooperation.

This incident could become a historic moment to transform Nepal’s political culture. Political parties must not place personal animosity and competition above institutional dignity. A parliamentary committee or an independent commission must seriously investigate this incident. Public discourse must begin on issues of airport security protocol, VIP arrangements, and the autonomy of security agencies.

The ultimate objective should be that every citizen of Nepal, whether a former Prime Minister or an ordinary traveler, receives dignified treatment from the state. Making this incident a gateway for institutional reform, rather than merely fueling political rhetoric, would be in the interest of the nation and its people.