A Decade Of Democracy
The Ecstasy & The Agony

By Anand Shrestha

The fault dear Brutus is not in our stars,
But in ourselves that we are underlings.
Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

WHILE waiting for the office bus the other day with colleagues, the trend of conversation somehow, dwelt on the coming Falgun 7 — or Prajatantra Diwas as it is better known— and the developments achieved, if any, in these ten years of multiparty rule. Normally a discussion on the topic usually draws a volley of the choicest words and adjectives from all national languages of the Kingdom. But on this particular occasion, we commonly agreed on a sober and a more dignified Prajatantra Diwas as being more appropriate for the coming occasion, considering what the country had "achieved" in these ten years of multi party rule. The term we agreed on can hardy be refuted considering the fiscal and political indiscipline prevalent among most of our politicians and that certain recklessness and "the freedom to do what you please" attitude among lesser mortals on the streets and elsewhere.

Hope
The Jana Andolan or the people’s movement in Nepal in the year 1990 celebrated the overthrow of thirty years of partyless Panchayat rule and in its place legislated a multiparty democracy. The people ardently hoped that the new and much coveted political dispensation the world over would usher in an era of development and prosperity and that it would be a quick fix to all the country’s ills. But sadly this was destined not to be. Although the movement for the restoration of democracy has been portrayed as a glorious revolution that ushered in a people-oriented democratic era, based on freedom and human rights, the new political system as envisioned has so far failed miserably in making Nepali citizens into a democratised society. Moreover, it has likewise failed to uplift the lives of the ever-increasing, hungry millions squirming below the poverty line.

Looking back at the last ten years of multiparty democracy in Nepal leaves no space whatsoever to be even reasonably optimistic. Though Nepal today practices the formalities of representative parliamentary democracy, in reality it only differs superficially from the absolute rule that the people overthrew in 1990. Despite the rhetoric surrounding the mass movement there has been no clear break with the past. Instead democracy has well disguised the continued influence of the traditional ruling elite and moreover the rampant corruption that has become the order of the day. Though the power structure has remained undisturbed, elected government(s) however, cannot "pass the buck" and must therefore bear full responsibility for a weak democratic culture and extreme polarization within and between political parties and institutions. Insecurity, political instability, rising prices, economic stagnation, rampant corruption and inequality have also become the hallmark of our peculiar brand of democracy.

In short, democracy in these ten years has fallen far below people’s expectations; has seen nothing but power politics in the raw; and the much-needed politics of development still remains a far cry. In the last ten years, we have seen a change in six prime ministers, experienced three general elections and in addition two mid-term polls. We have also in these ten years seen all the major political parties, singly or in a coalition, come in and go out of power. This in turn also effected major changes in key positions in all other sectors with the result that there was no continuation in matters of policy and follow up programs. The end result of these ten years boils down to the fact that the average Nepali today, is a disillusioned and frustrated individual hankering after a political system of a not so democratic past. In other words they conclude that "the Panchayat system was far better than the democracy that we are reported to be blissfully enjoying at the moment."

The four year old Maobadi uprising in the north western hills is the direct outcome of the non-performance of various governments, of all hues, colors and combinations, the country has seen in this short period. Today, by default, and as a result of sheer non-performance of government(s) the Maobadis have loomed large on the political horizon in just a matter of four years. Laying the blame squarely on the media for the sad state of affairs and using the Maobadis as convenient scapegoats for "constantly threatening democracy" is nothing but a desperate cover up for the government(s) faults and shortcomings and not being able to deliver the goods in spite of repeated promises. Such a move is pathetic to say the least and at the most politically naive.

However, all is not lost, at least yet. The damage caused is reversible and certainly not beyond repair. It would as a matter of fact be a trifle immature to pass final judgement and assess a multiparty democratic form of government in just a matter of ten years. There is, and can be no alternative to a multiparty democracy and that is the gospel truth. But what is required is good governance, a strong political commitment and a dedicated competent leadership. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal drawn up in 1990 provides ample legal grounds for a legitimate, transparent and accountable parliamentary system of governance. The politicians and political parties must gear themselves up and evolve a democratic culture conducive to such governance. For good governance to emerge, all the political parties must adhere to the promises made in their political manifestos, live up to the expectations of the people and revive their faith in democracy, a political dispensation they fought, bled and died for not very long ago. A serious commitment towards democracy has been long overdue and the concerned political parties must drill serious discipline into the rank and file of the party members.

