Spread the love

By Our Reporter

As the March 5 election approaches, Nepal’s cooperative savings scandal has moved from financial pages to the center of political debate. The contrast in party positions is striking. The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) has chosen a softer tone, while the Nepali Congress and CPN UML have spoken in the language of punishment and strict enforcement. This difference is not just political theater. It cuts to the heart of public trust in the rule of law.

RSP’s manifesto promise to return small depositors’ money within 100 days sounds attractive on the surface. After all, victims want their savings back, not endless court drama. But the party’s emphasis on dialogue over detention raises uncomfortable questions. When financial crimes of this scale occur, the issue is not only recovery. It is also accountability.

The party’s proposal to allow cooperative operators to stay outside custody if they present a repayment plan may look pragmatic. In reality, it risks sending the wrong signal. Financial fraud in Nepal has thrived precisely because white collar offenders often expect negotiation, delay, and eventual escape from serious punishment. A soft approach, even if well intentioned, can deepen that culture of impunity.

The political context makes the optics even more sensitive. RSP chair Ravi Lamichhane himself faces multiple cooperative fraud cases across five district courts. His legal battles do not automatically invalidate the party’s policy. But they do make the party’s conciliatory tone harder for the public to accept at face value. In politics, perception often matters as much as policy.

By contrast, the Congress and UML have taken a more forceful public line. Their emphasis on implementing parliamentary probe findings, confiscating assets of the guilty, and strengthening regulation reflects what many victims have long demanded. The scale of the problem is not small. The parliamentary committee has already reported tens of billions of rupees misappropriated from dozens of cooperatives. Behind those numbers are ordinary families who trusted institutions that were supposed to protect their savings.

Still, tough language alone will not restore confidence. Nepal has seen many strong sounding pledges dissolve after elections. The real test will be consistent enforcement that does not bend for political convenience. If major parties use the scandal only as a campaign weapon, public cynicism will deepen further.

The warning from National Cooperative Regulatory Authority chair Khag Raj Sharma deserves attention. He has rightly stressed that refund promises mean little without clear resource planning and asset recovery. His point goes deeper than technical finance. It highlights a chronic weakness in Nepal’s political culture, the habit of announcing relief before securing the means to deliver it.

This debate also connects to a larger pattern. For decades, financial irregularities, cooperative failures, and regulatory lapses have exposed the same structural flaw. Rules exist on paper, but enforcement often depends on who is involved. That selective approach is corrosive. A system that punishes the weak but negotiates with the powerful cannot claim moral authority.

Political parties now face a simple but uncomfortable responsibility. They must state clearly that cooperative fraud and other financial crimes will invite firm legal consequences, regardless of the accused person’s position, popularity, or political usefulness. Recovery of depositors’ funds is necessary, but it cannot replace punishment. Both must proceed together.

Nepal’s democratic promise rests on the idea that law stands above personality. If parties dilute that principle in the name of short-term pragmatism, they risk normalizing financial misconduct at a time when public patience is already thin. The cooperative crisis has already shaken trust in community finance. Mishandling accountability could damage faith in the broader political system as well.

Voters are watching closely this election season. They have heard promises before. What they now demand is consistency between words and action. Any party that appears to soften its stance on financial wrongdoing, for whatever reason, should expect hard public scrutiny.

In the end, this is not only about cooperatives. It is about the character of the state Nepal wants to build. A republic that claims the rule of law cannot afford selective softness on economic crimes. If impunity continues to find shelter in political calculations, the cost will be paid not by parties, but by ordinary citizens whose savings, once again, become someone else’s experiment.