We have experienced three parliamentary elections and two local bodies elections so far. But after the last local body election held in 1997 when the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN-UML) swept the polls by winning more than 65 percent of the seats, other parties made hue and cry regarding free and fair election to bring improvement upon electoral process and a committee was formed to look into problems under the chairmanship of Dr Mohammad Mohsin.

After two years the last general election was held in 1999 in which the Nepali Congress became victorious by securing 113 seats. At that time, the CPN-UML and Nepal Sadbhabana Party were coalition partners in the government. After the election, CPN-UML and other parties made similar demand both inside and outside the parliament to set up a committee to look into existing electoral management and related laws to bring about improvement upon them. Subsequently, a high level committee headed by the PM was formed under whom two sub-committees - one for election management and another for electoral laws headed by two MPs were constituted.

Members of the two sub-committees have visited different development regions and collected opinions of the people. They had preliminary discussions with the election commission and will have further discussions with the EC later this month.

When we think about the demands made by political parties regarding electoral process, it reminds me of the most consistent Vedanta philosophy of Shankaracharya which is known as unqualified Monsim (Advaita Vedanta). According to Acharya Shankara, the ultimate reality is Brahman which is pure existence, pure consciousness and pure bliss called "Sacchidananda". Due to ignorance which is called Maya, the individual self thinks itself distinct from Brahman. He thinks himself as a doer, enjoyer or sufferer having identified himself with "I" getting feeling of pain and pleasure putting himself in bondage. When he approaches his teacher for salvation or Moksha his teacher teaches him the real nature of Brahman and the self by addressing him " that thou art". (Tatvamasi) ie you are Brahman. You are not what you think. To be listening to the teacher, contemplating with logic what is told by the teacher and meditating on the truth accepted, he realized that he is really Brahman, ie, "I am Brahman". Hope attains Moksha.

Shankara compares this state of individual self to that of a woman, who has her necklace on her neck but searches here and there. After finding her necklace, she does not find a new necklace because it was already there.

Similarly, politicians after getting defeated in the election raise the issue of free and fair election time and again. Before raising the issue they must look within themselves first and they will find that they are themselves responsible for unfair means adopted, if any, by them for winning elections. As a matter of fact, the ten years experience does not provide reasonable ground to look into the effectiveness of the constitution and the electoral process right now. First of all, we must think seriously whether we have failed the constitution and the electoral process or the constitution and the electoral process have failed us.

The apex constitutional body to conduct election is the Election Commission (EC) constituted by election commissioners appointed by the King on the recommendation the Constitutional Council headed by the Prime Minister. The other members are the chief justice, the speaker, the chairman of the National Assembly and the leader of the opposition in the Lower House. The election commissioners can be removed only by the motion of impeachment passed by a two third majority in the Lower House.

Next to EC, the duties of chief returning officer or returning officer are primary. At the time of election to the Lower House, the judges of the district court are made the chief returning officers in 75 districts and other officials of judicial service are appointed returning officers for the rest of the 130 constituencies. Their appointments are made strictly as per provisions of the Act. Their duties have been defined in the Act itself. The returning officers appoint polling officers and their subordinates from civil servants posted in the district. If their number is not sufficient, their requirement is met through personnel from other districts.

The duties of the polling officer have also been defined in the Act. In case of emergency, they have the right to adjourn the polling, and inform the returning officer immediately. The next date of polling is fixed by the returning officer in consultation with the Election Commission. Similarly, in case of death of any of the candidate, the returning officer has the right to postpone the poll and a revised programme is published by him as per advice of the Election Commission.

It may not be out of place to mention here that for conducting local bodies elections, the chief district officers are appointed by the Election Commission as returning officers who conduct the entire district level elections.

At the time of preparing electoral rolls which take 4 months every year by updating the rolls, the chief district officers are appointed as chief registration officers and the secretary of VDCs and wards of municipality are appointed as assistant registration officers for collecting the names of voters.

