Challenges To Democracy: The Role of Political Parties in Nepal

-Rabindra Khanal

1. Introduction

If democracy is one of the most valued political concepts in the modern world it is also one of the vaguest ones. It is a system of government developed in the west some 2500 years ago that has traversed several phases of history. It has been defined and deliberated upon by the politicians, political scholars and common people in a hundred different ways. Because of this vagueness and flexibility, countries with every political system have claimed that they are the true democracy. But what really is democracy?

The common lexicographical meaning of democracy, which it had since the days of Athenian greatness, is ‘government or rule by the people’. It refers, that is, to a method of governing, and done so by specifying who rules, or makes the binding policy decision in a state. Any contemporary attempt at a definition will cause less confusion if it keeps close to this original meaning of democracy given to it by long historical usage.

In this classical concept of democracy 'government by the people' it is expected that the people will not be subject to arbitrary imposition of government and that they will participate in the process of decision making. But the concept in literal sense can hardly operate in the large communities as we have today. The representative character of democracy in the present context has replaced ‘Rule by the people’.

Role of Political Parties in Democracy:

Political parties are the inseparable elements of representative democracy. The existence of political opposition - by organized political party - is the litmus-paper test of democracy. As Waber calls them the children of democracy without whom the future of democracy is uncertain. Burke argues that "party divisions, whether on the whole operating for good or evil, are things inseparable from free governments". Thus, the existence and importance of the political parties can not be denied even today.

Role of Political Parties in the Democratic Movement in Nepal

The concept of party politics is relatively new in Nepalese politics as compared to the West. They emerged as oppositional forces to the Rana regime in the 1940s. Their involvement in the anti-Rana movement brought down the regime. But the terms and conditions that overthrew this regime were not at all healthy towards a democratic system. The process of settlement left a deep-rooted dissatisfaction among the political parties, which was responsible for the collapse of multiparty democracy in 1960 to a large extent.

In regards to the collapse of the party system in Nepal, there are several arguments but the main culprits in this direction were the political parties themselves. When Nepali congress emerged as the strongest ruling party after 1959 General Election, the other parties refused to cooperate with it. The opposition parties opposed the ruling party only for the sake of opposition without having any definite political ideology. In the same way the ruling party ignored the existence of the opposition in the parliament notwithstanding the general principles of democratic governance.

Another important factor that led to the collapse of the party system in Nepal in 1960 was their very character. None of the political parties had reached down to the grassroots. They were superficial in their relation with the people, had no political agenda in meeting their demands and concentrated more in coming to power at the centre than in organizing the political forces at the local level. The political parties were also unable to fill in the gaps in the rural sector that were created by the fall of Rana regime because the social and economic structures of the Rana period were still functioning. Those structures were not replaced by the new democratic structures.

After 1960, throughout the Panchayat period, the important political parties functioned as the oppositional forces from within and outside the country. They even hoped to revive the democratic system through armed revolution but due to the unfavourable international situation and especially the deviation in the Indian attitude compelled them to change their strategy. The Nepali Congress leaders initiated a policy of reconciliation in 1975.

The student protest in 1979 brought one of the biggest crises in the Panchayat system. The result of this crisis was the proclamation of National referendum on whether to retain the Panchayat polity or to restore the multi party system. The referendum went in favour of Panchayat with a close margin. The result was accepted by most of the political parties hoping to achieve due respect for the minority view by a reformed Panchayat system. Some of them even joined the Panchayat system proclaiming that they will expose the system from the very door step of the Rastriya Panchayat. In course of this professed vow of exposing the system, some were liquidated in the Panchayat polity and some managed to create certain discontainment in the house.

By this time, the international situation had changed in favour of democratic movement around the world. These changes not only encouraged the Nepali political parties in general but also led some of the Nepali Communist Parties to reassess their view of 'bourgeois democracy' and to consider cooperation with Nepali Congress in the restoration of democracy. Nepali Congress announced its plan for the movement for multi party system to be launched on February 18 and called upon the left parties to cooperate. As a result seven of the various communist groups formed the United Left Front (ULF) and joined with the Nepali Congress in organizing the campaign, which they should have done a thirty years ago in protecting the system.

