Political Institutionalisation and Democratic Consolidation in Nepal

-Dr. Gopal Pokhrel, Patan Multiple Campus

Introduction: Institution building is a critical requirement for stability and order in society. A noted scholar, Samuel P. Huntington holds that popular participation and social mobilisation, two common indicators of political development could lead to instability and decay in the absence of adaptable, complex, autonomous and coherent institutions capable of managing such participation and mobilisation. Therefore, the term political institutionalisation has become popular among social scientists, which requires clear operational definition. In fact, it is a process whereby a political structure is made operational in accordance with stipulated rules and procedures enabling regularised predictable pattern of political behaviour and foundation of effective development of policies as well as application of justice.

The process of institution building requires careful scrutiny and if handled properly would enhance political consolidation by ensuring people's participation in a meaningful manner. In other words, it involves complex process of governance, demanding the skill of political management, aims at maintaining order, ensuring popular legitimacy, and responding to problems through appropriate mechanisms and strategies. It provides the basic needs of the people including human rights, tries to develop effectiveness and accountability of power elite are the most crucial components of a modern state where rule of law prevails. All these ingredients, notions, vital for the modern states need to be institutionalised so as to strengthen the democratic structure. It is paradoxical to note that most of the third world countries even those with long democratic tradition of governance are prone to personalised rule. Nepal, a country, which was, confined to isolationism for more than a century is not an exception either.

The quest for institutionalisation in the modern sense of the term started relatively late in Nepal. The institution building, indeed, is one of the core components for the modernisation of the society. The rationalisation of authority, legitimisation of power, secularisation of values and beliefs and democratisation of the polity etc, need to be institutionalised for the overall process of change that pave the way towards modernisation. Although, attempts to institutionalisation of modern Nepal were initiated with the process of unification two hundred years ago by King Prithvi Narayan Shah, the episode of 1846-Kot Massacre-, being conceived for the fulfilment of personal and familial aspiration, instigated and backed by colonial power under the then prevailing circumstances in the sub-continent, is largely responsible for the regressive course of action to a considerable extent. The attempts and endeavours in reference to governance of the polity were severely restricted and monopolised and were based on pre-emptory command of the individual in this Himalayan Kingdom. The concept of institution building based on democratic political culture was missing in the society, which impeded the course of modernisation leading the country into a state of backwardness, poverty and destitution. The polity of the nation, which could have charted out the course of action towards evolving an egalitarian society, was forced to follow the system of governance in accordance with the whims and the fancy of the individual ruler. Thus, the tasks of institution building in the process of political modernisation for the Nepalese society was a far cry and almost unknown to the major bulk of the populace until the political insurrection of 1950-51.

With the new political order in the Kingdom, King Tribhuvan made a proclamation on February 18, 1951 introducing Interim Government of Nepal Act, laid the foundation having far reaching implications on the political institutionalisation and modernisation in the life of the nation. The Interim constitution of 1951, the first ever implemented in Nepal, provided constitutional basis to new political order, gave the administration a theory and a new philosophy. It set up a democratic form of government with the King as constitutional head. This marked the beginning of a new epoch in the modern history of Nepal. Nepal made large-scale efforts in creating institution by the inducement of reforms by India, the UN and the USA etc.

The problem of nation building indeed, an arduous task that demands meticulous actions and orientation while devising suitable institutions, covering multifaceted change in citizens' attitude and behaviour. In the process a nation has to pass through different stages of crisis. To overcome such a state, a nation requires a good visible theory that tries to mould the society in a good shape. If the theory is good and based on ground realities, obviously, it helps in evolving dedicated leadership that sincerely and successfully grapples with the baffling problems devising a suitable mechanism.

After 1951, almost for a decade, Nepal experimented a system of governance of parliamentary model on trial and error basis. This period was most thrilling years of post-revolutionary Nepal when familial politics was replaced by party politics and attempts were made to modernise and democratise the administration and the polity. Political parties were entrusted to take up the challenge of institution building, which would consolidate the process for promoting broad national interests.

