The main problem to sustain democracy in Nepal has been the ideological divisions among the parties. This has also affected the Constituent Assembly. This aspect of problem has been greatly underestimated if not completely overlooked while analyzing the pitfalls of our democratic evolution since the second people’s movement of April 2006.
Nepali Congress, the oldest democratic institution in the country, has remained divided ideologically and organizationally. Giraja Prasad Koirala should have been the man to stand against forces that didn’t support the existence of a liberal democratic polity. However, the irony is that Koirala has been functioning only to further and achieve his personal and familial ambitions. At a time when the chieftain of the country’s largest democratic party is walking hand in hand with the forces that are in play to undermine the values of a liberal democracy, how can we envision the sustenance of a liberal democracy in Nepal?
CPN-UML is also marred by internal ideological differences. On the one hand, the party has to secure its vote bank by appearing to be more communist than the Maoist. On the other hand, the party is also competing with the centrist party like the Nepali Congress for more votes. These contradictions are best exemplified by the camps led by its party Chairman Jhalanath Khanal and senior leader KP Oli. Therefore, the UML has to make up its mind without delay to decide what type of party it wants to become –a communist party or a social democratic party.
Talking of the Maoist they are pretty clear of what they want i.e. the establishment of a people’s republic guided by the principles of communism as experimented in nations like Cuba, North Korea, China to name a few. Strategically, not only are the Maoist very astute, they are also equally committed to their ideological cause. Furthermore, their end goal is very well-defined unlike that of the other parties.
What was baffling was the immediate positive response of the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) to the creation of HLPM even before the terms of reference and jurisdiction were defined.
Democracies survive if there is a balance in the power play, in the absence of which a particular force will arise. In Nepal, we are facing a similar predicament. The balance of power is uneven and there is a question mark as to whether a liberal democratic polity will continue to exist.
Sashi Tharoor, India’s junior foreign minister in his book ‘India: from Midnight to Millennium’ has observed how during India’s experiment with emergency democratic rights had been stifled. One particular observation of Tharoor is comparable to the situation that is prevailing in Nepali politics today. For instance, Tharoor talks in length about how Indira Gandhi bypassed the cabinet and relied on her personal aides for making critical decisions. The consequence of such a move, argues Tharoor, is the erosion of parliamentary supremacy and the executive responsibility of a cabinet.
We are facing a similar problem in Nepal. Routinely, the parliament and the Constituent Assembly have been obstructed. The recently constituted High Level Political Mechanism (HLPM) is against the democratic form of governance. HLPM will only provide space for leaders to bypass institutions such as the parliament, constituent assembly and undervalues the credibility of the cabinet. Furthermore, the leaders involved will not be accountable. In essence it is going to create a parallel power structure.
What was baffling was the immediate positive response of the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) to the creation of HLPM even before the terms of reference and jurisdiction were defined. Clearly, the ultimate goal of the peace process is democracy and sustainable peace. However, when a political body like HLPM is created and its functions contradict democratic values, one has to question why the UNMIN actually welcomed this development.
It seems evident that under the banner of democracy everything and anything is acceptable to the international community. This is mainly for two reasons. First, it has invested heavily on the peace process and they want their investment to work howsoever. Even if the political parties hastily prepare a constitution at the eleventh hour, it will be acceptable to the international community. However, if such a constitution is made, it will inevitably invite a conflict in the near future.
In conclusion, first there has to be a balance in the power play in Nepali politics. For this, it is essential that democrats across different parties should unite to safeguard democratic values and institutions. Second, both the parliament and the constituent assembly are democratic institutions and they cannot be bypassed at any level. Bypassing such institutions will set a negative precedent in the future discourse of Nepali politics. It will only work to weaken democratic ethos, values and practices. Last, the international community has an influential role to play in Nepali politics. However, it has to be sincere about what sort of democracy it wishes to see in Nepal and work accordingly.
Related story
Beauties, build the thick skin
