Systemic dysfunction in political system

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 Rana oligarchy and 30 years of Panchayat is defined as the phase of stability in Nepal’s political history, this, in reality, was a despotic stability. The despotic stability does not ensure genuine and sustainable stability, which paves the way for popular disenchantment leading to a new type of chaos and anarchy. The 1951 political change brought about an era of multi-party democratic system, but this proved to be an anarchic system and democracy.
Democracy is the system that not only provides competition, freedom, representation of the governance, rule of law and a guarantee of participation in all levels of decision-making process, but also ensures peace, sustainable stability and economic prosperity. However, this is hardly the case in Nepal throughout the history. The period of eight years since 1951 was marked by a height of anarchy that was practiced in the name of democracy. Civil and political rights alone do not guarantee democracy. The real and functional democracy is the system in which people receive quick and efficient delivery of service at their doorsteps and the country witnesses peace, stability and prosperity. When ‘mobocracy’ ruled the roost during 1951-1960 period, the king took advantage of the chaotic situation and stepped in to intervene thereby imposing his absolute regime and denying the people with their fundamental rights. King’s dictatorship reined for 30 years in the name of Panchayat system until 1990 until the popular upheaval overthrew the Panchayat and restored multi-party regime. The period of 30 years under Panchayat was a period of relative stability compared to the situation during 1951-60 period. But this, too, was not a period of genuine and sustainable peace and stability. This was just a lull before looming violent uprising and it did happen in 1990 when a joint movement of the Nepali Congress and communists forced the king to bow down and return the rights of people thereby restoring multi-party system again. Both Rana period and Panchayat period, too, were in transition as dictatorship always awaits uprising and upheavals. It had been expected that multi-party democracy would provide ground for sustainable stability but it did not happen even after the political change in 1990. This change lived short as again another political arrangement had to be brokered following the violent Maoist insurgency that left more than 17,000 people dead, thousands others injured. This political arrangement brokered in 2005 established republican democracy with inclusive representation in all levels and sectors. It has now been more than nine years since the new political regime was installed in the country, the republican system and achievements of the popular movements have not yet been formally institutionalized in the absence of a permanent constitution to be written by the democratically elected constituent Assembly. We are still in transition which has given rise to ills and evils of many kinds in all sectors.
This perpetual transition that Nepal has been undergoing since its founding is the fundamental reason for pervasive and rampant corruption deeply embedded in our society. It has been a long-held tradition and social practice to be proud when one amasses property through corruption. The post Jana Andolan-2005 period has become even more infamous for corruption and misuse of authority by people in power. The election system is such that one cannot dare contest parliamentary election if he/she does not have at least 10 million Nepalese rupees. You can now imagine how these people who get elected after spending such a high amount get return. Obviously, politicians and leaders have to indulge in all kind of moral and immoral dealings to earn the money spent during the election. This has made mockery of our democracy and democratic election. So corruption has thrived with political protection in Nepal. Thus, the tall talks of corruption control are mere farce and it cannot be rooted out in Nepal unless electoral system was reformed. For this, fully proportionate electoral system could be one remedy.
That is the reason why former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once said “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”. Churchill must have visualized these evils in the democratic set up. However, Western countries and politicians including Churchill himself defended democracy not because it was a good system but it was the only way to prevent the onslaught of socialism that had already been established in the Soviet Union (now Russia).
We all know that the system isn’t working under the present political set up. But there is no alternative as socialism, too, suffered huge setback in countries where it was experimented, practiced and preached. With the collapse of Soviet Union, socialism, too, collapsed in Soviet Union and some East European countries. China has communist government but it has opened up its economy and embraced some tenets of capitalism to attract foreign investment and boost Chinese growth and economy, which Beijing calls as socialism with Chinese characteristics. With pursuing reforms and opening up, China has achieved marvelous economic growth and prosperity. North Korea is a hermit republic and very little is known about this country where communist regime is in place. Cuba and Vietnam are other countries that claim to have been practicing socialism or communism but it remains to be seen whether they, too, represent genuine communism and socialism. Despite setbacks, socialism has still its appeal worldwide.
Although socialism is communist connotation, many anti-communists people in the world, too, advocate socialism within liberal democracy and some have even succeeded in implementing and practicing. People like Willy Brandt of Germany made socialism within liberal democracy a reality, which has been followed by many in other countries mainly in the developing world. Brandt named this mix of socialism and liberal democracy as ‘democratic socialism’, which even Nepali Congress have adopted as its guiding principle but practiced the other way round. Liberal democracy and capitalism are like two sides of a coin. But capitalism that the Western countries champion has miserably failed to deliver and address the problems, instead has given rise to global economic crisis and chaos. The present economic crisis that the world in general and the Western countries in particular have faced is due to the nature of capitalism. This has been proved that capitalism cannot solve economic problems of the people but only complicates them. Socialism, thus, is an alternative— better alternative. But it has to have human face and accept competitiveness like the one introduced and practiced by China. Be it capitalist or communist, there must be high degree of accountability, zero tolerance against corruption, representative system and electoral reforms which alone can make the system functioning and successful. Perhaps, our leaders, too, will give a serious attention to these factors as we are in the process of writing a new constitution to chart out the future course of our politics.

Comments