In the last few weeks the country has seen an intense debate about a possible comeback of the monarchy. As many analysts and observers have already highlighted, despite the hype and rumors, there is no immediate nor medium term risk of collapse of the “republican order”.
Yet, it is undeniable that frustrations and discontent among the citizenry is mounting and there is a general perception, grounded on some unquestionable facts that, all in all, the economy and the overall status of nation politics should drastically improve.
The much vented return of the King is just a symptom of a general malaise and, largely speaking, a broad and shared consensus do exist on this assessment. The most difficult and intriguing question is what to do next, what could be done to drastically overhaul the fortune of the nation.
There is no doubt that the three major parties, the UML, Congress and Maoist, do bear a lot of responsibilities. The notion of good governance seems inevitably hard to practice and to implement, almost as if it were an alien concept to the minds of the political leaders of the country.
A lot of blame has been assigned to the role of corruption and the shameful nexus of business people, politicians and bureaucrats. Surely these unscrupulous and unethical dynamics might play a role. Yet, at the end of the day, the real issue is about political culture existing in the country and we should ask ourselves how this can change for the better. But in the immediate, the burden of finding a way out from the current situation lays on the highest level of the three major parties. And the overall mood of the nation, deeply embedded in a general sense of dissatisfaction, could offer an opportunity to steer a future course.
Aamir Khan: I am not a box-office king
It is high time for Prime Minister K.P. Oli, Maoist Leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Congress’ President, Sher Bahadur Deuba to jointly agree on a gradual exit from politics. Any politician of a certain degree of success falls victim of what I call, the “indispensability syndrome”. It is a feeling that, no matter what, the politician in question cannot depart from political life because the stakes are too high and it is paramount for him (male pronoun here is used to describe the male dominated political space) to stay the course rather than stepping aside.
It is hard to leave power and being at the center of attention and I do genuinely believe that K. P. Oli, Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Sher Bahadur Deuba all care for their nation. But it is high time for them to start being serious about retiring from political life.
This does not mean totally abandoning public life. They could still play an important role in civil society but how to get this transition started? Here the experience of Singapore comes to my mind.
It is granted that Singapore and Nepal could not be more different. Yet the method of the ruling People’s Action Party in the former could offer some interesting options for transitioning major politicians from power. Very pragmatically, the PAP came up with the system of granting retiring senior leaders, especially many former prime ministers, the role of “Senior Minister”.
Currently, former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is one of the two senior ministers in the cabinet, together with Teo Chee Hean, one of the party’s most experienced politicians who handles security matters. Lee Kuan Yew, the father of the nation, after decades in power as prime minister, was nominated senior minister in 1990 and the same could be said for Goh Chok Tong, himself a former prime minister that preceded Lee Hsien Loong.
At this point, I need to make it clear that I am not claiming that Nepal should blindly follow and adopt a system that is tailor-made for a completely different political culture and system. What I am proposing is the need to unleash some out of box thinking.
As someone who has been following national politics for many years, I do believe that “creative” solutions might be needed, propositions that might be convincing enough to persuade and nudge the current three “Big Three” to consider some new options for their future. At minimum, the “Big Three” could together and publicly commit to transition away from direct involvement in politics.
But even if the top echelon of those parties that have been sharing power on and off since the abolishment of the monarchy would opt out in dignified way, then there is the still persistent issue of political shenanigans that characterize the political culture of the nation.
Moreover, new parties might come but might also go. The Rastriya Swatantra Party, RSP, despite lacking a firm ideology and notwithstanding the controversies surrounding its founder, proved that competent politicians can have good ideas and formulate solid policy proposals. And on this point, party cadres but also the general public have a clear responsibility. If they do care about the public interest and common good, then, they truly need to embrace the art of policy making.
This would require the capacity of connecting the dots but also learning the technical skills and sector wise expertise, including holding an interest at reviewing the best practices and options that are available within and outside the country.
Another way could also be explored: empowering people to be not only closer to the decision making process but even becoming part of it. While educated members of the civil society should always be welcomed to offer ideas and recommendations, deliberative democracy could complement and strengthen the existing political system based on representation through elections.
Deliberative democracy would offer new venues for the citizenry to step up and better contribute to solving the most pressing issues facing the nation. In this regard, there is a lot to write about. Because, even with the top brass of the current political leadership out in the near or medium future, doing better at engaging and involving the people could be one of the smartest ways to ensure that the republican state can thrive.
(Views expressed are personal)
