The resurgence of former President Bidya Devi Bhandari in CPN (UML) party affairs, alongside ex-Vice President Nanda Bahadur Pun’s involvement as vice-chair of the CPN (Maoist Center), has ignited broad debate across Nepal. There remains no clear consensus among political leaders or the public on whether individuals who have held these high positions should actively participate in party politics after their tenure. Opinions remain divided on the recent political involvement of former heads of state. Those who accept their comeback as natural view their return as constitutionally legitimate, noting that the current legal framework imposes no restrictions. They argue that such individuals possess valuable institutional experience, which could bolster party organization during times of crisis. Moreover, their leadership may promote stable policymaking and help avert abrupt political transitions. Conversely, the next group of people who do not expect them to be active in politics, focus on ethical concerns rather than legalities. They contend that former presidents and vice presidents re-entering partisan politics may undermine democratic norms and erode political culture, rather than establishing standard norms and ethical conduct. This article discusses why former highest political office holders should not re-enter active politics.
Different nations approach the return of former leaders to active politics in distinct ways, influenced by their societal norms, constitutional frameworks, and cultural expectations. The character of the individual leaders may also determine it. In Nepal, where the republican system has not yet matured and is still in its formative phase, societal conventions require establishing impartial governance, and democratic accountability and civic values remain underdeveloped. In democratic systems, a clear distinction is maintained between symbolic duties, executive authority, and political affiliations to ensure impartiality and foster civic trust. In Nepal, the demarcation between ceremonial leadership and party activism is quite clear. Ceremonial posts are supposed to be neutral and responsible to the public rather than to any specific parties. Personalities who have once held such posts are common national figures. While the constitution places no formal restriction on their political re-engagement, the return of former state dignitaries to active party politics is not widely seen as contributing to the consolidation of societal norms. This is typically considered to erode the ethical value rather than promoting a selfless politics.
Multiple factors support the view that former presidents, vice presidents, and monarchs should refrain from reengaging in partisan politics. Their ongoing influence may suppress the emergence of fresh leadership and hinder internal party transformation. Such continued visibility risks fostering personality-driven politics, weakening inclusive participation, and marginalizing newer voices. Since heads of state often embody national unity, a return to political partisanship could compromise the perceived neutrality of their former roles and erode public confidence in democratic institutions.
Our constitution says nothing about whether the former presidents and the deputy presidents can return to active politics. However, exploitation of constitutional loopholes often leads to undemocratic and authoritarian behaviors that are technically legal but ethically dubious.
In many political frameworks, the retirement of high-ranking officials is regarded as an occasion for contemplation, statesmanship, or consultative responsibilities, rather than a return to electoral. Remaining active in political affairs even after holding high office may jeopardize the legacy of prior accomplishments. Some theorists argue that an unwillingness to withdraw from political life may indicate a troubling reluctance to cede authority, which may psychologically and culturally damage the idea of healthy leadership turnover. In many cultures, elder statespersons are respected when they adopt neutral, guiding roles. Returning to partisan politics may violate these expectations and diminish moral authority. Re-entering partisan politics after serving as a national figure may harm public perception and institutional neutrality. This may also develop an insatiable thirst for power in the ruler, and they may regard themselves as universal emperors.
There is a context in the Bhagwat Puran about how an emperor’s endless hunger for power grows. Once upon a time in the eastern lands, there lived a mighty king named Bali. Admired for his generosity and feared for his strength, Bali ruled the three worlds with wisdom and power. But as his thirst for power grew, he began to believe that only he could bring balance to the cosmos. Bali defeated all the kings. Lord Vishnu, seeing the dangers of unchecked power of Bali, conceived a plan. The plan was not for a confrontation, but for humility. He incarnated as Baaman, a dwarf Brahmin. He asked generous Bali for only three paces of land to sit in meditation. As Bali was ready to offer him what he asked, his two feet occupied the entire earth and sky. The third step remained, and with a humble yet profound gesture, Baaman asked Bali where he might place his final stride. Bali, now recognizing the divine nature of his guest and the grandeur behind the request, bowed his head with devotion and said, “Place it upon my head.” And so, Vishnu set his third step on Bali’s crown. Bali was sent to the underworld.
Time passed. The world changed. New leaders emerged, with fresh ideas for a new era. But from the shadows, Bali whispered, "Let me return. I have ruled before, and I can rule again. I know how things work." The people, weary of the current chaos, allowed him to rise again. At first, people felt some relief. It quickly became evident that Bali was unable to navigate the new world. He clung to old strategies, silencing emerging voices and fearing innovation. In the changed context, challenges were new, but due to his inability to adapt to the new situation, people began to suffocate.
From this tale, Nepal must learn: Just as Bali's time had passed, so too must former kings, presidents, and executives accept their time is over. Leadership isn’t about returning to the throne; it’s about passing the torch and guiding from afar, not ruling again with outdated maps. For when the past refuses to depart, the future cannot begin. Constitutions provide a legal framework, but moral norms uphold the spirit of democracy. Our constitution says nothing about whether the former presidents and the deputy presidents can return to active politics. However, exploitation of constitutional loopholes often leads to undemocratic and authoritarian behaviors that are technically legal but ethically dubious. Leaders guided by moral conscience act in ways that strengthen institutions rather than weaken them for personal or partisan gains. They must foster an environment where responsible leadership and active citizen engagement flourish—even as legal systems lag behind evolving societal values. This is especially crucial in newer democracies or fragile political systems, like Nepal’s post-monarchical setup. So, let the wise become mentors, not former heads. Pass the torch to new visionaries instead of rewinding.
(Dr. Madhav Prasad Dahal is an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, TU)
.
