News, Views From Nepal

Yuba Nath Lamsal The question of ownership over the current political process has emerged as a new issue that is likely to stall and complicate the constitution making process, although all political parties, at least in rhetoric, appear to be committed to early promulgation of the new constitution. This issue has come up more visibly only recently particularly after the November 2013 election results in which Nepali Congress emerged as the largest force while rendering the UCPN-Maoist into a distant third position. But it had always remained in the latent in Nepal’s political spectrum after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement on November 21, 2006, through which political parties agreed to hold an election for a constituent assembly with the objective of writing the constitution of the country through the hands of people’s elected representatives.   Now parties have scrambled to own up this agenda as to who first propagated the idea of the constituent assembly in

Yuba Nath Lamsal When system fails to function, anarchy creeps into governance. Corruption is not an instance but a tendency. Corruption is amalgamation of opportunity and intention. One may not be corrupt if he/she does not get opportunity to do so. Clean people are those who do not misuse power for undue benefit when they get opportunity. Breakdown of system makes the situation further worse and complicated that gives rise to pervasive corruption, misuse of power for personal benefit flouting laws and accepted norms. This is a general phenomenon prevalent all over the world. However, Nepal’s case is unique as it is always mired in protracted political transition. Right from the creation of a unified state, Nepal has continued to remain in transition and suffer instability, uncertainty and sometimes anarchy. In this long travel and traverse of building a nation state, Nepal hardly witnessed any sustainable political stability. Although the period of 104 years under R

Yuba Nath Lamsal Nepal is currently passing through a critical phase of history. This is critical in the sense that decisions and developments in the next few weeks or months will have great impact on fate and future of Nepal and the Nepalese people. Unlike, other previous cosmetic changes in the country’s political front; this political phenomenon will mark a clear systemic change, which perhaps is the second of its nature in Nepal modern political history since 1951. The Jana Andolan II of 2005-06 with a decade-long Maoist insurgency in the background brought about a phenomenal change and marked a tectonic shift in Nepal’s political course and system. The 1951 political change had brought the Rana ‘clanocracy’ to an end, hence, heralding a new political era—the era of multi-party democracy. This was systemic change as it ended a dynastic rule of Rana clan in which a clan and dynasty had privileged and prerogative in power and perks whereas people were treated mere subject

Yuba Nath Lamsal Apologists of western liberal democracy call it the best political system in the contemporary world. They are of the view that divergent ideologies and ideas exist, grow, expand, flourish and contest in democracy, which sometimes lead to conflict causing even collateral damage. But, according to them, this system provides for a negotiated settlement to all problems, conflict and contradictions through dialogue and compromise. This is their half-baked logic. But it has some degree of truth as some sporadic cases and developments have exhibited so. But this is not always the case. Liberal democracy, which Marxist call as a capitalist or bourgeoisie democracy, provides provision for free speech, freedom of expression and competition in the name of periodic election. However, election alone does not guarantee genuine democracy and there are instances in the world that such systems sometimes give rise to notorious dictators, which have to be dumped in history’s wa