Nepali Politics: Dispute On Non-Issue

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Political parties are the key players in a democracy. In the modern political life of any country and society, political parties serve as lifeblood. The parties are principal instruments that must have the responsibility of mobilizing different interest groups into a democratic polity that fosters competitive governance and peaceful co-existence. Democratic polity is the system that ensures better access for the people to political and decision-making process. The parties that prove their worth in this competitive process and win the hearts of the people by better delivering services can be established in politics and prosper. The failure in these acid tests, parties and leaders would be destined to perish and finally dumped into the trash of history.

The political system can be worth calling democracy only when people feel ownership over the political process and decision-making. People feel ownership in the political system only when their participation is better ensured in the political and the decision-making process in practical sense. The fundamental duty of the parties is to bring more and more people to the systemic activities of the political process.

Democracy is the political system that is owned by the people, creates mechanism to work for the overall interest of the people and ensures that people are involved in the political and decision-making process. This is why democracy is said to be the system of the people, operated by the people for the interest of the people. In the Athenian government of early days, all adult citizens used to directly participate in the political process. The Athenian democracy is described as the mother of democratic exercise in the world. Citizens of Athens used to assemble in one place and decide each and every issue by majority. This is called direct democracy. The direct democracy is also called pure democracy, in which citizens vote directly on matters of public concern and every adult citizen takes part in decision-making process. However, the direct democracy may not be possible in the modern politics because of complicated demographic pattern and social structure. Its place has been taken by indirect, which is also called representative democracy. In representative democracy, citizens elect their representatives who take part in political and decision-making process on behalf of their electorates. In other words, this is called a surrogate democracy.

With surrogate democracy being in vogue in the modern world, the fundamental essence of democracy has withered away. The people participate in political process in elections which are held occasionally in four, five or six years. People’s participation is sought only in election and people go to oblivion until another election is held. The representatives make decision and reap benefits in the name of people but electorates are neither aware of the decisions made by their representatives nor do they, in reality, have their consent. The term democracy is, thus, being abused by a handful of elites who claim to be representatives of the people.

Even not all elections are free and fair. Most election are stolen and votes bought. Still they claim that elections are democratic. In this way, modern day democracy is distorted and perverted. How can such political system be called a democratic? Is this the participation of the people? Can people feel ownership over the system and government that is formed on the basis of such fraudulent elections? But people are maimed to accept these systems as democracy. This is not the case of a particular country but a general trend in most of the developing countries where money, muscle power and manipulation of state apparatus have greater say in politics and electoral process.

Against this background a great debate is underway in Nepal as to what should be the best model of democracy in the present context in which people will have their ownership. With the date for the promulgation of a new constitution drawing closer, this debate has further intensified. However, there is no unanimity on which model of democracy would be best suited to Nepal.

Nepal’s political forces are being polarized into two camps so far as the model and definition of democracy is concerned. One powerful section is of the view that the western capitalist system or multi-party polity is the best option to sustain democratic system in Nepal. But there is equally strong view that multi-party system is capitalist and bourgeoisie democracy which is not genuine democracy that can solve the fundamental problems of the people. According to this school of thought, ‘people’s democracy’ or ‘new democracy’ is the best system that addresses the genuine concerns and solves the fundamental problems of the people. The multi-party democracy is the system that is being practiced in the western capitalist countries whereas the new democracy is akin to what China introduced after the success of 1949 revolution under the banner of Communist Party of China.

The first category of political forces that advocate the capitalist democracy or multi-party system include the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and Madhesi parties and some other fringe groups. The other force that is opposed to the western type of multi-party democracy or capitalist democracy comprises mainly the UCPN-Maoist. Recently, the Maoists seem to have backtracked from their stance and accepted the multi-party system but with some changes and modifications. They want to give it a different name as their face saving device. More or less, the western model of parliamentary democracy, which communists describe as a capitalist and bourgeoisie democracy, has been accepted as a political model to be adopted by Nepal. But there are still differences among political parties on the exact form under the western multi-party democracy.

There are mainly three models of multi-party democracy in the world, although some argue that there are as many models of democracy as there are democratic countries in the world . The British system, which is called parliamentary or Westminster type of democracy, US model or presidential system and French model or mixed system are the three major models of democracy under capitalist multi-party system. The political models Switzerland and South Africa are practicing are also taken as alternative to three models that are being experimented in the world. But Swiss and South African models do not present any special features to be called the alternative systems.

The present debate in Nepal is not between the systemic models based on ideological divide but between different sets under the western capitalist system. The Nepali Congress is determined not to move an inch from its stance of parliamentary democracy or Westminster model. The Congress is of the view that in a newly emerged democracy, the best model is parliamentary form which maintains perfect checks and balances among three branches of government. It is true that checks and balances are necessary for a functioning democracy which would prevent any kind of dictatorial tendency in the leadership or government. In parliamentary system like that of United Kingdom, India, Japan and a few other countries, the prime minister commands the executive powers whereas the head of the state is titular with no power to exercise. The Prime Minister is elected by parliament who can remain in office as long as he commands support of parliament. In that sense, the government is in the control of elected representatives of the people and the prime minister is accountable to parliament.

The UCPN-Maoist is advocating presidential system like that of the United States in which president is directly elected from the people for a certain period. The directly elected president cannot be removed by parliament in between, which may ensure more stability. In a country like Nepal where caste, regional and ethnic politics has a dominant role, there are higher chances of hung parliament which would breed ground for frequent changes of government and instability. The marked political instability that Nepal witnessed in the past is attributed to the inherent flaws in the parliamentary system that Nepal adopted after 1951 political change and in 1990. If the country has to see stability, presidential system, according to UCPN-Maoist, is the best option. However, both the systems have their own merits and demerits. It is true that parliamentary system is more likely to invite political instability which was evident in the past. The advocate of parliamentary system have pointed out the danger of emergence of dictatorial tendency in presidential system because, according to their argument, the executive president should not be accountable to any institution. This argument may be right to certain extent but this is not absolutely true. Even parliamentary system sometimes may lead to dictatorial tendency. In parliamentary system, the prime minister has the right to dissolve parliament, which is used as a weapon to tame the House. In the presidential system, the executive president does not enjoy this right.

In between these two sharp and conflicting views, a proposal has come up from the CPN-UML for a mixed model like that of France in which the president is to be elected directly whereas prime minister to be elected from parliament. This is a middle way approach to resolve the dispute. Even in this system, the parties are not unanimous. There is a chance that parties may ultimately agree on the mixed model something akin to French system. But, in essence, there would not be any fundamental difference whichever model under the multi-party system we adopt.

.