Nepali polity: Where paradoxes reign supreme

Ganga Thapa

There are strong indications of fresh political realignments in Nepal, which is one of the most unsuccessful third-wave democracies. Despite a long history of authoritarian rule, extensive international support for the peace process should have been sufficient for the transition. But the government has been consistently incapable of pursuing social and economic reforms. Studies have shown that an ideological left-right spectrum can be immensely useful to citizens.Since the collapse of King Gyanendra’ regime, progress towards democratic transition — which would have ensured human freedom (liberalism), rule of law and legal equality (constitutionalism), and representative government (democracy) — has been too slow to come by. The circumstances are highly polarised and factional. A state is regarded as the actor with power, competence, authority and legitimacy to carry out a policy decision. Yet, doubts remain whether it can effectively address demands for freedom and human dignity. In the liberal peace-building process in Nepal, state actors have evidently been unable to recognise the reality and limits of democratic pluralism.

Political democracy usually emerges from nonlinear, highly uncertain, and imminently reversible processes. Democracy may not be a springboard for political equality, but Nepali ruling elite has, time and again, satisfied itself with political concessions it has carved out after petty wrangling. Nepali politics has deteriorated into a parochial fixation as a result of non-institutionalised nature of politics and sprawling patron-client network which, according to Dwight King, is “a pattern of politics in which the ruler’s power derives primarily from his capacity to win and retain the loyalty of some sections of political elite.” Nepal is losing hopes due also to Russian-style oligarchy under Premier Koirala, who is inexorably aloof, arrogant, authoritarian, and a satellite of alien interests. Little wonder, there are growing communal unrest, rampant corruption and criminalisation in politics. If those having influence insist on monopolising power, peace and democracy-building process will face a titanic crisis.

A number of emerging countries share remarkable commitment to democracy despite intractable barriers like weak economy, post-conflict tensions, little participatory tradition, bureaucratic incapacity, and corruption. Nepal’s post-insurgency political process could be a bargaining process between the opposition, who want to share the governing power, and those in the government, who tend to shed it only for expediency to produce apparent improvisations. With institutions acutely lacking clarity and responsibility, scarcely organised popular sector, rampant political disaffection and social exclusion, and with civil society frequently divided on the lines of interest, Nepal is prone to miss essential realities of democracy. Indeed, electoral reforms are imperative to increase competition and strengthen institutions that aggregate and articulate citizens’ preferences. In theory, if the role of executive is merely to translate what the legislators decide, proportional representation is the best. But in contemporary politics, it is the executive that really conducts politics; so democracy is secure if the legislative power is in conformity with the popular will.

More precisely, the question of who takes responsibility for politically sensitive issues and under what circumstances should be treated very earnestly. Rather than allowing the people to set priorities and make mistakes, those unelected, criminal and thug legislators and unscrupulous politicians in the interim legislature-parliament insist on deciding everything. It is a high paradoxical situation. Thrusting a diktat is tantamount to implementing it.States lacking legitimate and effective governmental institutions are more prone to instability and conflict. Nepal is a victim of intra-party rivalry and interest-group politics with political elites having monopoly on power without an electoral mandate. Societies tacitly agree on certain rules to regulate the game of politics. The guiding principle of democracy is that it should be equally accountable and accessible to all members of the polity. For the popular will to be reflected in politics, it must first be expressed.

Nepal is mired in arrogance and hypocrisy with wheeler-dealers. Although Western political and institutional arrangements are not readily applicable everywhere, Nepal needs intelligent and responsible participation by the people in choosing those who govern and approving of policies by which they are to be governed. Otherwise a democratic deficit would ensue. Unequivocally, the April awakening was a gateway to liberate impoverished masses from plethora of injustices. It is fast turning into an illusory revolution. Nepal has endured bloody violence before, and, if the past is any guide, today’s strife does not presage the unravelling of state.

Source: The Himalayan Times, December 3, 2007