SORRY STATE OF NEPALESE DEMOCRACY: SOME THOUGHTS

Krishna P Poudel

Divergent Perceptions Of The Situation

Was the accomplishment of the democracy per se incomplete in the last people’s movement or not adequately reflected in the constitution? Can we say we are in indispensable experimental phase of democracy? Has the democracy been obliterated or just derailed or do we have a functioning democracy? Right fundamentalists and the die-hard royalist can’t resist saying that democracy is still functioning in Nepal. Ultra lefts have since the very beginning viewed the achievements of 1990 movement as defective and incomplete and the insurgents are justifying their violence on this ground also. Liberal democrats and the moderate lefts vary in their opinion from democracy being annihilated to just derailed to partially re-railed as the consequence of reinstatement of Deuba government. Some intellectuals view that these stalemates and confrontations are not unnatural for a nascent democracy like us. For no standpoint is value free, this divergence in the perceptions is decipherable.

The Reality: When the parliament, the legitimate representative body of sovereign people, has been dissolved rather irreligiously, when the local governing bodies are filled with nomination as if a person or party’s personal establishment, when people are virtually deprived of their civil rights and freedom of expression, when extra judicial killings, detaining, abduction etc are the usual affairs (in various cloaks though), and when the prime minister is handpicked by a king rather than made by any process of democracy a dispassionate observer is compelled to say democracy has been rendered defunct. In addition, when the armed institution openly declines the ruling of the apex court of the land and when the nation is witnessing a flagrant militarization, democracy and rule of law are virtually non -extant.

So far as the constitution of Kingdom of Nepal 1990 is concerned, with sovereignty in unambiguous terms depicted in the people (preamble), the executive power in the hands of people’s representative (article35, 36, 42), the king as the figurative state head only, adequate checks and balances among various organs of the state, the provision of the national defence council regarding the royal Nepal army with prime minister as the chairman (article 118), even third generation of the human rights envisaged in the document (part 3), and with the theme of decentralization and local governance incorporated ( in the directive principle of the state) we can’t say it is a bad one. In fact, if we compare the constitution of Nepal with those of rest of the world it will be certainly counted as one of the better, if not the best. It’s not that this constitution is the perfect one. There is always room for the perfection or augmentation; as for that same reason constitution amendment provision (article 116) is there. What truly matters is how the citizens abide by it, how the ones at the helm of the state live up to the spirit of the document. Even a presumably perfect constitution won’t do any thing if all who are to be guided by it, breach it. So, as the omnipotent monarchy had come to the terms of the constitutional monarchy, the accomplishment was remarkable. Besides, democracy can’t be absolutely synonymous with a democratic constitution. It is much more than that. It is a rational mode of thinking and way of living with tolerance, accommodation and reverence for plurality of values. We all know that world’s role model democracy is smoothly functioning even without a written constitution (the UK).

The crucial question: Whether or not we should be complacent about the course Nepalese democracy has taken in this decade plus years is a hard nut to crack. Political analysts widely vary in their opinions. Some think the state of democracy is still not ‘hopeless’ in Nepal, while others don’t see the light even in the end of the tunnel. That it takes time for the democracy to be consolidated and rooted in a soil is a notion with corroborated truth. Historically democracy has gone through umpteen travails and has crossed myriads of formidable bridges by the time it generated third global wave, in the late 1980s and early1990s. Yet, does it mean that every new democracy has to go through the same turmoil and gestation of centuries? The author thinks, by no means! The emerging democracies today needn’t, and can’t afford to, go through the same experimentation, as did the various mothers of democracy. The point is, post democracy period is fair enough to appraise whether or not we moved in the right direction and whether or not our commitments for democracy have been true, though it may not be so for the maturation. And the answer is flat nay.

In few words, the accomplishment of 1990 movement was remarkable, if not radical and perfect. Democracy today in most euphemistic terms is maimed, and in mordant terms usurped. More than evident, the political leaders were the first champions to chop the democracy, while the palace and the insurgents outweighed them crushing it into pieces. Some situational factors worked as super catalysts in this whole process. For sure, at the earlier times there were some positive signs too, like the smooth transfer of the government after the general election, local body election, raised level of political consciousness and participation and the drastic upswing of the media. But eventually, the democracy that stood a victor worldwide was put to rout in Nepal.

Multiple Causal Factors

The sorry tale of our democracy is the cumulative effect of many factors. And of course, these factors are not to be seen in isolation from one another, as one factor reinforces another.

Disappointing performance of political parties; a political party is, to quote Edmund Bruke, a body of men united for promoting the national interests on some particular principles on which they are agreed. But unfortunately neither the parties seemed to be working towards the end of promoting the national interests nor did they follow the principles that they committed as a party. On the contrary, they sacrificed the national interests for the sake of their individual ambition and petty group interests. The parties are supposed to be the interests aggregators and articulators of the society as well as the vital link between the social forces and government institutions building the pressure for the conducive political action. For these obvious reasons they are called the lifeline of the modern politics. When it comes to the functioning and consolidation of representative democracy they are the most crucial sinews with above-mentioned roles. But, in our case, it was hardly so. In the post democracy period the political parties have generated a sense of repulsion in the common population with the rampant corruption, politicization in every field, criminalization of politics, practicing nepotism and cronyism shattering the basis of merit, political defection, horse trading, opportunism, containment, and the like-in fact what not.

