Prime Minister, or Head of the coalition government L.Oyun-Erdene breathed a sigh of relief as the protests led by the Freedom Alliance Party demanding his resignation came to an end after 13 days without achieving their objective. The demonstrations, which saw significant participation from citizens, were aimed at pressuring the government to step down. However, the only legal path to fulfill their demands was through Parliament. In accordance with the law, at least a quarter of the total members of Parliament must officially submit a motion for consideration to discuss and act on such demands. Despite the intense public pressure, no member of Parliament took this step, leaving the protesters’ efforts in vain.
From the outset, it was clear that Prime Minister L.Oyun-Erdene would not resign voluntarily. To secure his position, he implemented a series of measures under the pretense of addressing the issues raised by the protests, but these actions were widely perceived as counter-strategies to safeguard his leadership. Additionally, he strengthened his hold on power by successfully forming a coalition government, bringing together a broad range of political parties. These included the ruling Mongolian People’s Party (MPP), the Democratic Party (DP), the HUN Party, as well as the National Coalition and the Civil Will-Green Party, which had previously played opposition roles. The coalition created a strong political alliance that effectively insulated L.Oyun-Erdene from the threat of removal.
With the coalition firmly backing him, the premier managed to weather the political storm and maintain his position. This outcome left many of his potential rivals for the prime ministerial post frustrated and disappointed. While he emerged satisfied and secure, those who had hoped to see him removed were left disheartened. The Freedom Alliance Party, however, has made it clear that they will not give up their struggle. Following the end of the protests, the party, along with its supporters, submitted an official request to President U.Khurelsukh, urging him to dissolve parliament. They argued that the current parliament had failed in its duty to hold the government accountable, effectively shielding L.Oyun-Erdene from the consequences of public dissatisfaction. Despite this, the likelihood of parliament being dissolved remains uncertain, as the political agreement between the coalition parties appears robust. The Freedom Alliance Party (FAP) and its supporters now face an uphill battle to sustain their momentum and find alternative avenues to challenge the government.
About 20 lawmakers unofficially support
During a parliamentary session, parliamentarian D.Ganbat publicly voiced his opposition to several concerning issues, including the persecution of citizens exercising their constitutional rights to protest and assemble, the presence of threats posed by repeat offenders, and the defamation of B.Tsatsral, the leader of the Freedom Alliance Party. D.Ganbat declared, “If the rights and freedoms of citizens are violated, the issue of dismissing the government will be raised.” However, his follow-up remarks revealed his lack of concrete action. He said, “Now that the session is adjourned, I have traveled around the country.” These words exposed that while he spoke in defense of the citizens, he failed to initiate any formal measures to address their demands. Despite his vocal criticism, his actions did not extend beyond rhetoric. Meanwhile, the other members of parliament remained largely silent on these matters. Before the demonstrations even began, the Freedom Alliance Party had taken proactive steps, sending an official letter to parliament. In this letter, they requested that the government’s accountability be formally discussed. Their appeal drew attention to Article 23.1 of the Constitution, which states, “A member of the Parliament is a messenger of the people and shall uphold the interests of all citizens and the state.” FAP argued that Parliament members were failing in their constitutional duty.
On the final day of the demonstrations, party leader B.Tsatsral addressed the public, revealing an important but ultimately disappointing development. She stated, “About 10 members from the DP and more than 10 from the MPP, a total of about 20 members, responded that they are ready to sign if a proposal is made. However, despite their expressed willingness, no member took the initiative to start the process of formally submitting a proposal to hold the government accountable. This hesitation highlighted what many saw as political theater - politicians pretending to support the people while avoiding any real action.”
As no members of Parliament ultimately accepted the citizens’ demands or raised the issue formally, the Freedom Alliance Party declared the Parliament incapable of fulfilling its responsibilities. They subsequently submitted an official demand to President U.Khurelsukh, calling for the dissolution of Parliament. In her statement, B.Tsatsral condemned the state of parliament, saying, “The National Alliance and the Civil Will-Green Party, which were elected by the votes of thousands of people and claimed to be the opposition, have announced that they are acting as the government’s executive body. All this shows that no one represents the citizens in parliament. Politicians and parties are trading on our votes and beliefs. There is no opposition in parliament. There are no members to represent the citizens in parliament. Therefore, we must represent ourselves. Parliament, which is incapable of proposing a motion to dismiss the government, must be dissolved. This parliament has shown that it cannot work on our behalf.”
This statement encapsulated the frustration of citizens who felt betrayed by a parliament that failed to act on their behalf. B.Tsatsral’s remarks reflected a broader sentiment of disillusionment with a political system where parties and politicians appeared more focused on protecting their own interests than those of the people who elected them.
Will Parliament take protective measures?