By Vinod Adhikary

Receptionists, as we studied in accounts during high school should be kind of charming and friendly. They should treat their customers with better care. They should use soft language even if we happen to do something wrong, not bark at us. Dear readers, here is a small incident that I was surprised by.

Mike, who is my friend, and me went to the British Council, at Tridevi Marg. The reason we were there wasn’t the library, but to register for the IELTS examination. We parked the motorbike right where the security guard guided us. Then we walked towards the receptionist, who was a great lady, a charming lady, and asked where the place for registering for IELTS examination was.

She told us, "It's right next to the cafeteria."

"Okay, thanks", I replied.

We then stepped out of that netted metallic door, and looked around. But we couldn’t find it. The funny thing was we didn’t even see the cafeteria, which the lady referred to. We looked around for a while looking for the "cafeteria" sign, but unlucky we, we didn’t find it. We then looked towards the lady who was at the desk. The sunlight entered through the glass window, and we looked through that netted door. Her face was partially bright and partially dark. She walked towards us, might be because she figured out we couldn’t find the room.

"There (pointing at the sign and the door), that’s the door for that room, see it's next to the cafeteria," said the lady.

"Okay great, Thank you," I replied with a smile on my face.

"No problem", was her reply to my reply.

We then went inside that partially dark, cold room and I could hear the humming sound of that old computer which was used by a middle-aged guy. The lady who we were supposed to meet was helping the man learn to use her computer. Oh great, I thought she should be a great lady, a friendly and helpful one because I saw her friendliness and her hospitality towards the man who being helped by her. She was explaining it in detail. Now that we were there, we interrupted her standing right before her and told her that we were there to register for the IELTS examination for Mike. She asked, "Both of you?"

Then I replied. "No, not me, he is the one who should get registered to sit for the examination, I just came here with him to keep company."

She didn’t say anything. Mike took the form that he filled up, and produced three required passport sized pictures and also his Nationality ID card from his bag. The lady took a look at the "stuffs" Mike showed. She held his ID and the form and repeatedly she looked at the form, ID and Mike. Mike was silent; looked real solitary, he looked aloof.

The lady asked, "Are you sure this ID is yours, because this picture doesn’t look like yours?"

"Of course that’s mine, and the picture isn’t that old it’s about one and a half months old, I guess that will work, besides there isn’t much change in me that makes it look like that picture isn’t mine."

"Well, this won’t work I need a different picture of yours, a recent one. And how can you lie to me, this ID shows that this ID was issued on the year 2038 BS", she said in a rude accent.

Her showy pride made me smile within. Anger was mounting too and I said, " That is his birth date lady, not the date the ID was issued."

"Oh", she replied.

Mike in a silent accent said, "Can you not make it work with it, I will bring a new one to you later." "Okay, I guess, but bring it before the examination is held or else I will not let you appear in the examination."

Now my temper was going up. I was angry already, which made me say, "What kind of person are you, first of all you don’t know how to look at an ID, not those rare ones, but a Nationality ID card, and second thing is one and a half months isn’t that old for a photograph of a grown up."

Very rudely she said "Okay I don’t care, all I need is a new photograph of yours before you take the examination or else I won’t let you appear in the examination."

"Now go and make a copy for your ID and bring it to me," she said.

What is it for, I think I did everything listed on the "Requirements" of that form." "No, we need one." She said without even paying attention to the form.

We went out and made a copy of the ID and then came back in. We then handed in the replicated ID; she stapled the papers all together and reminded us again.

"Now don’t forget what I’ve said, I need a recent picture of yours before the examination is held. Or else..."

The brouhaha in both houses of parliament over and around comments made by film personality Mohan Niraula in the presence of Dhirendra Shah, youngest brother of King Birendra, invites an intellectual enquiry into the health of democracy in Nepal today.

Quo vadis: At the very outset, however, it may be salutary to note not only the fate of democracy in neighbouring Pakistan and in the more distant Fiji islands but also US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s recent lament that "the democratic tide that began in Latin America two decades ago is being threatened by persistent poverty and ineffective government."