Besides the international situation, the situation at home was not at all satisfactory. The harsh reality upon the lives of the people was intensified by trade embargo imposed by the Indian government. The market price was beyond the capability of the general people. Things of utmost necessity were not available in the market. As a result, people were discontented loosing all the hopes and patience and were ready to plunge in a bloody revolution at any time. The political parties were quick enough to exploit these situations and were successful in their endeavor in about one and half months.

Role of Political Parties after 1990 Mass Movement

One of the important attributes of the 1990 mass movement was the recognition of multi party system. The ban imposed on political parties were lifted and some of them were included in the coalition government formed right after the movement where as the others were given place in the Constitution drafting committee. By the end of the year, at least 40 other political parties were established out of which only 23 actually participated in the general election of 1991. After the election only seven political parties managed to send their representatives in the National Legislature

The nature of composition of the 1st Parliament was quite ssatisfactory. The ruling party had a comfortable majority and the opposition was strong enough to protect the constitutional provisions for a smooth practice of democracy. In fact, the two major coalition partners of the mass uprising were in power and they had enough scope in promoting and institutionalizing the democratic values in the country. They could have changed the whole nation into a perfect democratic society but the reality was different. The political parties returned back to their original style of hostility and arrogance. The government could not sustain the opposition coming from within and outside the party, the result of which was the mid term election.

The second government was a minority government of the CPN-UML. It had more obstacles in promoting democracy than the previous government because the very composition of the Parliament was not favourable for a smooth democratic practice. The working style of the government and the perception of the opposition created deeper mistrust among the political parties from the very beginning. Two coalition governments and a minority government of Nepali Congress followed the failure of this government after nine months. In course of these four years, the only ambition of all the political parties were to make and unmake the governments. They were not concerned about the democratic practices and the institutionalization of the democratic governance.

The power equation in the parliament after the third general election brought back some hope giving the majority to a single party. But the working style of the government and its conflict with its own party brought down the government led by Prime Minister K.P.Bhattari. Girija Prasad Koirala has become the Prime Minister once again but this change of leadership has not shown any significant change in the Nepalese politics yet.

Looking back, into these past ten years, there is very little to be satisfied on the role of the political parties in the promotion of the democratic values, but still some positive aspects of them can not be ignored. In spite of the political instability at the centre, they have been fairly successful in promoting the political consciousness among the people. Their involvement in three general elections and two local elections has strengthened the electoral process of democracy. The transfer of power from one government to another government has fairly been smooth. Several bills in the parliament have been passed to strengthen democracy. The political parties will certainly have to do more, for tomorrow is brighter than today.

Challenges to Democracy in the 21st century:

"Freedom" warned the great French philosopher of democracy, Jean Jacque Rousseau "is a food easy to eat but hard to digest". For democracy is not simply an ideal to be realized once and for all, or a blue print to be produced and then reproduce around the world. It is not a destination - it is a journey, a road men and women walk that may traverse many difficult terrain. Nepal's democratic journey is not easy too. Years of feudocracy, isolation from the rest of the world, several hierarchies based on caste and creeds, conservative political ideologies and the most backward economic infrastructures have made the country one of the poorest in the world. Against this background, a road to democracy for Nepal is not going to be bed of roses. The country will have to face a lot of challenges in the years to come.

Some of the challenges that are serious in running democracy smoothly in Nepal are discussed below.

Lack of political vision:

Political parties as well as the intellectuals, today, have not considered the boundary created by the constitution. Does the constitution allow a republican state? Is there a provision for a single party rule without an opposition? Does the constitution say something about the rule of proletariat? Does it say anything about the tribal federalism or regional federalism? These are some of the fundamental questions on which the political leaders and the intellectuals must think. On the other hand, if anyone does not want to be bound by the prevailing constitution or function only in condition then they must be ready for a bigger revolution, which only may create the favourable environment for them. Otherwise the conditions in the existing system must be strengthened.

Our parliament, no doubt, is very strong but not as strong as the British Parliament. Nepal's condition of monarchy is also different to that of the British monarchy. This traditional institution with a very strong base is not that easily manipulated by any of the political forces. People have their own choices and are fragmented into several faiths and beliefs. Uniting people for a single purpose is out of question. In short, the Nepali socio-economic and political condition is totally different to any other existing system of the world. The remedy is neither the strictness of the western democracy nor the policies adopted by Lenin and Mao Tse-tung. Thus, the political parties, their leaders and the Nepali intellectuals need to posses clear vision in regards to the future course of democracy in Nepal.

