—Geser Ganbaatar, PhD in Law, Ethics, and Economics for Sustainable Development, University of Milan, and Fernando Casal Bértoa, Associate Professor, University of Nottingham
Mongolia has recently faced one of the – if not the most – serious constitutional crisis since its transition to democracy more than 30 years ago. Paradoxically, the crisis sprang out from what, otherwise, was an ordinary event: a leadership contest within the ruling Mongolian People’s Party (MPP) between the (now former) Speaker of the State Great Hural (Parliament) and the Prime Minister (PM). Since then, it has escalated into a breakdown of parliamentary procedure, a stalled government, and a looming threat of democratic backsliding and institutional collapse. Beneath all this, and the consequent political crisis, lies a more fundamental struggle: who controls the ruling MPP and, thereupon, the parliament as well as the government and, even more importantly, the future of the Mongolian state. But let us examine the unfolding of this truly Shakespearian tragedy in seven acts.
1. From consensus to crisis
At the center of this constitutional crisis is the political struggle between two of the most powerful political figures in the country: namely, PM G. Zandanshatar and Speaker of the Parliament D. Amarbayasgalan. The tension between these two former friends began some months ago, when both decided to compete for the leadership of the MPP, which has been the all-powerful ruling party since 2016. The leadership contest was triggered by a vacancy that opened when then–Prime Minister and MPP Chairman L. Oyun-Erdene resigned from his post as PM. With control of the MPP remaining the primary route to executive power, both G. Zandanshatar and D. Amarbayasgalan entered the race to shape the party’s direction and their own political futures.
In late September, the then-Speaker won that internal contest and became the new MPP chairman, leaving Zandanshatar, who had lost his seat in the 2024 parliamentary elections, politically weakened but still holding executive authority. Since then, the MPP parliamentary group has increasingly split into two camps: those aligned with the Speaker, and those with the PM.
And yet, just a few months ago, this outcome would have been hard to imagine. When former PM L. Oyun-Erdene resigned in June 2025 due to the “Dior bag” corruption scandal, the MPP swiftly nominated former Speaker (2019-2024) Zandanshatar to take his place. Zandanshatar was appointed with an overwhelming majority — 92.3%. This clearly showed not only the MPP’s unity, but also broad cross-party support from other parliamentary political parties. However, only four months later, the ascent of Amarbayasgalan as party chairman, shifted the balance of power within the party and within the Parliament, creating full-blown factional rivalry — both intra- and inter-party.
2. The Prime Minister’s political hunting
Compounding the tension is a lingering scandal that continues to cast a shadow over Amarbayasgalan. In 2022, widespread allegations emerged that billions of dollars’ worth of coal had been stolen or illegally exported across the Chinese border. According to some estimates, the loss to Mongolia’s economy was as high as USD $11 billion. Investigations implicated senior politicians and powerful business figures, and although legal proceedings have been slow, the Speaker has been repeatedly referred in public discourse as one of the figures under suspicion. While Amarbayasgalan’s allies insist the accusations are politically motivated, his political opponents have seized on this as proof of moral unfitness for leadership.
In the midst of the escalating political crisis, tensions rose further when B. Enkhbayar, a close political ally of the PM, publicly accused the Speaker of involvement in the murder of a man who allegedly held sensitive evidence relating to high-level corruption. The claim sent shockwaves through the political class and was widely seen as a turning point in the factional battle that had gripped the State Great Hural.
In a move that underscored his resolve, the PM announced Enkhbayar’s appointment as the new Minister of Justice (MoJ). The decision caught many by surprise including the sitting MoJ L. Munkhbaatar, who was reportedly not informed in advance. This was a clear signal that the PM was prepared to take bold steps when confronting what he and his supporters saw as entrenched corruption and abuse of power. Rather than backing down in the face of mounting political pressure, the PM decided to double down and position a trusted ally at the helm of the country’s justice system.
Resistance from Parliament delayed the process though. It took nearly three weeks before lawmakers convened to formally swear Enkhbayar into office, leaving the Ministry of Justice temporarily leaderless, which reinforced the perception of institutional deadlock. On October 24, the new MoJ was officially sworn in, bringing a new and assertive voice into the Cabinet and further raising the stakes in what had become a full-scale political showdown.
3. Mutual resignation efforts and divided parliament
By mid-October, the conflict had reached a boiling point. Pro-Speaker MPs gathered signatures to dismiss the PM, formally submitting the motion under Article 43.1 of the Constitution, which requires a motion initiated by at least one-fourth of all MPs (32 of 126), and approved by a majority of all MPs (64+).
In retaliation, pro-PM MPs began to collect signatures to remove the Speaker instead, citing both the scandal and abuse of power. With both leaders under fire, Parliament became openly split into rival camps across factional allegiances, rather than party lines. Even opposition MPs were split between the two sides.
4. A manufactured majority: The PM’s exit engineered
After the motion to dismiss the PM was formally submitted, it was sent, as required by procedure, to the Standing Committee on State Structure. In the meantime, a surprising and critical shift occurred: a number of MPs had signed the original motion to dismiss the PM reversed course once the Standing Committee convened, voting against it. This sudden reversal changed the procedure and the political battle, as now the plenary was to vote not on the PM’s dismissal, but on his non-dismissal.
This turn of events introduced a double-negative question, where a vote in favor meant that the PM would remain in office, but a vote against effectively meant support for his dismissal.