Returning to this country, however, one notes that none other than Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala himself has ruefully admitted that "democracy is yet to be firmly established in Nepal because elections have not been impartial."

He then recalled that after the general election in May last year, even constituents of the election government had complained about electoral malpractice. From that the prime minister correctly deduced that "there must be something wrong somewhere."

Precisely the same point was made, if in another form, by Bishnu Pratap Shah, the Chief Election Commissioner, who confessed that "the Election Commission could not conduct elections fairly and impartially due to the lack of efficiency and discipline in the administrative machinery and also due to politicisation of the administrative machinery."

Much less noticed is the new, interesting role in Nepali politics now being sought to be played by expatriate Nepalese and their foreign friends and lobbies in the United States.

As much is suggested by the manner, in which support is being harnessed there for former prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba for his bid for prime ministership and/or party presidency against unstated, but known, rivals in the Nepali Congress leadership.

Will that not provoke other "second generation wallahs" in the ruling party to neutralise Deuba’s seeming advantage by garnering similar support, say, from extraneous sources closer home?

And if such a game of political one-upmanship is carried out by political figures and their respective backers in foreign lands to its logical end is there any guarantee at all that dangerous distortions will not be injected into the body politics?

If such a trend becomes permanent, what would that signify about the health and future of Nepal’s fragile neo-democracy?

Intolerance: Coming, now, to citizen Dhirendra Shah, whose title was taken away from him more than a decade ago, it is astounding if revealing that both houses of parliament went into a frenzy of criticism--mainly on account of what someone else (ie, Niraula) rashly threatened to do in an emotional fit!

How democratic was that? And how fair was it for our MPs to bring up Dhirendra’s personal life, decision to live in London and then return, leavened with allegations of the wildest sort--just because he exercised his democratic right as a citizen to voice his opinion about the current political situation in which they do not come out smelling roses all the way?

Moreover, what is one to say about Home Minister Govinda Raj Joshi’s dire warning that "those trying to undermine the multi-party system would face grave consequences?"

Is criticism of the visible, abject failures in democratic governance tantamount to "undermining" the multi-party system of government? If so, it must be as stable as a house of cards!

Should all newspapers in the private domain, including this daily, shut down because frequently criticism is targeted at the government for perceived failure of governance--or worse.

In any case, the collective refrain about the immutable sanctity of the multi-party system is all too redolent of the claim, made ad nauseum in the Panchayat period, that there is no alternative to the partyless polity!

Besides, what kind of message does our MPs’ knee-jerk reaction send to the planet at large? Is such a pathological intolerance of criticism in sync with the image of a mature or thriving democratic order that they would love the world to have?

Why, indeed, should there have been such panic in the houses of parliament--and in sections of the media--when all that Dhirendra himself said was? "Ten years democracy has fuelled disillusionment... There is no political code of conduct and anyone can do anything one chooses. This is anarchy."

While such a sentiment would surely be widely shared among the populace, even if only Dhirendra Shah held that view surely he would be entitled--in a democracy--to give expression to it.

If not, how is Nepal’s post-1990 multi-party democracy an improvement on the partyless panchayat dispensation that it replaced to great public jubilation?

Truth to tell, the over reaction by MPs and others to the Dhirendra/Niraula business is very possibly because their dissenting views cut, as they say, too close to the bone.

Phrased differently, if Nepalese democracy was really doing as well as our MPs, and others would have us all believe, why then should they go off their collective handle just because a few individuals, whatever their background, say otherwise?

Maoists: Besides, if everything on the political front was peaches and cream, how is one to explain the phenomenon of the Maoist movement and its popularity--at least amongst a sizeable segment of the Nepali population?

The unpalatable fact is, of course, that Nepalese democracy is undermined not by criticism from the likes of Dhirendra Shah but, as Madeleine Albright stated in the context of Latin America, because of "persistent poverty and ineffective government."