Democratization in Nepal

60

position.”¹⁵⁹ Through analysis, it can be seen that the major Nepali political leadership and political positions have been occupied by elderly leaders who were often in poor health. It affects the function and efficiency of leadership, which directly affects the national economy and development. Major political parties' leadership and most of the prime ministers of Nepal have spent huge amounts of money on health when they were in a post.¹⁶⁰

61

arbitrary and uncontrolled political power.¹⁶⁴ Sandifer, Scheman and Mora observe that the fundamental principle of a democratic system is an underlying mechanism that facilitates its effective functioning by giving expression to society. Further, they highlight the importance of democracy at the operational level – establishing the supremacy of the laws over the individual will of men, incorporating in the system a process of altering the law according to the needs of time and people, and establishing full protection so that no small portion of society may distort the authority of the law to their own ends.¹⁶⁵

In Nepal, the democratic system has not been on that track since its establishment in 1951 or its restoration in 1990. Samuel P. Huntington says, “Democratization is primarily a product of political leaders who have the will and skill to bring it about.”¹⁶⁶ He emphasizes that democratization has some systematic processes whose functions can be determined by political and economic developments that are fundamental to the political development of a country. Political scientists mention that, in Nepal, democratic processes have not been

successful in terms of the development of a political culture. Hachhethu has discussed how, in the institutionalization of the democrat process, institutions, political parties, and political leaders play a vital role.¹⁶⁷ In Nepal, political parties failed to understand the universal provision to democratize them and strengthen the system.

According to Bruce Vaughn, Nepal has been isolated from outside influence on the issues of democracy and development. Vaughan, as well as Arjun Karki and David Seddon,

emphasizes that a transition from strict rule by the king to a constitutional monarchy began in 1959, when King Mahendra issued a new constitution and the country held its first

democratic election.¹⁶⁸ Santwana Tewari Chaube points out that the state-building process started in Nepal with the unification campaign initiated by Prithvi Narayan Shah in 1770,

164 Ekanga, Social Justice and Democracy, 210–1.

165 Sandifer, Scheman, and Mora, eds., The Foundation of Freedom, 20–3.

166 Huntington, “Democracy for the Long Haul,” 31.

167 Hachhethu, Party Building in Nepal, 25–8.

168 Vaughn, Political Developments and Bilateral Relation, 4.

62

which gave birth to Nepal. Mikesell and other scholars describe the present nation state as the product of the genius of one man, King Prithvi Narayan Shah (1720–75).¹⁶⁹ Chaube goes on to say that, the Nepali political movement in the 1950s arose through the influence of India.

He says, “Nepal’s proximity to India was largely responsible not only for its sociocultural awakening but also for political consciousness. Furthermore, Nepal’s modern political phase was directly impacted by the atmosphere in Bengal from 1905”.¹⁷⁰ The nationalism of the Bengali revolutionaries inspired Nepali youths, who brought back home a political awareness and began to campaign against the Rana regime.¹⁷¹ Praja Parishad, the oldest political party of Nepal (1935), started a pamphlet war within the country, getting the leaflets printed in Varanasi, India. A civil rights movement under the name of Nagarik Adhikar Samiti

(Committee for Civil Rights) was launched in Nepal to spread awareness among the people and political parties in order to establish a democratic system.¹⁷² In the two years from 1938 to 1940, political movements in Nepal brought about a crisis within the Rana regime. These movements were launched by Praja Parishad, Mahavir School, and the Committee for Civil Rights.¹⁷³

Nepali political discourse was also directly influenced by Indian political events, such as the Quit India Movement of 1942, in which Nepali students studying in India participated.

The reason behind their participation was the sentiment that the British Raj was responsible not only for the political oppression of India but also for the Rana regime in Nepal.¹⁷⁴ More Nepali political movements were launched from 1946 through the formation of the Akhil Bharatiya Nepali Rashtriya Congress (All-India Nepali National Congress),¹⁷⁵ a broad

169 Mikesell, Class, State, and Struggle in Nepal, 89.

170 Chaube, Democratic Movement in Nepal and the Indian left, 5.

171 Ibid., 6-7.

172 Ibid., 36–7.

173 Ibid., 38.

174 Ibid., 52–3.

175 Akhil Bharatiya Nepali Rastriya Congress was formed on October 31, 1994. Its main aim was to fight the Ranas. It was the first broad-based Nepalese political organization.

63

political organization opposed to the Rana regime. According to Chaube, the support of Indian rulers turned out to be pivotal in Nepal’s political movement in that both countries shared a cultural similarity, geographical accessibility, and economic interdependence¹⁷⁶.

Chaube states that democratic movements in Nepal were catalyzed by the Indian left, citing the example of the NC, which grew in association with the Socialist Party of India, although it remained a centrist party.

Mikesell points out the importance of February 18, 1990, in the political development in Nepal. This day is known as the Democracy Day and marks the completion of the political movement initiated in 1951 and the overthrow of the 30-year-old Panchayat system of non-party, absolutist monarchical government.¹⁷⁷

According to Vaughn and Thapa, the Nepal Movement for the Restoration of Democracy started in February 1990 when student groups and the major political parties launched a campaign against the Panchayat system. The NC led the movement, getting support from the ULF to hold peaceful demonstrations in urban areas. In April, more than 50 demonstrators were killed¹⁷⁸ and King Birendra handed power to an interim government. This government drafted the constitution in November 1990, which established Nepal as a parliamentary democratic country with a constitutional monarch.

