As an exhaustive examination of the Nepalese case would indicate, a different kind of crisis has emerged in the political sector since the promulgation of the 2015 constitution. It is now experiencing candidate-oriented politics than having to devote for a wide range of public policy reforms designed to generate legitimate outcomes where all relevant voices are equally heard so that the efforts to improve the government fortune becomes more responsive, accessible and accountable to the citizenry.

Of course, the KP Oli regime is not parading under the banner of communism, nor does it command as such, nor has it assumed power and authority to follow Huntington’s (1991) path of extricating political institutions or undermining universally accepted democratic ideology to develop favorable and concrete policies by introducing productive projects in accordance with the public opinion which can push down the pervasive political environment and the feeling that one may influence decisions affecting the local and national levels which would allow various types of political participation in the forums of political activities and influence the general political climate to the extent of having some visible net effect.

More importantly, stimulating programs that increase employment opportunities, even if only slightly, may reduce the risk of another government collapse.

Nevertheless, there is still a chance for the Oli regime to address problems meaningfully by negotiating with different revolutionaries and groups, however incoherent or self-seeking; for the odds are with one another and co-opting them into collaborative policy arrangements is necessary, despite their narrow bases of support and carrying the dogmatic baggage, myths, falsehoods, and bundles of stereotypes that are hoping to use every possible tactics to dismantle the current institutional democratic practices or structures by generating a dangerous political dynamic of expansion, which constitutes one of the  problems confronting the Nepali polity.

In a democratic transitional society like Nepal’s, it would be tempting to assume that politics of redistribution and political legitimacy of governments that bear significant implications directly and unambiguously are understood to further cherish the democratic values and help encourage strengthening modern democratic institutions to function successfully on a long-term basis. (Held 1996)

The fundamental question remains whether Nepali democracy is effective to plan and carry out programs for institutional reforms in order to alleviate rural poverty, present new insights into the processes of social and political changes and ensure individual freedom in a situational context.

One interpretation is that the government structure of the day can have legitimate and peaceful channels to contain the political problems, which is of paramount importance in availing the greatest net benefit to strengthen the overall democratic performance. In view of some practical limits on the degree of popular control provided by-elections in the sense that voters do not necessarily present the real policy choices on which the  government that has the prerogative may launch policy initiatives and assess the problems substantially for promoting debate on the measures to be taken for a long-range projection besides increasing confidence, command and determination that would help the government to formulate policies in order to respond to the diverse problems and implement authoritative solutions, no matter at what cost and regardless of political inconvenience.

More importantly, stimulating programs that increase employment opportunities, even if only slightly, may reduce the risk of another government collapse. There are people who would counsel that we need not be worried about such matters, but even empty threats may shake the confidence of the business and eventually that of the general public, which could then increase the uncertainty of the political environment. We should also point out that Nepal is a country rich in resources and talent, but it is badly governed. The fundamental question remains whether Nepali democracy is effective to plan and carry out programs for institutional reforms in order to alleviate rural poverty, present new insights into the processes of social and political changes and ensure individual freedom in a situational context.

The participatory tendency of people depends on those who live together. It is not very clear how an ordinary citizen exactly makes a judgment about the performance of a democratic regime. Usually, it is believed that the impact of government decision is almost nothing in reducing economic disparity by anchoring a set of practical projects while meeting public expectations. Similarly, there is public trust built up among the political authorities such as leaders and politicians, in addition to having such institutions as parliament, courts, elections, political parties, as well as the news media—core pillars of democracy, which also create favorable conditions to open the opportunities with vividly radical proposals for challenging the status quo.

As we have seen, the citizens’ coherence and constant presence in the policy-formulation and decision-making stages and the incentives for their involvement in a social network may influence political participation which would, in turn, open up numerous possibilities for high-level protection of the citizens. There are various factors to raise the level of political awareness and national consciousness that would surely help encourage political activism.

Conclusion

It is no wonder that democracy, rule of law and good governance are considered as the key elements of what Plato, in his Republic, described as an ‘ideal state’ that is imperative for the existence of a modern state in the international context which has emerged from the end of the Cold War and has many repercussions for both eastern and western worlds.

This does not mean that Nepalese citizens overtly dissatisfied with the popular conceptions of democracy regardless of their strong criticisms of some aspects of Nepalese society, such as corruption and mismanagement from a political science perspective.

As a result, both academic, as well as political debates, are dominated by such themes as democratic deficit and legitimacy crisis in the hope that a political entity be equipped with and fashioned out through the participation of all interest groups to the extent that the people feel that their government is responsive to their rights and interests.  We cannot be sure whether there is a certain domestic model of democracy that holds out the promise of sovereignty for all — when everyone can be a prince. It must be recognized that pluralistic Western-style democracy constitutes but one version of democracy; albeit the trend might change.

Although it would be premature to conclude, it is quite clear that Nepali democracy is at risk and the risk comes not from any external threat but from the disturbing internal trends and erosion of democratic principles and processes.  Any scope for the revival of the dead horse may now be considered redundant. For example, we may argue that the demise of the monarchy was not a sudden change with some real base of support; it was rather due to a wide range of political activities.

Similarly, we may also assume that democracy in Nepal is still finding its footing due to the lack of skills in the institutional arena to take advantage of the new style of progressive politics. Indeed, the democratic rule reigns when the supremacy of the people prevails what Machiavelli believed that the common people must act as the ultimate arbiters of political reality, and the elected officials work exclusively for the general welfare of the society.

Additionally, there can be no mistake that material inequality, political corruption, the undermining of virtue, and the like is ultimately inconsistent with the successful maintenance of democracy.  Three decades since Nepal’s return to democracy many studies do not argue that it performs perfectly, and agree that the regime faces various challenges, including rising economic inequality and rampant corruption which overshadow essential characteristics of democracy. This does not mean that Nepalese citizens overtly dissatisfied with the popular conceptions of democracy regardless of their strong criticisms of some aspects of Nepalese society, such as corruption and mismanagement from a political science perspective.

Views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the stance of Khabarhub.