NATIONAL 3 -(Spotlight Weekly)

Leadership Test

Does democracy always produce an efficient and stable government?

By KESHAB POUDEL

In the 52 years since the dawn of democracy, Nepal has experimented with three political systems and four constitutions. But the core problem with all has largely remained the same: political instability and inefficiency in governance. Significantly, all constitutions and political systems were brought into existence with the professed intention of fighting corruption and advancing overall efficiency.

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990, which many have described as the most democratic constitution produced in Nepal, is facing the same kind of assaults its three predecessors did. From Nepal's foreign friends and development partners to local politicians, there is a crescendo of criticism relating to bad governance and political instability, rampant corruption and weak leadership under the current dispensation.

Supreme Court : Pillar of democracy

The observations made by foreign friends and local politicians regarding the nature of the democratic process are valid. In the 12 years since the restoration of multiparty democracy, the country has seen six prime ministers and ten governments run by all national political parties.

The country has successfully conducted three national elections and two local elections over the years. Whether it is a majority or hung parliament, however, the country has rarely seen a stable government. In the last three years, the Nepali Congress, which enjoys a comfortable majority in the House of Representatives, has produced three prime minister. The possibility for another change of leadership exists.

When developed countries and neighbors like India have been able to produce stable and strong governments, what has gone wrong in Nepal? "Unlike other democracies, Nepal has had fairly little experience and is in a different geopolitical situation," says a political analyst.

However, there is growing perception among the common people that effective and stable government may be impossible to attain in a representative democracy. Democracy and representation are strongly connected with each other. Good governance, however, can be found in systems that are not democratic. Although they may not conform to traditional definitions of democratic governance, Singapore, Malaysia and Pakistan have provided good governance to the people.

The Panchayat system in Nepal was in the process of transforming itself into a fully representative system when it collapsed in 1990, as good governance emerged as a prominent priority of the international donor community.

In a representative government, one cannot guarantee good governance. On the other hand, undemocratic systems can guarantee good governance but not representative government. The time has come to re-examine the term good governance. Is it restricted to a representative system of government or does it encompass other polities. What principles is good governance based upon? Should standards of good governance be defined within different socio-cultural and political contexts? Only then can one hope to find answers to the questions bothering the Nepalese people.

Under pressure from donors, Nepal entered the era of representative government and popular accountability in 1990. Twelve years later, the country finds itself at the same crossroads. "Democracy is a long and difficult process. One needs to have continual participation in all the phases," said Dr. Robert J. Stahl, a professor at Arizona State University. "Continual participation in the democratic process will bring changes in the quality of leadership and quality of civic society."

Nepalis have been living under a system of representative government. But the leadership hardly has had a worthy record in delivering good governance. The political leaders, who led the people in celebrating the 52nd National Democracy Day this week, must be able to inspire confidence that good governance can be produced in a representative democracy. Although this would be a painful process, it is one that has no alternative.