 |
|
The ongoing political turmoil is not an entirely new phenomenon in Nepalese society as five decade long history of the country is replete with incidents of political instabilities. One can find the continuity of destabilization, in one way or other, since the revolution of 1951. That revolution was itself a result of change of power balance around Nepal . Despite many changes in international environment following the end of cold war, Nepal continues to struggle to survive as an independent nation and deliver goods to the people. Between two major military powers India and China , Nepal needs not a military build up but the institutional guarantees. Nepal ’s survival as a peaceful, viable economic state requires, first of all, the congenial atmosphere to accomplish institutional building process. For this, the country needs to hold a free and fair election through credible arrangements accommodating all political players.
Experiences have shown that Nepal can evolve and strengthen its democratic institutions from top to bottom only through elections. Nepal does have an experience of parliamentary democracy as the country has already held three subsequent parliamentary elections and two elections for the local bodies. One can very well compare the consequences of these two situations having or not having the institution of parliament and elected local bodies. In the past, elected institutions helped to improve the situation. Even in the background of a great popular political upheaval of 1990s- when all its supporting institutions faced challenge including the traditionally respected institution of monarchy - the election of the House of Representatives in 1991 completely changed the mood of people. The agenda were completely different as voters at the grass root were put into the focal point and all development programs were framed enjoying the motivation of popular support at the grass root. Though there was a deliberate design to omit the role of grass root self governance, democratization at the top compelled the parliament and the government to build up democratic institutions at the grass root. Having got no modern infrastructures like the colonized countries, Nepal had to develop everything from scratch. Despite lack of experiences, the performance of local self-governance had been noticed as an exemplary compared with other countries of the region. In consonance with that, various professional and interest groups started articulating their interest through associations, consumers or user groups. Since the last few years, Nepal has neither the elected parliament nor it has village self governance but the functioning of the user and consumer groups is quite visible and the interests articulated by various self governing user groups have compensated the loss of elected bodies to a certain extent.
The recent predicament has left a great lesion to the country considering its size of geography and population. Nepal has a distinct task to accomplish as the political and economic developments follow their own unique modality in Nepal . A small development at the grass root can bring about a sea change in the quality of life of the people. Nobody can understand better about the effect of democratic institutions than Nepal ’s friends from the western democratic countries. Some of them have come forward to tell this truth to our narrow minded political persons. It sounds harsh and bitter to listen to but such suggestions provide a time-tested solution for a country like Nepal . Thanks to the strong presence of functional grass root user organizations and community groups, Nepal has not reached to the level of devastation as many countries of Asia and Africa that are hit by similar conflict. Compared with Afghanistan , where the western countries have made Herculean efforts, Nepal is still a very peaceful and organized society with popularly promulgated and practiced democratic constitution. The country has all necessary institutions of democratic governance and its Supreme Court has come out, from time to time, with a landmark judgment remaining a highly respected institution. The only lacking bodies are the elected bodies at the center as well as in the villages.
Thus, the most important task in Nepal is to conduct elections for the Parliament as well as the village governance. These two events would roll the ball of democracy back. Naturally, there is no alternative way to integrate and involve the multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi-lingual nation between the two powerful neighbors and to ensure its survival in unity and prosperity. Some even blame lack of visionary leaders for present crisis. This kind of statement is common in a country where democratic institutions are completely lacking. Nobody talks about the need of a prophetic or visionary leader for a country like Switzerland , Sweden , Britain and America . It is the democratic institutions, which propel the representative of the people to fulfill the will. The dedicated and determined leaders like late B.P. Koirala can emerge through democratic institutions. Along with prosperity and peace, the elections will bring about dedicated leadership. The question is how to hold it in a credible manner by accommodating all political players. The elections would not have any meaning if it were held in a manner similar to the recently held controversial municipal elections.
|