Development of confrontational political culture; political culture of a society is of significance in that it reflects, and determines, in what direction a particular society is moving, how it is moving and to what ends it is moving. It gives the picture of dynamics of political continuity and political change. It encompasses both the political ideals and the operating norms of a polity. A society with parochial, totalitarian and intolerant (confrontational) political culture and a society with secular, accommodative and consensual political culture are definitely moving to the opposite directions. Political actions, political behavior and the performance of the public institutions are largely the consequence of the prevalent political culture of that society. After the restoration of democracy in 1990 the political system was changed but the political culture couldn’t change positively. We couldn’t inculcate democratic and secular values to our polity. Had there been any effort to foster democratic/tolerant political culture along with the democratic political system, it could have kept the democracy functioning, would have deterred the non-democratic forces and prevented them from becoming such powerful.

Absence of intra party democracy and visionary leadership; as much as a democratic system can’t be imagined without the presence of organized party system, without intra party democracy the political parties will never be able to deliver and, as the ramification, the entire political process of the nation will be plagued. In our context it happened as much as it could be. The political parties that fought for the democratic polity lacked even minimum level of intra party democratic practices/procedures. Demolition of the elected student’s body in rather ridiculous and dictatorial way not long ago by so called saviors of Nepali Congress shows the miserable condition of party system in Nepal. More over, sheer dearth of visionary and committed leadership in the parties claimed to be the protagonists of the democratic system also contributed to enfeeble the democracy.

Rudimentary civil society; a vigilant and organized civil society is the precondition for a successful democracy. They are the watchdogs of the polity. They formulate the public opinion and pressure the governments to be more responsible, accountable, transparent and responsive while conducting the public affairs. And probably the observation of Ernest Gellner ‘civil society is that set of non-governmental institutions which is strong enough to counterbalance the state…’ is not exaggerated one for we have seen such strength of the civil society in the matured democracies. In our case however this paramount sphere of the society is in the rudimentary form. It’ not potent enough to through the weight around the political and market spheres. Some improvements were observed after the restoration of democracy. Yet the large section of the civil society remained unorganized and the collective strength didn’t suffice to have their say in the power centers.

First-past the post electoral system; as direct democracy is almost impossible in today’s complexities, the democracy works through the periodic election of the representatives of the people. Two types of electoral systems prevail worldwide, the first-past the post system and the proportional representative system. As we followed the west minister type democracy like that of Britain we followed the first past the post electoral system where a candidate has to simply win greater number of votes than his nearest counterpart, even if he is in minority when compared to all the votes together. This scribe is of the opinion that we could have better chance of democracy thriving with the proportional representative system. For one thing, first past the post system is more likely to be effective if the society is of relatively homogeneous nature, not the heterogeneous like ours. In this system, also called majority-vote system, there is every possibility of a lot of people going without representation, and when the many minorities together form the majority in terms of the populace it becomes even more unjust system. Next, in a society where there is very little public awareness and literacy, and where other factors rather than the issues determine the votes proportional representation can be more supportive for mainstreaming the marginalized ones. And as the implication, there will be less likelihood of violent and armed rebellion, the most apprehended situation for a growing democracy. Also, it will reduce the political gerrymandering. A proportional representative system is more likely to foster the politics of consensus for it won’t give any political forces out of proportion strength. It’s not that proportional representative system is flawless, but in a heterogeneous and transitional society like us it is more likely to deliver, as renowned social scientist JS Mill views, by proportionately representing all the sections and up- keeping the egalitarian character of the democracy.

Other factors; besides the above discussed prime factors, some other factors are also attributable for the failure of Nepalese democracy. It is said that democracy can’t root in the society in the grip of extreme poverty. Abba Eban writes, "Hungry people are not likely for ever to remain peaceful people or cherish democratic forms of life". The bureaucratic machinery also should be committed for the processes of democracy as they run the everyday affairs of the country but Nepalese bureaucracy seemed to have nonchalant and non-supportive in this regard. There should be adequate autonomy and authority to the local governance bodies so that enough political participation is ensured and the democratic practices and values are inculcated in the common people. Small democracies like ours can’t escape the extraterritorial influence. If the influence had been for the cause of the democracy probably it could have contributed for its survival. But the super power, other world powers and the regional forces overlooked the cause of democracy and supported the regressive regime for their vested gains. The semi-feudalistic character of Nepalese society made the road of democracy still more cumbersome.

At the top of all this, the adventure of the palace in the form of October 4 move after palpating the every nerve of the Nepalese political parties and the deliberate maiming of the infant democracy in the form of armed revolt by the Maoist single out.

The author is the Lecturer of Political Science and Development studies.

Headline | Opinion | Dateline | 5 Question  | Editorial | Letter | 2nd Impression | Views | International | Tête-à-tête with Amandine | Past