Urgent Reforms Needed to Safeguard Nepal’s Democracy

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of November 2006 marked the end of Nepal’s decade-long Maoist terrorist movement, bringing together Maoist rebels and the Nepali Congress Government within a coalition regime formed by the Seven Party Alliance (SPA).

A significant milestone followed in October 2015 with the introduction of a new constitution, allowing new political players and parties to enter the arena.

This was expected to reshape the political landscape, emphasizing consensus on social assistance programs and an increased role of the state in promoting growth, particularly with a focus on pro-poor policies and greater equality.

The aim was to foster productive engagement through formal democratic institutions.

However, the results have been disappointing thus far, largely due to persistent domestic issues such as clientelism, corruption, weak law enforcement, inadequate responsiveness, and a lack of authority.

These factors have hindered democratic progress and even allowed traditionalism to continue influencing formal institutions.

Overcoming these challenges often requires political compromises, especially in developing nations with diverse sectoral circumstances and varying stakeholder perspectives on governance.

In the context of Nepal, where democratization should broaden political coalitions to sustain power, political parties, the essence of democracy, have often been dominated by a privileged few.

They have sometimes pursued jingoistic nationalism and divisive identity politics, hindering economic transformation and the adoption of democratic values.

Nepal’s transition from monarchy to a republic marked a significant political shift, but insufficient attention has been given to its political consequences.

Frustration is growing, and there is widespread cynicism toward an unpopular regime that appears more interested in jingoistic nationalism than the democratic process.

Jingoistic nationalism and benevolent dictatorship, while potentially well-intentioned, tend to lack benevolence due to a higher risk of power abuse, limited accountability, and restrictions on individual freedoms.

Democracies and systems with strong rule of law and accountability mechanisms are generally viewed as more stable and less prone to abuse of power.

Over the past three-plus decades, Nepali politicians such as Girija Koirala, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, and Khadga Oli had opportunities to enact crucial changes, similar to leaders like Deng Xiaoping.

However, they fell short even in addressing basic issues like access to safe drinking water, improving the quality of public education, addressing unemployment, and ensuring public security.

While these and many other institutional challenges continue to persist, further eroding public trust in the government’s ability to provide essential services and maintain law and order is not solely due to leaders’ inability to change direction but also because intellectuals and civil society figures have at times praised politicians with criminal backgrounds or corruption scandals.

While there are indeed politicians with questionable ethics, one could argue that Nepal still maintains a grassroots democratic innovation within its formal government institutions, coupled with a more or less functional civil society.

This provides an opportunity to implement democratic reforms to the extent that the current regime allows, thereby enabling citizens, associations, and communities to enjoy greater liberty and equality while meeting governance expectations.

However, achieving this vision requires the removal of politicians who have been widely criticized for their actions.

Nepal’s democracy faced significant challenges even before the Maoists entered the political arena.

The Nepali Congress (NC) and the Unified Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML) parties were plagued by allegations of abuse and corruption, and parliament was consistently misled.

However, the Maoists escalated the situation by openly disregarding democratic principles, treating the Nepali people with disrespect, and undermining democracy itself.

In comparison to authoritarian regimes, democratic governments in various countries often face significant challenges when striving for democratic, inclusive, and sustained moderate economic growth while ensuring access to formal institutions.

It is evident that these politicians are determined to remain active in politics, even to the point of clinging to their involvement in hospice care.

The extent to which the entire citizenry can assess the government’s performance through democratic processes is a key factor.

However, it’s important to note that not all positive attributes necessarily align, and a successful government must effectively manage various dimensions of democracy, including respect for pluralism, freedom, human rights, and the rule of law.

Overcoming these challenges often requires political compromises, especially in developing nations with diverse sectoral circumstances and varying stakeholder perspectives on governance.

Nepal, for instance, grapples with issues such as parasitism and a complex blend of arrogance and hypocrisy.

These issues largely stem from a lack of understanding of the new formal institutional structure and the absence of effective redistributive measures.

Moreover, there is an underlying consensus among politicians that doesn’t prioritize achieving democratization across key aspects like the constitution, elections, judiciary, media, and civil society, all of which are vital for ensuring political stability.

A typical situation in Nepal is that political power is not vested in parliament, the executive, or the judiciary because most vital issues are resolved behind closed doors and in the corridors of power for personal gain.

Politicians such as Dahal, Bhattarai, Deuba, Oli, and Nepal have consistently disappointed the Nepali people since 1990.

These politicians have not concealed their disdain for the Nepalese public and have adopted an Orwellian ‘chicken-hawk’ form of nationalism.

Their approach involves deceiving the public, showing contempt for them, and resorting to fraud whenever necessary, despite 33 years of democratic practice.

It is evident that these politicians are determined to remain active in politics, even to the point of clinging to their involvement in hospice care.

In a healthy democracy, fair competition relies on a level playing field. However, when one faction controls the majority of the playing field and manipulates it in its favor, democracy becomes vulnerable to decline.

Many have lost faith in the credibility of fundamental institutions such as parliament, the police, and the press, which are essential for democratic governance. Why write so much?

What Nepal truly needs is a leader who can deliver on promises, someone with judgment, toughness, boldness, and political acumen.

A typical situation in Nepal is that political power is not vested in parliament, the executive, or the judiciary because most vital issues are resolved behind closed doors and in the corridors of power for personal gain.

Dryzek (2000) refers to this as secretive or deceptive practices. This challenges the establishment of a plural, dynamic, and responsive public space.

If significant improvements are not swiftly implemented, there is a risk not only of Nepal losing its current form of democracy but also its sovereignty.