Nepali politics suffers from a myopic outlook that legitimizes almost everything for short-term gains

Prof. Sridhar Khatri, T.U

If we look objectively, and without cynicism, at Nepal's record within the last ten years, it is a mixed one. Despite the fact that the country has seen ten governments in a ten year frame, the transition in Nepal from Panchayat to a democratic era has been comparatively smooth when compared to other countries in South Asia. Unlike Pakistan in recent years where the elected governments have not been allowed to complete their full term in office, the transfer of political power in Nepal from one government to the next has been relatively smooth and operated within a constitutional framework. And, unlike the case of Bangladesh, where open political conflict among the ruling and the opposition parties virtually paralyzed the country, political parties in Nepal have been able to work out differences with one another, albeit under certain limitations. Yet, the problems associated with consolidation of democracy still remains in Nepal. Many would argue that the economic situation in the country has already improved within the last decade, while the political leaders have proven to be incapable of rising to the challenge in meeting the expectations of the people.

The threat to democracy in Nepal is more from stagnation, than a type of "reversal" contemplated by Huntington. The theme of stagnation was the main focus of the Nepal Human Development Report 1998, when it cited that there had been "little discernible rise in the rate of progress in most…human capability-related fronts in the last ten years" after the re-introduction of democracy since 'democratic dispensation is not only forced to continually compromise with <the non-formal sources of political power > but often colludes with such interests".

An International Idea team's report on Nepal identifies three major factors that may be responsible for hindering the democratic process. These include: # Extreme polarization within and between political parties and other institutions; # Lack of civil service neutrality which serves to undermine decision-making processes for development; and # Weak democratic culture.

Among the recommendations the team has made include facilitating greater consultation and interaction through a proper mechanism among political leaders; strengthening institutions concerned with the accountability of government, such as the Commission for Investigating the Abuse of Authority, the Election Commission, and the Parliament's Committee system; improving the quality of public administration; and strengthening the cultural and civic infrastructure through civic education, and development of a strong and independent media in the country.

The challenge of overcoming stagnation may be more complicated than the report suggests since what is lacking in Nepal is not (relative) dynamism or willingness to take initiative, but sustenance power to follow through and implement initiatives that have already been taken. The frequent backtracking by successive governments on its VAT policy and its inability to implement the high-level Report of the Administrative Reforms Commission are case in point.

Nepal is an 'electoral democracy', which needs to move up to the level of "liberal democracy" if the change in the political system is to be meaningful. As the paradigm suggested by Larry Diamond shows, a lot of efforts need to be put into the democratic structure before it can move from a multi-party system with free and fair elections to a system with adequate safeguards where the rule of law operates effectively. Lawmaking is a slow process in Nepal, and even when laws exist they are hard to implement, or can be easily sidetracked.

One case where there exists a clear anomaly is in regards to electoral expenses of candidates. Although a ceiling has been set (before it was Rs.50, 000, which has now been increased to Rs.75, 000) above which candidates cannot cross in financing their campaigns, the Election Commission cannot do anything since the amount set is too low to finance campaign expenses for candidates in most constituencies. In addition, the candidates are required to fill in papers saying that their expenses were within limits specified by the law. As one report has rightly noted, election laws actually require even new members of Parliament to lie before taking their seat in the legislature.

The difficulty of moving from an electoral democracy to a liberal democracy is in implementing the accountability provisions essential for a democratic process. On the one hand, while the Executive in the Nepalese system has pervasive discretionary power of patronage in recruiting workers which has largely polarized the bureaucracy, on the other, institutions with the mandate to ensure public accountability do not have the resources or the authority to carry out their function. Newspaper reports become particularly juicy when members of the Public Accounts Committee are cited in the press for misusing government vehicles when they already have taken advantage of duty free privileges for buying their own vehicles.

And lastly, strengthening democracy in Nepal also means improving the performance of political leaders and parties in the country. Although the Constitution gives political parties an unprecedented role in determining the country's future, internecine personal conflicts among political leaders have contribute to deep factionalism in all major political parties, sometimes even making the normal functioning of the government difficult. As a result, political parties tend to follow the unwritten rule that when in power their internal conflict becomes the greatest, while out of power a temporary truce is usually worked out among the leading factions till they are in power again. This has already led to the break-up of two major political parties, the Communist party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist-CPN-UML and the Rastriya Prajatantra Party-The RPP and has also placed severe strain on the Nepali Congress as well.

Party politics in Nepal also suffers from a myopic outlook that legitimizes almost everything for short-term gains. As a consequence, political parties often tend to treat politics not as a compromise-oriented exercise, but with a nearly two century old KOT-PARBA mentality of imposing their will on others regardless of the costs. Quite often, almost all means of acquiring power are considered to be legitimate. Electoral processes are manipulated to the maximum extent possible on the belief that control of government machinery is indispensable for winning elections. And, street agitation is also considered to be complimentary to parliamentary maneuvering, though the manner in which it is exercised leaves its legitimacy much in doubt. In sum, the traditional approach to Nepalese, as well as South Asian, politics has changed very little with the advent of multiparty system since democracy is practiced without its accompanying political norms.

Although it is said of leadership that some people are born great and others achieve greatness, the contemporary Nepalese scene shows that the quality of greatness in leaders has been a missing commodity. Despite frequent changes in government and leadership at the helm of state affairs, no political leaders in the country have been able to impart a vision for the country, other than their usual campaign rhetoric and easily salable platitudes for democracy. After experiencing the styles of governance of six different prime ministers from a broad spectrum of political parties within a ten year period, the Nepalese people are still at a loss in judging their leadership quality since there appears to be very little difference among them, other than their personal life-style, the degree of their interest in aggrandizement of wealth, and the circle of coteries around them. Since political leadership with a vision is an indispensable element in providing the impetus necessary for a country's growth, particularly in a developing country like Nepal, it is becoming increasingly clear that democracy may be the true victim if the political leaders and parties do not get their acts together.

From what has been said above, it is safe to surmise that democracy is not a panacea to the problems of a society, but one of the best means of achieving its goals in a just and humane manner. Despite the historical 'waves' and "reverses" of democracy, there are strong indications that it is an inevitable trend of the future, in which Nepal is just one of the many countries carried on by its waves. The question of how well Nepal does with democratic experiment will ultimately depend on the ability of the country to make the transition from the trappings of democracy it has already achieved so far to the many safeguards necessary for a true "liberal democracy".

(Text courtesy: From the book "Institutionalization of Democratic Polity in Nepal", published by P.N.Campus, department of Political Science and Sociology, 2000-chief editor).

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