Nepali Parties Required To Make Compromise For Fresh Polls

Yuba Nath Lamsal
Election is the soul of democracy. The types and models of election determine the level of quality of democracy. Although election is not the only determinant, election is, definitely, the most important and number one constituent of democratic polity. We cannot imagine a democratic system in the absence of free and fair election and free and fair polls cannot be expected in authoritarian systems. Under dictatorship elections are held but they are engineered to ensure that the ruling despot are declared winner just to hoodwink the international community.
Election is, thus, an important basis of democracy as it ensures people’s participation in governance. In early Athenian democracy, people of the city used to gather in one place and decide all issues concerning their governance. This type of system is called the direct democracy. With the march of time, the societies became complicated and population grew so rapidly that direct democracy became unmanageable and virtually impossible. This gave birth to representative or electoral democracy, which is in vogue worldwide. In the modern democracy, all the citizens cannot run the administration and only their representatives can do it for them. In order to choose such representatives, elections are a must. In other words, this system is called indirect democracy, in which the representatives are chosen through free and fair election to govern in the name of citizens. In this way, people maintain control over the government.
Multi-party system is taken as a synonym of democracy. But not all multi-party system may necessarily be democracy. But multi-party system creates ground for competition and lays foundation for a competitive political system, which is also an important component of democracy. In multi-party democracy, elections are fought generally on party basis, though some candidates fight elections as independent candidates. The party which gets a majority in the legislature forms the government. If the government, during its tenure, does not work for the welfare of the people, it can be changed in the next elections. This is a general principle and accepted rule in modern democracy. However, it is not always applied in practical politics. We have seen in many countries that multi-party democracy have also given rise to notorious dictators and led to collapse of the democratic system. In Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos, at one time, was the most popular leader and was elected to power with overwhelming majority. But he soon turned into a tyrant, who was to be overthrown only by popular revolt. Similar case is with Germany’s Adolf Hitler, who was most popular of his time and accordingly rose to power. As he went to power, he became the most notorious fascist icon in the world. Thus, system alone does not ensure democracy but good intention and democratic culture of the leaders, conscious and careful watch of the people and perfect check and balance make democracy functional in a true sense.
In Nepal, too, many elections were held in the past. But not all elections were democratic. Even during Panchyat regime, elections used to be held. As parties had been banned and elections held on individual basis, such elections failed to get democratic legitimacy. Even after the collapse of the Panchayat regime in the wake of popular upheaval in 1990,  multi-party system but not perfect system was restored, it too failed to address the fundamental issues concerning genuine democracy and popular expectations,  which gave ground to another upsurge and revolt. The electoral system adopted after 1990 was flawed as representation of ethnic, lingual and cultural minorities and oppressed class was not duly accommodated and given due space and place in the 1990 constitution. This is an example how multi-party political system alone does not ensure genuine democracy.
In order to have genuine democracy, people of all sections and sectors must be duly represented. Electoral system should be designed in such a way that it represents all sections, communities and minorities in a proportionate manner so that all people, irrespective of their caste, creed, language, sex and color have due representation in the political process and decision making of the state. These factors had never been given due consideration in Nepal until 2008.  The necessity of proportionate representation was realized after the political system ushered in by 1990 political movement, too, failed.  One of the agendas of the Jana Andolan II was, thus, the proportionate electoral system to ensure inclusive democracy, which formally incorporated in the Interim Constitution, 2006. Accordingly, election to the Constituent Assembly was held which ensured representation of all people of Nepal including the hitherto unrepresented or under represented ones.
The Constituent Assembly had been mandated to write and deliver a constitution in two years, which would formally institutionalize the achievements of Jana Andolan II and ushered in a new, peaceful and prosperous political era in Nepal. But the optimism and expectations of the people were once again shattered as the Constituent Assembly failed to give a new constitution to the country even in the period of four years. This was quite unfortunate for the country, people and the new found republican democracy.
The failure of the Constituent Assembly to deliver the constitution not only betrayed the people but also delayed and derailed the political process that was initiated in 2005 after the signing of the 12-point agreement and the Comprehensive Peace Accord. The inability to manage the crisis and the lack of far-sightedness and vision on the part of the political parties are responsible for this utter failure. The political process has again moved back to the stage of 2008 when there had been uncertainty about the election for Constituent Assembly. All the political exercises and resources spent for the purpose of the election have now been wasted. The same process is going to start anew.
Still there is no certainty about the future course of Nepal’s politics. But political parties, which are the key players, have not been able to manage the crisis and come up with a concrete roadmap for the future course. All political parties have agreed that there is no alternative to fresh election. However, no party seems to be prepared to go to election immediately. The reason is obvious that parties are not certain of their position after the election. Instead the entire focus is on the leadership of the government, which indicates that parties have no faith in free and fair election as well as fair democratic competition but simply want to manipulate the polling process to ensure their better position in the election.
If it had not been the case, there should not be such a bargain for the leadership of the government. The present coalition government headed by Dr Baburam Bhattarai had declared the fresh election scheduled for October 2012 but could not be held in the absence of cooperation from the opposition parties mainly the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML. Some election related laws have to be amended for holding the fresh election. But the efforts of the government to amend the election related laws and constitutional provisions were blocked by the opposition parties. This has made the possibility of the election uncertain. The attitude of the opposition parties has demonstrated that we are already heading towards the politics of negation. Political parties are not willing to accept the existence and leadership of other parties in the next government. As long as this situation continues, national consensus and national unity government are not possible. If political parties are really honest and want to rescue the country from the present whirlpool of crisis, they must make compromise and be willing to make some sacrifices. Since the opposition parties tend to negate the ruling coalition, it is quite logical that the ruling coalition, too, may not accept the leadership of the opposition parties in future. This would only prolongue the stalemate, which is by no means in the interest of the country and the people.
It is true that there no alternative to election. It is also true that election is not possible in the absence of consensus. The consensus can only be built when the parties are willing to compromise, make sacrifices and ready to accept the existence and position of all political forces of the country. So far as the leadership of the government is concerned, the largest party must get the opportunity whereas other parties should be given dignified space in the cabinet depending upon their strength in the erstwhile Constituent Assembly. This will alone bring about the amicable solution and create ground for early election. If parties continue to adopt the arrogant attitude and do not accept the ground reality of politics, they are doomed to be dumped in the trash of history, which would also be disastrous for the country, people and democracy.