National 1 (Spotlight Weekly)

Democracy Or Autocracy?

Girija Prasad Koirala asserts sole control over transfer of leadership in the party

By A KESHAB POUDEL

Nepali Congress leader Girija Prasad Koirala has declared that he would hand over the party's leadership to the second generation in case the Supreme Court reinstates the House of Representatives. Koirala's declaration shows that leadership change in the party depends more on his mood and preferences, rather than on any internal democratic exercise.

This assertion by Koirala, a leader who has had such a long experience and made immense sacrifices in the struggle against autocracy, exposes shallowness of democracy inside the Nepali Congress. How can Koirala claim to be a democratic leader if party workers have to wait for his decree on leadership change?

Koirala : Time buying

In a democratic party, leadership cannot be handed over on the wish or whim of its leaders. The decision must be made in a democratic contest. Instead of challenging his party colleagues to win the leadership through elections, Koirala is trying to show that he, too, is no different than other leaders of developing countries.

"If change of leadership is determined by the personal wish of the party leaders, how can democracy flourish?" asks a political analyst. "The change of leadership should be based on the wishes and will of the party workers."

Koirala's convictions seem to be no different than those of his student turned arch rival, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, who forced a leadership change through questionable means. "We decided to replace Girijababu following his decision not to hand over the leadership to the second generation," said Deuba, who was declared elected as party president by an assembly of workers gathered in Kathmandu for what was initially described as informal consultations.

It seems that Nepali Congress leaders are preaching democracy to suit their own interests, rather than to promote the cause of freedom, transparency and accountability. In developing countries like Nepal, it is always the wish of leaders that has determined the future of the party leadership.

In a traditional society like Nepal, leaders are always chosen with the blessings from the top, not the support of party workers or on the basis of personal popularity among the rank and file. From what Koirala is saying, the leadership of the Nepali Congress will go to people whom the party supremo thinks is best suited.

Just like Deuba engineered Koirala's removal by flouting the principle of elections, the septuagenarian leader, too, is driven by a highly personal selection procedure. "I have a clear idea about when to resign from the leadership of the party. I will definitely hand over the leadership to the young generation in case the house is restored," said Koirala, indicating his disdain for the sentiments prevailing in the party.

Although Koirala's arrogant challenge is undemocratic, he has established that there are no political leaders who can challenge his leadership until he steps down voluntarily. "The question of transfer of leadership in the Nepali Congress is a typical example of a traditional society where no one challenges elderly family members. The Nepali Congress is more like a family organization, rather than a democratic organization," says a political analyst. That's probably why you see a lot of second-generation Congress leaders running behind the supremo to get his blessings.