After over a hundred years of Rana regime, Nepal witnessed the advent of democracy in 1951, which was soon hijacked because of political infighting for power. Once again, following 30 years of party-less Panchayat system, Nepal regained multi-party democracy, but it continues to suffer at the hands of politicians who, instead of working to institutionalize democratic norms, are only fighting for power. And finally, even after the demise of monarchy, the political parties haven’t been able to work together to enhance democratic norms and values. They are still at loggerheads over power and perks. The first Constituent Assembly’s failure to produce a constitution is a testimony of the level of political fighting for self interest.
According to a political pundit, one of the main reasons Nepal is suffering is that though the systems have undergone several changes, the actors remain the same. So the solution lies in changing the actors and injecting new blood into our political system.
Both the people and political parties doubt even the second CA will be able to produce a constitution, unless one party musters two-third majority. Almost the whole duration of the previous CA was wasted making and breaking government instead of writing a constitution—the main purpose of the Assembly. A cursory glance at the election manifestos of major parties suggests that this time too their main focus is government formation, rather than constitution, even though they have pledged a statute within a year. They still differ on thorny issues such as type of government and names and number of states. It is clear that unless these issues are sorted, the new Assembly won’t be able to produce a constitution.
Moreover, all political parties claim that they can develop the country dramatically. For example, CPN-UML vows, among other things, to produce 10,000 MW of electricity in ten years, guarantee residences for 500,000 homeless people, employment for 300,000 people per year and allowance for the jobless. But where will the money to fulfill such fantastic pledges come from? Has the party even calculated how much money and how many engineers will be required to generate 10,000 MW of electricity? Where are the resources to build 500,000 homes for the homeless? Under what arrangements would the poor get those residences? And how would they produce 300,000 jobs a year? The party that failed to accomplish anything noteworthy while leading the government twice during the previous Assembly session is now promising such fantastic, if not impossible, goals.
The oldest party, Nepali Congress, has also pledged 5,000 MW of electricity in five years. It also says it will build an east-west railway in four years. Surprisingly, top party leaders are still polarized and there still are substantial differences among them. Lack of command and control in the party is clearly visible.
Republica
UCPN (Maoist)’s election manifesto says that it would increase per capita income to US $1,400 in next five years, provide employment to all youths in 15 years, end load-shedding in three years, offer free education up to grade 12 and free basic health services to all citizens. But the party—the largest in the dissolved Assembly—has shown neither regret nor remorse for failing to write the constitution. People wonder how the party which could not do a thing as part of the government, which failed to lead the constitution-writing and whose sister organizations have closed industries and businesses can offer such lofty assurances.
In a nutshell, the contents of the election manifestos of the major political parties—UCPN (Maoist), Nepali Congress and CPN-UML—are almost the same in economic commitments, although they differ on political issues like system of governance and number of federal states. However, they haven’t said how they will deliver on their promises, or how they will accelerate economic growth and set the country on development path.
The major political parties conveniently say they can fulfill their promises only if they can emerge as the biggest force in the upcoming election. As one of my friends says, election manifestos promising these things are just meant to fool the poor whom politicians consider their vote banks. But these people, after being cheated several times, are more alert than ever.
At a time when the country is on the verge of economic disaster, how would the winning political parties fix the country’s economic woes within five years? Without economic growth, there cannot be sustained gains in income, health and other areas. Continued progress depends on heavy investments in major infrastructure such as water, electricity, waste management, which in turn depend on large-scale private financing and a suitable market framework. As such, the manifestos have simply jotted down populist but unrealistic points.
Moreover, we cannot achieve economic growth and poverty reduction only through market forces. Disease control, promotion of science and technology, better public education and protection of natural environment must align with market forces. But no party offers a clean and efficient government to achieve such goals.
The manifestos should have focused more on the new constitution, specifically on the federal structure, government form and relations between state and religion. But disappointingly, they focus mainly on what they would do if they are given the opportunity to govern.
Nepal is currently beset with soaring prices, a faltering economy, acute water shortages, tangled and unruly traffic and long hours of load-shedding. In this backdrop, it cannot achieve the kind of progress the election manifestos promise. It would have been much better if the parties had promised to mend things which are falling apart. For decades, political parties, regardless of which one of them is in power, have failed to deal with Nepal’s chronic problems—excessive bureaucracy, corruption, economic mismanagement, violation of rule of law and anemic growth.
Nevertheless, the Nepalis have not been able to heave a sigh of relief even after the demise of monarchy, the much vaunted evil. All they can do now is vent their frustration. On the face of it, it is unlikely that any single party would be able to get even a simple majority in CA II election, let alone two-third majority. Barring a few political leaders, many doubt that they can get elected.
Moreover, the call for a prolonged strike by the 33 agitating parties on the eve of the November 19 vote has added fuel to the skepticism about peaceful polls. All sides should abandon demagogy and political brinkmanship to break the deadlock to ensure free and fair election. Otherwise, there will be a big question mark over the legitimacy of the election and the political uncertainty could continue for long time to come.
The author is former foreign secretary
Related story
I will deliver on my election promises: PM Dahal