The parliamentary elections ever held in Nepal under the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1959, sufficiently provided ground for the operation of polity on party line and as such Nepali Congress came out victorious in the general election with 74 seats out of 109 based on adult franchise.

The exercise facilitated institutional arrangements adequately and explicitly for the smooth transition for the consolidation of democracy in Nepal. The NC government did take some positive steps towards institutionalisation by trying to build infrastructure while introducing innovative measures. But high senses of public accountability, coupled with firm determination and above all political acumenship etc. were lacking in the functioning of the government. Factionalism, opportunism, corruption, favouritism, nepotism and adhocism were the order of the day that created chaos and a great deal of confusion in the society. Institutional efforts were pushed into oblivion and as a result, King Mahendra, an ambitious and determined leader, on the pretext of building democracy from the grass root level, dissolved the only elected parliament, dismissing Bisheshwar Prasad,(BP) Koirala's ministry, having hardly worked for 18 months. The move on the part of the King caused a setback in the democratic experimentation and institution-building process in Nepal. Some of the native and outside scholars have taken the episode as historic one but the subsequent steps undertaken by the King imposing a ban on the institution of political parties made the base of political institutionalisation parochial. The promulgation of 1962 constitution restricted politically organised efforts of the people towards institution building and democratisation. Thus, the Nepalese experiment and experience with democracy and development for evolving an egalitarian society suffered considerably and marred the process of institution building in Nepal.

Since the fifties, the prospects of involving the civil societies in the governance of the nation are indicative of the efforts made towards institutionalisation process. De-institutionalisation of political organisations including political parties is now forbidden under the constitution and as such people can participate in the polity of the nation through different political parties which are considered to act as viable catalysts in strengthening democratic institutions by trying to ensure the public accountability of leaders and civil servants to elected representatives of the people. The 1990 constitution provides sound base giving considerable attention to the process of institutional building. Apart from conventional institutions like Parliament, Executive, Judiciary, Public Service Commission, Election Commission, NGOs. INGOs and other ancillary organisation attached to all major political parties are oriented to move forward, with institutional focus.

The Paradox: The political parties which decisively acted for ushering in democracy in Nepal still seem to be in a fragile state in our society. This is manifested in cultural pattern underlying the formation of political parties that the decision-making in major political parties is based on the monopoly of dominant castes-Brahmins, Chettris and Newars than on the support of a larger coalition of minorities or the ethnic groups.

The reasons for this could be attributed to the weak base of the interest groups and civil society. The politicians consider their personal perception and their behaviour to be sole component of the institutionalisation of policy without trying to cross check its validity. They are indulged, very often to display their stubborn behaviour pursuing adventurous cum dangerous policies, the glaring example could be the dissolution of parliament in 2051 BS by Prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala. The action on part of Koirala not only besmirched the reputation of NC as a Democratic Party but also weakened the institutional base of the organisation itself. The steps of Koirala though not sole factor for creating a great deal of confusion and disappointment yet it aggravated the trends of factionalism within the NC camp.

Factionalism and Institution Building: Although personalities play a vital role in the political process, personal rivalry between and among the party members exacerbate factionalism and the role is found to be applicable to all the political parties, more particularly with the major ones. This is true in reference to the disputes between the troika of NC, which led the Congress party at the brink of division, when the NC Supremo, late Ganeshman Singh declared his intention to desert the party with which he had life long association. The action on part of Ganeshman paved the way further and prepared a ground for a divide of NC rank and file into a ring of Chattise and Chauhattare, group of 36 and 74, having an immediate and far reaching implications on the institutional functioning of the NC.

In addition, the by-election in Kathmandu constituency No.1 in 1994,in which the acting party president and the former primer minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai's defeat is attributed to the personal ambition of GP Koirala for masterminding the sabotage for being afraid of the presence of Bhatterai in the parliament, the Pratinidhi Shava (House of Representatives), which could possibly have threatened the very survival of Koirala himself as Prime minister .The factionalism that was momentarily relaxed when a second generation leader Sher Bahadur Deuba was made Prime Minister of a coalition government of NC, RPP and NSP that lasted almost 18 months.( To be continued).

Headline | National | 5 Question | 2nd Impression | International | Past |