Nepal: A Glaring Example of a "Failed-State"

The highest achievement, if any, of the thirteen years of Nepal's democratic system has been that even apolitical institutions have apparently become political ones. Those institutions which never dared to exceed their limits in the domain of Nepali system of governance in the past have started pushing their "ideas and opinions" either through the newspapers or any other means which they think appropriate. Yet another achievement has been that the "ideas and opinions" thus being pushed by the men seated in those institutions mentioned above have not at all been challenged by the lay men for obvious and understandable reasons. However, the men steering the system or say the men who have benefited from the system albeit have denounced such ideas and opinions. Obviously, such utterances pose a threat to democracy, according to those who have made the system bankrupt. To put it more candidly, when such opinions come from apolitical institutions, Nepali leaders see a great design against the system. The fact is that they themselves, read the Nepali leaders and politicians, were the real threats to the nation. If Nepali system is under a threat at all today from any quarters, it is from their quarters only. If Nepali system is to see a major jolt in the future, then it would be due to the follies of all those who championed the cause of the restoration of this system during 1990. Now it has become crystal clear as to why the forces, the left and the congress, had forged an alliance prior to the 1990 change.

By and large, pushing in of ideas and opinions has not been the sole preserve of the political parties or for that matter the ministers. Even persons considered to be apolitical or who should have remain apolitical possess now the right to share their favored views and fortunately or unfortunately the people at large hail their opinions thus expressed. This means that the leaders manning the present day system are being considered by the majority of the population as ruffians and nothing more than that. The past performances of the Nepali political animals have made them ruffians. The people had no choice other than to consider them as ruffians.

First it was Chief of the Army Staff, Prazzwal Rana, who made scathing comments against the leaders at his famous Shiva Puri lecture wherein he implied that the system developed political aberrations because of the manner the leaders handled or steered the system. The leaders made fiery lectures against Rana but the people on the other hand heartily welcomed his statement. The people in doing so did not care whether Rana's statement made a mockery of the system now in force or not. They simply hailed his expressions, as those were the people's voices.

Hardly had the Nepali leaders gulped the bitter pill from COAS Rana, it is here yet another Mr. Rana who has provided yet another jerk to the Nepali leaders in the recent days. What the Police Chief Mr. Pradip Shamsher Rana divulged at the Election Commission meet last week regarding the possibility of the elections in November or his internal wishes to get it conducted at a later date for security reasons is not that important. What is significant is the manner the political paraphernalia have taken Mr. Rana's utterances wherein they see a threat to a system, which practically doesn't exist in the eyes of the majority of the population.

Keeping all the speculations, real or fake, of the politicos aside, we wish to make these comments in plain terms. Firstly, the Election Commission (EC) should not have invited the IGP at its meet. The police security system is to abide by the orders of the government. What the government decides should be final to the police department. This department possesses no authority to reject any sort of orders from the government. However, when invited meant that the EC too wished to get the views of the security apparatus. This also means that when invited someone had to offer his views – this exactly Pradip Rana has done. Therefore, there is nothing to panic from his utterances because he spoke his mind what he could have analyzed.

The first wrong was that Mr. Rana was invited. He should have in essence been served orders but when invited, he should have expressed his feelings. The biggest blunder was that his utterances were politicized and controversialized. And finally, the whole affair was publicized which must have enlightened the interested quarters of the weak security system of the country as of today. Definitely, neither the government nor the political parties have benefited from this entire furore. To sum up, it has become more than that the November elections are not likely to take place on its scheduled dates if Rana's revelations were to be taken at its face value.

The gist: the laymen don't trust their own representatives; the majority of the population remain outside the ambit of the system; the people possess allergic for the ministers or for that matter any leaders and wish to turn off their TV as and when they appear on the idiot box; the people wish that the corrupt ones be brought to the bars at the earliest; the disillusioned people now wish to have their equal say in the system of governance to which they have been denied as yet. Are these shortcomings not sufficient to make this country a failed State?

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