Republican State And Democracy

Lakshman Bahadur K.C.

Modern states or govern ments have been classified under various forms such as monarchy, republican, dictatorship, democracy, unitary federal and presidential, parliamentary. It does not mean that the various forms of governments which are practised presently in various countries of the world are of recent origin. In fact, forms of government with different names have been in existence since the days of Aristotle in ancient Greece 2,500 years ago.

Classification of governments

Aristotle's classification of government has been considered as authoritative among the early classifications. In modern times, several eminent western political writers have made attempts to classify governments. Among them, Dr. Stephen Leacock's classification of governments has been accepted as being more comprehensive and the best.At first, Leacock divides states into two classes - despotic and democratic. Despotism is another name for dictatorship. In a despotic state, the ruler enjoys absolute and supreme power totally disregarding the wishes of the people. In a democracy, the sovereign power is vested in the general people who exercise it through their elected representatives in the parliament.He further subdivides democracies into limited monarchies and republics. In a limited monarchy, the monarch doesn't enjoy real political power.

He or she is just a nominal or ceremonial head. It is the elected parliament responsible to the people which exercises the real authority. In a republic state, it is the elected representatives headed by an elected president that govern the state for a fixed term.Each of these types of states is again subdivided into unitary and federal forms of government on the basis of concentration on the distribution of powers. In a unitary state, power is concentrated in the central government whereas in a federal state, the government's powers are divided between the centre and the units. The federal system is based on the concept of a dual set of government.The unitary and federal states are further subdivided into parliamentary and presidential forms of government on the basis of relationship between the legislature and executive. In the parliamentary form of government, the executive headed by the prime minister is responsible to the legislature. The head of state (a monarch or president) has only a nominal authority in such a system. Whereas in the presidential form of government, which is based on the doctrine of the separation of power, the chief executive, i.e., the president is not responsible to the legislature and is independent of it though the president may be removed by the process of impeachment.

Thus, we can put the formal classification of governments into broad categories as monarchy, dictatorship and democracy and their subsidiary forms like constitutional monarchy, republics, unitary and federal, parliamentary and presidential governments or a mixture of them. Any form of government may be practised on the basis of the political requirement of the country. No form of government, therefore, can be described as pure or exclusive as well as static.The political system of a country represents harmonisation of the different forms of government. For example, the political system of Great Britain is based on the concept of constitutional monarchy, unitary and parliamentary democracy.

On the other hand, India is a republic and a federal state. It has an elected president with functioning parliamentary democracy under the leadership of an elected prime minister, whereas the USA is a federal republic and democratic state with a presidential form of government, which is based on the doctrine of separation of powers.Another form of government is monarchy. It is the oldest form of government and is prevalent in several states of the world. In fact, the monarchial system having hereditary succession symbolises autocracy, feudalism and exploitation. But with the growth of democracy, which is based on the universal concept of liberty, equality, fraternity and welfare state, the system of absolute monarchy declined in modern times and was replaced by the republican state. But some European countries like Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands have retained the monarchial system as ceremonial heads under a democratic set up.Thus, we find that several countries of the world have removed monarchical system and established a republican system through violent political change. The republican state is now the prevalent system around the world. But the establishment of republicanism does not automatically usher in plural democracy. Republicanism is practised with different forms of government with or without plural democracy.

There are several countries which have adopted the republican concept with different principles of state governance. Just take the example of Korea. The divided Korea - North and South - though they are republican states, the principle of governance for their respective countries is fundamentally different from one another. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North) is governed by a single party ideology of communism whereas the political system of the Republic of Korea (South) is based on the concept of plural democracy with presidential form of government. The president in South Korea is elected by the people in free and fair democratic competitive elections.There is also another form of republican state, which is related to religion and the army doctrine.

For example, Iran proclaims itself an Islamic republic, which means its whole system is guided by Islamic law. In the case of Iraq, it was ruled by military dictator Saddam Hussein for a long time though it was a republican state. Thus, several countries practise dictatorship under the banner of a republican state. The establishment of a republic state is, therefore, no guarantee that multiparty democracy would be established unless it is backed by full commitment to the functioning of constitutional democracy based on the rule of law, periodic competitive elections among the political parties, liberty, equality, fraternity and a welfare state.Nepal is now on the verge of great political change. The successful popular uprising of April 2006 in which millions of people had participated against the autocratic royal regime under the leadership of the seven party alliance and the CPN Maoist opened the door for a change of great magnitude in the political, social and economic fields.With the introduction of the interim constitution 2063 B.S., an interim government and an interim legislature, the Nepalese people have now started to experience a new wave of political change.

One of the basic features of this change is that Nepal is positively heading towards the achievement of new multiparty democracy based on the concept of federal republic with the aim of ending the centralised feudal monarchical system. But Nepal's march towards establishing a new Nepal through state restructuring and creating a new political set up based on political pluralism, rule of law, inclusiveness, fundamental rights, freedom of the judiciary and the press and the welfare state cannot be materialised unless and until we sincerely realise the imperative of framing and introducing a new and stable constitution by the elected Constitution Assembly.The constitution of the elected Constitution Assembly will certainly be a major and historical step towards institutionalising the achievements of the April movement and ending the political transition of Nepal, which will guide the new political set up based on democratic values.

But contrary to the arrangement as provided in the interim constitution 2063 for holding the Constitution Assembly elections, the postponement of the CA polls twice has raised doubts about the sincerity of the political stakeholders of the present political set up. The postponement of the CA polls due to the controversy raised by the CPN Maoist leaders on the methods of the CA polls at a time when the CA polls were scheduled to be held on November 22 is itself a breach of the provisions of the interim constitution, which is a common and legal document of the eight political parties.LegitimacyThus, inability to hold the Constitution Assembly elections means maintaining the status quo and prolonging the transition period, which is definitely not in the interest of Nepal and the Nepalese people. So without wasting time, the political parties and their leaders must come forward to create a conducive environment throughout the country for holding the CA polls successfully and peacefully within this year, otherwise the legitimacy of the present interim set up will be questioned.

Source: The Rising Nepal, October 31, 2007