While assessing the process of democratization, the crisis of Nepalese governance goes much deeper. However, it is clear that some groundwork has indeed been laid down in Nepal and the same is evident in acceptance of political pluralism and emphasis on economic development. This process of democratization is further stimulated by the civil society of Nepal.
Having said this, it must not be overlooked that Nepal today is under the clutches of undemocratic tendencies, particularly the onslaught on all the major institutions of the democratic governing system. It has created danger in securing the durability of democratic governance in Nepal and bringing in progressive institutional transformation for effective and efficient governance. Although it may be a matter of debate, the current patriarchy in which a few male chauvinistic leaders are exercising excessive control over political power to the detriment of long-life of our price-less democracy.
Significant social and interest groups are also not getting much representation for raising the democratic issues from among the peoples of the country.
Their self-interest and anti-democratic ideas are definitely unhelpful and counter-productive to ensure the continued survival of the fundamental rights of citizens and ultimately the full-fledged democracy in which all of us repose our faith and see it as our shared future. Significant social and interest groups are also not getting much representation for raising the democratic issues from among the peoples of the country.
Nepal, I fear, may now play its cards only to a limited extent. When we look back the development of political institutions, which would be rather a personal or at best an informal process, we see rays of hope because local self-government is touching the lives of people at the local level, the capacity of which appeared limited till now. Howsoever knotty and complex the political problems may be, as an optimistic person I feel there exists ample scope to nurture and promote the concept of federalism down to the ground level and that would allow to build up institutional capacities of various institutions. This will further ease the devolution of power from top to bottom level.
These are questions that political scientists are asking all the time. General answers to these questions continue to be sparse.
For the democratic process to be effective, among many other factors, we need full protection to all citizens, mutual forgiveness and reciprocal acceptance, wholehearted sincerity, and openness to continuing the dialogue with the hope of inculcating a culture of peace, and professionalism. All these will ensure equal justice for a peaceful settlement of the conflict arisen due to a clash of ideology and approach of exclusiveness promoting separatism in Nepalese politics.
For students of liberal democracy, the big debate of the contemporary era converges around the questions as being given here. What is going on political front here? Whose voice is heard in Nepali politics? Who holds the real power? How have the institutions from top to bottom changed over the years? And, similarly, whether or not people wield power effectively at large because democracy is all about the power of people who rule themselves by electing representatives. These are questions that political scientists are asking all the time. General answers to these questions continue to be sparse. Many models of representative government can be proposed. While assessing the functioning of Nepalese institutions, it must be kept in mind if a progressive participatory democracy is being fostered by a federal polity matching with a diversity of the country all across its geographical expanse. People of Nepal are less optimistic about the ability of politicians to deliver transformative changes throughout the country.
In a globalized world where political, social and economic interests are converging together, we as global citizens must look for democratic reforms committed to social justice and sustainable economic development. This is how the community of people who have different viewpoints will most likely participate in democratic decision-making effectively. Shared democratic culture brings a drastic shift in solving modern social and economic problems seizing upon the small, serendipitous clues that lead to all the much larger expansive democratic culture both at the social and political level. Democracy in Nepal may be as much a problem as it is a solution for the host of social, political and economic concerns if recent events are any indication.
Despite these flaws, Nepal offers many avenues for reconciliation between the diverse and opposing political ideologies
Our democracy is nascent and is very much vulnerable to power manipulation by patriarchs who control Nepali politics. When we critically examine the growing interest in federal governance, we find scholarly disagreements and considerable alarm. At the same time, there is a general public attitude that federalism may promote a vast array of authorities having a better understanding of people and are committed to serving the cause of the people. People, in general, have more confidence in local level government and assess its performance seeing the systematic effects of their policy outputs aimed at solving the unresolved problems of local people.
Of course, Nepal remains a unique state with an all-powerful political elite wielding their power over the use of scarce resources spread across all the 5 provinces of the country. From top to bottom these political elites by exerting political pressure realize their short-term political goals without being responsible to anyone and having no accountability of any sort whatsoever. Most of the times appointed public officials do not see eye to eye on many issues in their hands and the lack of agreement adversely affect the effective implementation of laws and policies on a range of diverse topics.
Despite these flaws, Nepal offers many avenues for reconciliation between the diverse and opposing political ideologies. This is how democracy is respected even amid confronting political ideologies and various other practical problems in present-day Nepal. There is a great scope of reform since the multilevel governance structures open opportunity for participation from all sections of the society and thus create an environment for improvement and transparency in the functioning of democratic institutions. Prosperity without having participatory democratic rule is a rare dream to achieve and it just kills the prospect of realizing even a minimal level of justice.
Comment