Description
The study of political parties in the foreign policy-making process is often neglected. Recently, scholars such as Chryssogelos (2021) have investigated the relationship between changes in the party system and shifts in foreign policy in Western democracies. Their work builds on ideas drawn from Lipset and Rokkan (1967) and Mair (1997) on the foreign policy implications of changes in party systems. Although research using case studies from the Global North, such as Chryssogelos’s, is expanding, the links between party systems and foreign policy remain poorly understood. Furthermore, studies to date have not included cases from Asia and the Global South.
This paper examines the relationship between Nepal’s party system and its foreign policy, comparing the multi-party system under the constitutional monarchy (1990- 2008) with the post-monarchical era (post-2008). We seek to investigate whether the shift from the Monarchical two-party system to the new Republic’s three-party system after the monarchy collapsed in Nepal in 2008 led to changes in Nepal’s foreign policy, particularly towards China and India. In addition to examining contemporary news reports and elite interviews, the research is based on three case studies of contested mega hydropower projects in Nepal, involving India and China.
The principal finding of this research, which is grounded on a path-dependent approach, is that regardless of the shift in the party system in 2008, it contributed no substantial foreign policy change. Only minor tactical modifications occurred in foreign policy orientation. Moreover, the dynamics of the relationship between the party system and foreign policy change in emerging democracies, as compared to mature democracies, are much more complex and may require additional tools to fully explain them. Results show that the manifestation of the above-mentioned modifications in foreign policy orientation is mainly contributed to by two determinants: parties’ pragmatism (coalition-building politics) and politicians’ individualism (power politics).
