Nepali people had to wait for a long time for a democratic system, an open society and a free press. They got the democratic system in 1990 through a comparatively peaceful movement. However, after 25 years of open and democratic practice, Nepal is still in a deep political impasse. In this period, Nepal conducted many experiments. Nepali people witnessed a multiparty parliamentary system with a constitutional monarch, absolute monarchy, and finally a republic with a federal order. We have also experienced elected governments of a single and multiple parties.We tasted the rules of the self-styled democrats, self-proclaimed communists, self-appointed royalists and, above all, self-declared revolutionaries. Unfortunately none of these political systems, ideologies or parties could take the country on the path of stability, prosperity and solidarity. To make matters worse, the new concept of federalism has shattered all the gains and achievements Nepal had made in the recent times. Thanks to all these bizarre trials, Nepal is today facing an unprecedented challenge of saving its very existence.
The new constitution was endorsed by over 85 percent lawmakers in the 600-odd-member Constituent Assembly and it envisaged political stability. Supposedly Nepal would henceforth chart its own future, including its development process. But even before the new constitution was adopted and proclaimed, there were already murmurs of discontent over the restructuring of the state. A seven-state federal model was settled on. It provoked angry protests in Tarai-Madhesh, spearheaded by regional parties thriving on agenda of territorial autonomy to rid of 'hill domination' in decision-making. After 100 days of market closure, transport disruptions, massive demonstrations and loss of countless lives, there is no sign of respite.
Problems got complicated with the intervention of India. It imposed an undeclared blockade and restricted the supply of essential goods and petroleum products into Nepal, causing severe hardships and leading to shortage of even life-saving medicines.
The new constitution is a fait accompli. But it is a failure too. Its legality is not in question, nor its moral underpinnings. What is however at stake is its applicability. The way the constitution was conceived and was born was wrong. First, people's expectations were raised so high, no constitution in the world could honor those high expectations. Second, the Constituent Assembly was only a foster father. The biological fathers were so-called top leaders of four political parties. Since the crucial issues were decided at the top, the constitution could not take the grassroots into confidence. Third, the draft constitution was put up for public scrutiny only for formality. Public feedback on many things, including secularism, was totally bypassed. Why ask people when you are not ready to listen to them?
Fourth, state restructuring was arbitrarily handled. Initially political leaders agreed on eight provinces but in the end they settled for six. Under pressure of people in Karnali region, it was changed to seven. They thought they could arbitrarily decide the number of provinces. As a consequence Tharus and Madheshis started agitating for separate provinces in Tarai-Madesh area, which the leaders are yet to agree to.
Fifth, besides misleading the people of Nepal, the real framers of the constitution misled even the leaders of India, as disclosed by Foreign Minister Kamal Thapa during a recent meeting with former foreign ministers, ambassadors and bureaucrats. Hence the subsequent blockade and people's suffering. Sixth, the constitution will come under added stress, with consequent suffering for the people, when division of power and nomenclature of provincial states are discussed. There will be more struggles stemming from fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution, which are yet to be given a legal framework.
The constitution has retained parliamentary system, which has a record of absolute failure in Nepal. It was its malfunctioning that gave birth to an armed rebellion. The Maoists, despite their revolutionary slogans, succumbed to the all-too-familiar disease of parliamentary system: political wrangling, bargaining and maladministration. They found themselves divided among many factions/divisions. As a result they had to climb down to the third largest party from the position of the largest party.
The worst impact of parliamentary system is on parliament itself, which is not allowed to function on one or the other pretext. There has been no serious discussion on House floor. Parties, whenever they are in opposition, obstruct its proceedings. So why adopt a system that cannot function? It is this system that has led to dearth of strong political leadership. Nepali Congress, the biggest party in parliament, is run by a collective leadership of three persons—each determined to outdo the other. This in fact means no leadership at all. The ruling CPN-UML is headed by a person who is party president as well as Prime Minister but his rival leaders are pulling the party in opposite direction.
Prachanda's party, called United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), has splintered into four parties. The parties claiming to represent Tarai and Madhesh and other marginalized sections of the society, for their part, are bent on creating a greater space for themselves in southern plains with support of the southern neighbor. The way the crisis has been handled so far, both by those in power as well as by those in opposition, including those who claim to represent Madheshi people, all of them seem willing to sacrifice the territorial integrity of the country for self-interest.
Similarly, the country is rapidly slipping towards political, social and economic chaos. The age-old social cohesion and solidarity are also vanishing. The country is witnessing total absence of governance; as a result, people are feeling helpless and like orphans, with no leader and government to look up to. Diplomatically, the country has been rendered a failure. All indications are that the international community has forgotten us, except making some very vague, token statements to show that they are concerned with Nepal's situation. But for all practical purpose, they have left us at the mercy of India.
China is still waiting to find out whether or not Nepal is interested in establishing long-term economic relations. Similarly, before extending support to Nepal mainly in trade and transit, China wants assurance that Nepal would not forget her when India lifts its economic embargo. It is high time Nepalis realize because of the short-sightedness of their political leaders they are on the verge of losing sovereignty and independence. Before it is too late our leaders should realize the gravity of the situation and do something on their own without the support (or interference) of one or other neighbor.
Shrestha is a veteran political commentator and Dhungel a former Secretary with the Government of Nepal
Related story
UK's Boris Johnson on the brink as ministers quit
