Parties, political culture and democracy

Yuba Nath Lamsal
Nepal has seen many political experiments in the short span of time. This is more so after 1990 when the country saw multi-party political system. During this period, all types of governments and leaders were tested, most of whom failed to get good rating from the people. The interim government, one-party majority government, one-party minority government, coalition governments of different types were experimented but none could deliver the goods.
Failure
Democracy was the casualty of the parties’ failure. Even after the ten years of constitutional and democratic exercises, roots of democracy could not spread deep enough at the grassroots level. Institutions were not created and strengthened. Instead, heavy handedness of politicians in power and direct political interference weakened the system and institution. This was a major cause of failure of democracy in Nepal.

Election is an important aspect of democratic polity. It involves people in the political process and governance. In the 12 years of democratic exercises, three general elections and two local elections were held. But democracy continued to remain weak and fragile as it is today. The country is now without elected representatives both at the central as well as local level. It is the retreat of democracy, which is the making of political parties themselves.

Ironically, parties still do not seem to have realized their weaknesses, mistakes and failures. They are engaged more on blaming others than soul searching to trace exactly where they failed and what they needed to correct. It appears that although we have democracy, parties could not mould into democratic culture and practice.
Our parties seem to be more bureaucratic than democratic. Decisions are made at the central level, which is imposed at the lower levels. The decision making process has never been bottom-up. The top-down approach has often suppressed the democratic spirit and voice of the people.
When decisions are made at the center and voices at the lower and grassroots level are ignored, the power automatically concentrates at the center depriving the rank and file, which automatically diminishes their influence among the people. When voices of the cadres and lower level committees are not heard, let alone the voices and concerns of the people at the grassroots level. This is how the decisions, policies and programmes of the parties and government do not necessarily reflect the voices, needs and interests of the mass, which is a fundamental flaw in the functioning of our political parties. This has had a direct impact on the political system that we have seen today.

Although our parties claim to be democratic, the tendency is dictatorial. The criticism of the leadership is never tolerated. There are parties within a party and groups within a political group. The majority always suppresses the minority faction, which often leads to the split of the party. In many crucial issues, the minority group even does not know what is being discussed in the committee meetings. When it comes to fore for discussion, then only the minority faction comes to know the issue and gets adopted without comprehensive deliberations. That is the unique case in Nepal at present. In the 12 years of post 1990 era, all major parties split. It began with the Rastriya Prajatantra Party followed by CPN-UML, Nepali Congress and Nepal Sadbhavana Party. Since there is no common agenda in one party, how they can devise a common national strategy.
The very nature of Nepalese political parties is centralized and authoritarian. When a group of the party leadership itself does not have say in the decision making, it can be easily imagined how the voices of lower rank and file can be treated and heard. This creates revolt and criticism from both party cadres and the mass. Faced with the criticism and revolt, the leadership tends to be more aggressive and authoritarian and does not even hesitate to undermine the people’s fundamental rights.
The recent development in the Nepali Congress is its example. Differed on some issues, the Nepali Congress all of a sudden dissolved the elected leadership of the Nepal Students’ Union, the student wing of the party, without any valid reason and brought some henchmen in the leadership. Similarly, those who are critical of the party leadership are marginalized in all parties. This has plagued Nepal’s politics as well as political parties.
Power and position are every thing for leaders. They grab and cling to power by hook or by crook as it is the basis for their prestige and reputation, which they legitimize with the misuse of power, influence and money. Democracy, democratic values, nation, people, national issues and problem are secondary.
If we look at the retrospect, all parties have applied the same tactics to preserve their hold in power. Faced with mounting pressure and revolt both from within his own party and opposition, Girija Prasad Koirala, who was the Prime Minister, dissolved the House of Representatives and announced fresh election two years before the schedule. He could have averted the crisis by resigning from the post and handing over the premiership to some one else of his own party as the Nepali Congress was in majority. The political instability began right from this time. Thus, Koirala is the chiefly responsible for the current situation.
The mid-term election produced a hung parliament with no single party having sufficient seats in parliament to form its own majority government required by the constitution. CPN-UML emerged as the largest party in the parliament, which was then allowed to form its minority government. The CPN-UML also followed Koirala’s footprints by recommending for parliament dissolution to evade the censure motion that had already been registered in the parliament, which was later quashed by the Supreme Court. All other governments that came after repeated the same mistake only to continue their hold on power.
Pathfinders
This is due to the lack of tolerance and democratic culture in the leadership. The formation of the central leadership is also not fully democratic, which is reflected in their decisions. No party elects all central committee members. Nepali Congress, which is the oldest party in the country, had the trend of electing only the president, who would nominate the entire members of the central committee. The CPN-UML is ahead of all parties in terms of exercising democratic practice in the election of the central committee. Right from the beginning, it has the practice of electing at least 75 per cent members of the central committee from among the representative of the national convention. The elected central committee nominates the rest 25 per cent members. The Nepali Congress started electing only half of the central committee members only from the last general convention. The president nominates other 50 per cent members. The same is the case with the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP).
To sum up, parties have not been able to fully adopt the democratic practice and culture in both principle and actions, which is the main cause distortion in our political landscape at present. Leaders are the pathfinders, who must demonstrate truly democratic culture and strong moral quality. Only then people follow them, which helps consolidate democracy and development in the country.

Comments