5. Speaker resignation, contested quorums, and reversed questions
In another surprising turn, amid mounting allegations of criminal misconduct, the Speaker of the Parliament submitted his resignation on October 16th 2025. His decision came in the wake of intensifying public pressure, renewed media scrutiny, and the signature campaign initiated by MPs aligned with the PM calling for his removal, as mentioned above. One plausible interpretation of the Speaker’s move was that it served as a bold “come and get me” message, as both the Speaker’s and PM’s dismissals had been scheduled for debate on the same day’s parliamentary agenda.
On that day, Parliament failed to reach quorum, as pro-PM MPs boycotted the session in order to prevent a vote on his dismissal. Instead of adjourning for the day, the Deputy Speaker Kh. Bulgantuya kept the session formally open overnight without a recess. The vote was then resumed at noon the next day using the attendance registration from the previous day. This procedural tactic allowed Parliament to bypass the quorum failure and hold a vote without verifying fresh attendance, despite the date change.
Despite the controversy, the vote proceeded: out of 111 MPs registered as present, 40 (36%) supported the resolution (i.e. to keep the PM), and 71 (64%) rejected it. As such , the motion was adopted, and the PM was formally dismissed.
At once, the Parliament also swiftly approved the Speaker’s resignation with 102 votes in favor (89.5%), marking a dramatic fall from power for one of the MPP’s most prominent figures. Even his closest allies in Parliament chose not to oppose his resignation, leaving the motivations behind their votes open to interpretation.
6. Full-fleshed constitutional crisis: the President steps in, but the Constitutional Court saves the day
Following the parliamentary vote, the PM filed a petition with the Constitutional Court (CCt), challenging the legality of the process aimed at removing him from office as going against core constitutional values — including democracy, fairness, unity, and the rule of law. He also argued that the procedure used to dismiss him did not follow the proper legal steps as the Constitution states that if at least one-fourth of MPs submit a motion to remove the PM, a majority of all MPs must vote in favor for it to pass. But, as explained above, instead of voting directly on that motion, Parliament voted on a differently worded question, which he believed changed the meaning and legality of the vote, especially because it was held without a valid quorum. Finally, the PM held the Deputy Speaker — who was presiding over the session — responsible for this reframing of the motion and overextending the quorum, saying it undermined the clarity and fairness of the entire process, which amounted to an unconstitutional seizure of state power. Echoing these constitutional concerns, Mongolia’s President U. Khurelsukh issued a formal veto of the parliamentary resolution soon after the PM’s petition was filed.
Classifying the case as exceptionally complex and urgent, the CCt decided that it warranted immediate adjudication, escalating it to an en banc session to be held just six day later. On October 22, the CCt issued a 38-pages ruling concluding that the PM’s dismissal had indeed violated the Constitution, and that the Deputy Speaker handling of the vote — especially the reframed question — had directly contributed to the violation. According to the CCt, the parliamentary session failed to uphold both the form and the spirit of democratic governance, including the principles of transparency and constitutional clarity. As the CCt emphasized, quoting its own precedent from 1995: “[a]ny conclusion of the Constitutional Court concerning a public official shall not be reviewed by Parliament, but shall serve as a direct basis for action.” As a result, the PM’s dismissal became void, thus keeping him in office.
Following the CCt’s decision, the President formally withdrew his veto, effectively closing the constitutional loop, and placing Zandanshatar back into office not through political compromise, but through judicial affirmation. The speed and depth of the CCt’s ruling are worth noting. Delivering a well-reasoned, 38-pages decision in less than a week was a rare act, an urgent and last-ditch effort to prevent Mongolia, the so-called oasis of democracy, from drifting toward serious institutional degradation, metaphorically described as that of “Banana Republic”.
7. Amarbayasgalan’s fate: between Richard II and Hamlet
A few days later, on October 27th, the Capital City Prosecutor’s Office announced that former Speaker D. Amarbayasgalan was under formal criminal investigation for abuse of power, large-scale bribery, and illicit enrichment — based on a case submitted by the anti-corruption agency. That same day, MPP Secretary General Ya. Sodbaatar confirmed that Amarbayasgalan would not be endorsed as party chairman and that new leadership elections would be held. His baisser le rideau was thus less a resolution than a theatrical pause — shadowed by scandal and the soft closing of political doors. Much like Shakespeare’s Malvolio, Amarbayasgalan withdrew with quiet defiance, holding fast to his sense of rectitude. In the long arc of Mongolian politics, where departures are rarely final, he now waits offstage — paused, but not erased.
On 15 November, the MPP congress finally convened and, instead of forcing a direct showdown between the two rival camps, produced a third option. Both Zandanshatar and Amarbayasgalan announced in advance that they would not run for the party leadership, on the grounds that an open contest risked splitting the party in two. In their place, the congress elevated a new figure, Uchral Nyam-Osor, who was elected with around 95 percent of the vote – presented as a unity candidate whose primary mission is to preserve party cohesion rather than to settle its underlying power struggle.
At the close of the congress, Uchral, Amarbayasgalan, Zandanshatar and other senior figures took the stage, held hands and bowed before the delegates in a carefully choreographed tableau of unity. Yet it remains far from clear whether this handholding will extend beyond the photo opportunity. The investigations, rival factions and accumulated grievances that fueled the crisis have not disappeared; they have merely been draped, for now, in the language of “party unity”.
Note: The authors write in a personal capacity. The views expressed do not represent those of any institution.
Suggested citation: Geser Ganbaatar and Fernando Casal Bértoa, Mongolia’s Constitutional Crisis: Island of Democracy or Banana Republic? Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, Dec. 26, 2025, at: http://www.iconnectblog.com/mongolias-constitutional-crisis-island-of-democracy-or-banana-republic/