Imperative
For democracy to take firm root, it is also imperative for the intellectuals, the press, the judiciary to turn non partisan and uphold democratic norms, ideals and practices in the true sense and not just provide lip service as they have been doing all these years. Democracy does not take root through excruciatingly agonizing marathon speeches alone. The people have had enough of it in these ten years, are absolutely fed up of the practice and are seriously looking for performance and concrete results. Going by the rampant corruption at the political level, the somewhat chaotic law and order situation, rising prices, numerous scandals, and political instability in these ten years, it will be wise for the politicians to remember that they are equally, if not more of a threat to the country’s fragile democracy. The guts to realise, if not admit, this reality and consequent follow up action can save, strengthen and stabilise democracy in the country.

Democracy Day: Some Stray Thoughts

By Bijay Aryal

DEMOCRACY DAY has been celebrated every year since 2007 BS to mark the fall of the Rana regime and the introduction of democracy into the country for the first time in the history. The pattern of celebration has been more or less the same. Celebrating Democracy Day means your commitment to it and that there is democracy in the country. This is a word liked by everybody but not practised by everybody. But everybody wants to be called democratic. Even the worst of dictates calls his system of governance a democratic one. But it has been as much abused as it is popular.

Looking back over the past five decades in our own country, we can see how it was appropriated by the opposite of democracy. The first decade after the fall of the Rana regime was spent in political manoeuvering by rival political forces to get the upper hand in the bargain. That is why it took a full decade for the general elections to be held for the first time in Nepal, that, too, under a very diluted Constitution. During that lost one decade, Democracy Day was celebrated too, though democracy was not practiced in a fitting manner.

The first elected government was barely one and a half year into its first term in office, and the Royal takeover of 2017 BS did away with democracy. But autocracy day was never celebrated even after that. The same Democracy Day was celebrated in each of the 30 years of the Panchayat’s partyless period, with even greater fanfare than in post-Jana Andolan period. The Panchas posed themselves as great ‘democrats’ and they publicly claimed that the Panchayat was the best democratic system in the world. They used to call it Panchayat democracy. This proves the popularity of the concept of democracy. In providing yourself what you are not, you need to pretend to be the most ardent advocates of what you are not.

Then came the multiparty system again. Most panchas fitted themselves into the new system. They did not want to hear even the name Panchayat for fear of being tainted with it, though in fact they had been deep-dyed in it for all those years. A handful of those left out in the cold are clamouring for the blood of democracy. It is true that the governments that have come in and gone out during the post-Jana Andolan period have not been able to deliver the goods. The public has felt a sense of despair against the high hopes they had pinned on the multiparty system and its leaders. This is true.

Taking advantage of this weakness, the hardcore supporters of the erstwhile Panchayat system have begun to raise their head calling for the abolition of the present political system on the grounds that it has failed. In too general terms, they say that the former system was a better one. If this is democracy, we should finish it off and bring in the old system, they argue. They are sophists.

What was the condition of Nepal during the 30 years of the Panchayat? How did it compare with other countries of the world in economic performance? The record was dismal. A number of countries which were economically comparable to Nepal when Panchayat was forced on the Nepalese people had already left Nepal far behind, beyond comparison at the end of the partyless system. In political terms, the system was the antithesis of democracy. Poet Bhupi Sherchan wrote then, "To the south is such a country where the people can speak but do not have much to eat/ To the north is such a country where everybody has something to eat but nobody can speak. And between the two is such a country where you can neither eat nor speak." At least now, we have the right to speak in a high degree. A bird in hand is better than two in the bush. Those who deprived the Nepalese people both the birds are trying now to take away the one in their hand today.

Prime Minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai hit the nail on the other day when he spelled out whence the threat to Nepalese democracy came. The ultra-leftists and the ultra-rightists he clearly mentioned. No other prime minister in the post-Jana Andolan period has so far been able to say a spade a spade regarding the threat to democracy. Many leaders including prime ministers in the democratic era have spoke of the threat to democracy in vague terms, without letting their hearers know even a hint of who posed the threat. Bhattarai had left nothing to speculation. He said what he wanted to say in crystal-clear terms. For that he deserves the praise of all democrats. If you do not know the enemies how can you be on guard against them?