Conflict Between Nationalism and Democracy

Nationalism and democracy are the two sides of a coin. Only a strong nation can enjoy the fruits of democracy. Constant threat to the national security compels the countries to be alert all the time. Nepal's sentiment of nationalism has both positive and negative impact in its political development. Positively, the country has been able to stand against any encroachment either from outside or within the country. This has helped to consolidate the people of various origins into a single nation. Negatively, nationalism has prevented the development of social and political belief of the people.

In case of democracy, the negative role of nationalism has always been taken for granted. The first government of B.P.Koirala in 1960 was overthrown on the charge of anti-nationalism. The role of political parties during the Panchayat period was viewed as anti-national. The concept of democracy itself was linked with anti-nationalism for a very long time. The notion of nationalism and anti-nationalism in Nepal is the product of its size and location which can be called as the "small nation psychology'. Even after the restoration of democracy the idea has not died down. It is still in use in the negative form creating a lot of mistrust among the political parties. If this kind of conflict between nationalism and democracy continues and if these two concepts can not be blended together, the result will be negative even for the survival of democracy.

Poverty of the Masses:

The present estimate of absolute poor in Nepal ranges between 50 to 60 percent of the total population, or between 10 million to 12 million people. If the perception that poor countries can not afford democracy is true, then democracy can not co-exist with a condition of widespread poverty as in the case in Nepal - a country with one of the world's lowest per capita incomes, and if we really want democracy, the situation has to be changed. But how and who will change the situation. ? Who has the time to work for the poor ? Where are the plans and efforts in changing the situation ? These are the fundamental questions to be considered by the politicians and the political parties if they really want to continue the present democratic system.

Lack of adequate Political Culture

Nepal's existing political and social culture may be another greatest challenge to democracy in the years to come. Political culture represents the values, believes, attitudes and faiths towards the political system. The legacy of the Rana regime overlapped in the Panchayat regime is still continuing. 104 years of Rana rule had handicapped the people for any kind of logical thinking and had made them feel that their problem and misery were the product of their fate. The Ranas maintained the traditional socio-economic and political structures in order to keep people under their strict dominance. The Panchayat regime on the other hand motivated people to be most individualistic.

The present political culture of Nepal is the carry over of these two past regimes. The new democratic system introduced some 10 years ago has not been able to change the people's mind in furthering the democratic process in the country. The present perversion in the party hierarchy, indiscipline, corruption in the political leaders and bureaucrats are all the products of the past legacy. The Rana style of bossism and the Panchayati style of greed is still prevalent everywhere and if an adequate political culture is not induced among the people, democracy will only be a cry in the wilderness.

Feudal structure of the Society

Nepal has entered into a new era of democracy but the structure of the society is not that suitable in the sense of modern democracy. Caste system prevails very strongly among the Hindus. Buddhists are supposed to be non-caste groups but they also are divided into several castes. Tribal have their own castism may be little different to the Hindus. In each caste group, there is superior-inferior feeling and the concept of equality required for democratic ideals are nowhere to be found. This phenomenon of the society can not be changed over night. The laws made by the state in this regard can have no effect unless people themselves are socially and politically conscious. The state can only create a viable condition for this purpose

Conclusion

"Democracy is the worst system of government but is the best among the prevailing ones." According to this notion, countries of the world have adopted this system to pursue their dreams and have tried to convert them into reality through politics. The fall of a country like Soviet Union and many other authoritarian regimes around the world have proved that there is no better system than democracy. Democracy promotes the dignity of the mankind and opens the door for his all round development. Nepal has adopted democracy with the same purpose.

Nepal has restored the multi party democracy after thirty years of interval through a popular movement. People have become the sovereign, party system has been reinstalled and more so the king agreed to be the constitutional monarch. Accordingly a democratic constitution was guaranteed and three of the general elections have already been conducted in way of democratic practice. There is no problem with the prerequisites of democracy but only with the operation.

Democracy is certainly not an easy road for a country like Nepal. There are many hurdles and challenges to be faced before the realization of a full-fledge democracy. The social, cultural and economic background of the country come in the way of the proper functioning of the democracy but if there is a strong political commitment among the political leaders and if they can prepare the general mass to that direction, democracy will be easy to eat and digest.

Headline | | 5 Question  | Editorial | Letter | 2nd Impression | | International | Past |