Under Article 22.2 of the Constitution, parliament can be dissolved under two circumstances: if at least two-thirds of all members of parliament (76 total members) agree that it is no longer possible to exercise its powers, or if the president, after consulting with the speaker of parliament, proposes the same and parliament approves the decision with a two-thirds majority vote. This places significant responsibility on President U.Khurelsukh to decide how to address the growing demands for dissolution.
The critical question now is: What steps will President U.Khurelsukh take? Will he follow the example of Prime Minister L.Oyun-Erdene, who avoided public accountability during the recent 13-day demonstration and stayed behind the walls of the State Palace without offering any clear explanation? In essence, will the president also choose to ignore the demands of the protesters and the FAP? Alternatively, will he offer a diplomatic justification, claiming, for instance, that “there is no reason to dissolve parliament”?
Although U.Khurelsukh was elected to the presidency by the people, his political ties to the ruling MPP are significant. As a senior member of the MPP, his decisions are influenced not only by his constitutional obligations but also by the party’s interests. This situation is further complicated by reported tensions between U.Khurelsukh and Prime Minister L.Oyun-Erdene, who differ on certain policies and are said to be competing for influence and control within the MPP. Observers and political analysts are closely watching whether U.Khurelsukh will act to dissolve the current Parliament - where the MPP holds a majority and other parties have aligned with it - or whether he will choose to defend and protect the current political structure.
Another potential avenue for addressing the demands of the protesters and the Freedom Alliance Party lies within Parliament itself. If one-third of its members - 42 representatives - submit a vote to discuss the dissolution of Parliament, the issue can officially be considered. However, the likelihood of this happening seems slim. Mongolia’s political culture has long been criticized for its lack of accountability and its aversion to meaningful reforms. Few politicians appear willing to take bold, principled stands, especially if doing so threatens their personal interests or political careers.
Political decisions often seem motivated by self-interest rather than public service, and there is little precedent for members of parliament taking collective action to hold their peers accountable, replace ineffective leadership, or support initiatives like dissolving Parliament. In this climate, the emergence of a member courageous enough to lead such efforts appears improbable.
For now, the public waits for President U.Khurelsukh’s response, which will signal whether he prioritizes the people’s demands or the interests of the ruling coalition. His actions - or inactions - will likely determine the next phase of Mongolia’s political landscape. The answers to these pressing questions will soon become clear.
‘Wishes’ remain unfulfilled
While representatives of the citizens marched to demand the resignation of the government, behind the scenes, a long line of politicians positioning themselves as potential candidates for the prime minister’s office quietly formed. On social media, polls were conducted among ordinary members of the MPP, subtly testing public opinion. Even the names of potential candidates like MPs S.Amarsaikhan, S.Byambatsogt, B.Choijilsuren and D.Enkhtuvshin were floated. Among them, the public relations campaign of MP and Deputy Prime Minister S.Amarsaikhan appeared particularly strong, hinting at ambitions beyond his current role.
However, the looming question was this: how would these hopefuls know if L.Oyun-Erdene was going to step down? While no one openly took the first step, some politicians harbored a secret expectation that his resignation might open the door for their rise. As previously mentioned, many lawmakers expressed a willingness to support a motion to dismiss the government - if someone else initiated it. There were even whispered plans of holding a meeting to “play their own game” once the motion was underway. Yet, no one dared to take that critical first step. As a result, these potential candidates remained in the wings, waiting for their moment.
Although the demonstration organized by the FAP ultimately failed to achieve its stated goal of forcing the government to resign, it may have served as a warning to both the government and Parliament. It exposed the growing frustrations of citizens who are struggling daily, breathing polluted air, losing valuable time and money in endless traffic jams, and bearing the heavy burden of oppressive taxes. The protests were a stark reminder that the public’s patience is wearing thin and that a breaking point is near.
More importantly, the demonstration reminded citizens of their rights: the right to protest, assemble, speak freely and demand accountability. It showed them that they have the power to push back against government inaction and fight for a healthier and safer environment. However, the protest also revealed the challenges of sustaining public momentum. Despite the FAP’s efforts, the demonstration lost steam after the first day, and public attention quickly waned. It highlighted a deeper cultural issue: Mongolians, it seems, lack the persistence to sustain protests or movements for lasting change.
FAP endured significant resistance during the protests, including accusations that they were funded or influenced by foreign countries. Members faced threats, physical attacks and insults from various groups, including organizations like “Standing Blue Mongolia”. Nonetheless, the party stuck to its original goals and peacefully expressed its demands.
Now, the ball is in the government’s court. Prime Minister L.Oyun-Erdene and his Cabinet, who implemented extensive protective measures to maintain their hold on power, must address the issues raised by citizens. They must take meaningful action to create the healthy and safe environment demanded by the public. If they fail to deliver, the citizens may once again rise and demand that power be handed over to leaders who can meet their expectations. The demonstration may not have achieved its immediate goal, but it serves as a cautionary tale for the government: the people’s dissatisfaction is growing, and if left unaddressed, it may manifest in stronger and more persistent calls for change.