Democracy Day should not be celebrated in a mechanical way — to pay paeans to democracy, fake or real, and to those who had contributed to it. Every Democracy Day should be observed in a stock-taking manner. On this day every Nepalese should undertake a sensible review of how democracy has been functioning in Nepal; what are the roadblocks to its proper working? How can it be improved? What is the duty of the individual understanding such a review towards making democracy stronger? We should ask ourselves: Have the party and the individual representatives we voted for last time done anything to deserve a second electoral victory? If not, we should say no to them.

But the strong thing about democracy is that like every ruler who wants to associate his rule with democracy, though in name, it is loved by the people. The leaders may be corrupt and irresponsible, but nowhere have the people launched a popular movement against democracy itself. Only Pakistan-style or Panchayat-style takeover may suspend democracy through brute force. But people have never voted against democracy itself, though they may vote against their leaders. This is because the people, even in the despairing mood, do not vote against themselves.

Freedom And Prosperity

By Gandhi Raj Kafle

FALGUN 7, the Democracy Day we celebrate every year, heralds the love for freedom of the people and the King in Nepal. Genuine love calls for sacrifice. The history of revolution of Nepalese society for democracy shows they have made it and our martyrs are the best example. Equally illustrious and well-praised both by the people and the historians of home and abroad was the role played by late King Tribhuvan Bir Bikram Shah Dev, the Father of Nation.

Had the revolution of 1950 not succeeded, for example, King Tribhuvan would have been overthrown forever. This is, no doubt, another saga of sacrifice of the great event from the King’s side and our history will always take note of it.

If we look at the current political spectrum of Nepal, it’s not difficult for us to find lots of elderly leaders, who can boast even today for participating in the 1950 revolution. They perhaps know why the nation opted to make a solemn sacrifice for democracy. The significance of Falgun 7 in context of regional and global awakening for the people’s rights and freedom for politically exploited people cannot be described in words. Falgun Seven while being marked every year, tries to convey the real message of the saga of that day in Nepal for today’s generation and the tradition and festivity will continue in future also.

In fact, freedom is the soul of human personality. We got it from the revolution of 1950. We must be grateful to our beloved King Tribhuvan, the martyrs, all the leaders, who championed the cause of freedom (to quote a few names for example B.P. Koirala and Tanka Prasad Acharya) and the people of Nepal at large, living and dead. If we show respect in this fashion on the day of democracy or in the Week of the Martyrs, it would be certainly an appropriate tribute.

But, freedom is a relative term. The state machinery, political organisations, social bodies and academic organisations should learn to work carefully because freedom has its delicate balance. Democracy being a development-friendly-political-set up, the socio-economic progress we make under it also comes automatically for our discussion in this context. More promptly we deliver public services, more dutiful we become and more progress we will be able to achieve in the country; the relative values of democracy too become more meaningful. To tell the truth, if we succeed in it, it would be a meaningful tribute to our national heroes, who fought for democracy in the revolution of 1950.

Today, we are celebrating national Democracy Day once again. Right now, the millennium enthusiasm, like elsewhere in the world, has gripped the Nepalese also. The people of the world also say — the 21st century would be a century of economic progress, freedom and scientific discovery. Nepal’s dismal record on all these spheres of development has worried all of the freedom loving people. The democratic freedom we have today to be dutiful guaranteeing almost rights has to be utilised strategically for the economic freedom too. If our leaders honestly lead Nepal in the new century with vision, it would be another apt tribute to our freedom fighters, who sacrificed their lives for democracy in 1950

As everyone knows economic freedom is not possible in today’s narrow job market in Nepal. Economic activities, especially industrial, have to be expanded. Regional and global markets, which being a land-locked country are very important for us, have to be explored.

Nepal, in this new century, must succeed in establishing its own economic identity. Mobilisation of abundantly available natural resources for the maximum benefit of the people will surely help us achieve this common goal. However, the development of leadership, for which democratic set-up created after the restoration of multi-party democracy in 1990, must be tangible.

Nevertheless, on all these issues of economic freedom our government, our leaders, the country’s economic organisations for that matter and more importantly we people are here to translate the vision of prosperity into reality dreamt by yesterday’s freedom fighters. Conclu-sively, they have given us freedom and it is our duty to make national economic progress. This will be a true tribute to all, who successfully led the revolution of 1950 in Nepal.