Since 1990, when democracy was reestablished in Nepal, two political parties, the NC and the UML, dominated the country’s politics. Thapaliya says that “parties had different ideologies; NC has liberal democratic ideology but with a socialist trademark and the

CPNUML is a communist party that allies with multiparty.”¹⁷⁹ Hachhethu argues that during this period of ten years (1991-2001), political parties and their leadership spent a large amount of time building their parties but did so without adhering to proper democratic

176 Ibid.,129.

177 Mikesell, Class, State, and Struggle in Nepal, 87.

178 Vaughn, Political Developments and Bilateral Relation, 5.

179 Ibid., 25.

64

processes, nor did they place the national interest above their own parties’ interests.¹⁸⁰ However, the 1990 movement to restore democracy was successful. Narayan Khadka attributes its success to “factors like the economic situation, urban unemployment, prices, growing inequalities, and increasing poverty.”¹⁸¹ The negative aspect of that general election was the defeat of Interim (PM) and the Acting President of NC, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, and he got the same result in a midterm poll in 1993.

Manmohan Adhikary led a minority government in 1994 and his government collapsed on September 11, 1995, when NC appealed to call for a special session in the parliament to vote on a confidence motion against the minority government. Before facing the

non-confidence motion in the parliament, he “recommended dissolution of the parliament and holding of the fresh polls.”¹⁸² In 1995 Supreme Court decided the move of Adhikary was unconstitutional and NC formed a coalition government, after which Nepal plunged into political instability and made no visible progress.¹⁸³

Both MacGinty and Paris take the view that peace between states and within states is based on market democracy and that constructing democratic political structure is the key

component to sustainable peace.¹⁸⁴ In Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen concludes that developing and strengthening a democratic system is an essential component of

development.¹⁸⁵ According to Sen, the significance of democracy lies in three distinct virtues, specifically, its intrinsic importance, its instrumental contributions, and its constructive role in the creation of values and norms. He maintains that no evaluation of the democratic form of governance can be complete without considering each of these virtues.¹⁸⁶ Sen's ideas can be applied to evaluate Nepal's democratization process, which has often been in difficulty from

180 Ibid., 73.

181 Khadka, “Democracy and Development in Nepal,” 45–7.

182 Ibid., 40.

183 Ibid.

184 See MacGinty, No War, No Peace; Paris, At War’s End.

185 Sen, Development as Freedom, 147–59.

186 Ibid.

65

the beginning.

Hachhethu states that Nepali politics are in a state of transitional flux. The initial transition phase was backed by the spirit of the 1990 popular movements and restoration of a multiparty system in April, 1990. After the promulgation of a new constitution in November 1990, general elections in 1991, and local elections in 1992, the government acted smoothly to demolish the party-less Panchayat structures and set up democratic institutions. Hachhethu points out that, as a sign of democratic stability, the Constitution of 1990 enshrined rights, such as popular sovereignty, constitutional monarchy, multiparty parliamentary system, and unalterable fundamental rights of citizens and was practically and theoretically opposed by the revolutionary communist parties of Nepal.

The existing literature has discussed the Nepal democratization process in three stages:

early 1992 to 1994,¹⁸⁷ 1994 to 2001,¹⁸⁸ and 2002 to the present.¹⁸⁹ The last is still in a transitional phase toward consolidation of democracy. However, Ganga Thapa observes that the democratic process of Nepal has come a long way in political and social terms in the past 60 years and had three waves of democratic systems – in 1951, 1990, and 2006. Despite significant advances as far as democracy is concerned, its transition toward becoming a viable democratic polity remains fragile¹⁹⁰.

187 In 1994, the ruling NC announced a mid-term parliamentary election due to intra-party conflict, in which it was defeated.

188 From 1994 to 1999, Nepal had eight governments of different natures: i) The CPNUML minority

government (November 1994–September 1995), ii) the NC-led center-right coalition government with RPP and (NSP) (September 1995–March 1997), iii) the RPP-led right-left government with UML and NSP (March 1997–October 1997), iv) the RPP-led right-center government with the NC and NSP (October 1997–April 1998), v) the NC minority government (April–August 1998), vi) the NC-led center-left government with the CPN (ML), a new splinter party out of the UML, and NSP (August–December 1998), vii) the NC minority government (December 1998), and viii) the NC led center-left government with UML and NSP (December 1998–May 1999). Frequent changes in government affected the stability and peace in the country, resulting in the Maoist insurgency in 1996.

189 The massacre of the Nepali royal family took place in June 2001. On account of the growing Maoist insurgency, the government of Nepal was unable to function properly, and King Gyanendra dissolved the parliament and declared a state of emergency; then, in February 2005, the King directly seized power. After the democratic uprising of April 2006, the King handed over the power to the SPA. A coalition government was formed the same year, and the Maoists reached a peace agreement, ending the decade-long insurgency.

190 Thapa Ganga. “Reading Nepal’s Democratization Process.” Nepal News, 2012.

http://www.nepalnews.com/home/index.php/guest-column/21992-reading-nepals-democratization-66

Sorensen evaluates the current prospects for democratization in the concept of variability from “transition to democracy” as at a standstill¹⁹¹. He argues that nations have faced hurdles in promoting democracy because of internal difficulties and the involvement of outsiders. He characterizes democracy as having negative characteristics and outcomes in addition to positive ones, such as economic growth, human rights, and peace. He further theorizes that the democratization process helps in socioeconomic development within developing

countries. With regard to democracy, he agrees that it is ruled by the people, but claims that its precise definition is difficult because democracy is a dynamic entity based on different meanings acquired over time. The meaning of democracy is, or should be, the subject of debate because, in accordance with Sorensen, dynamism within political parties stems from a society that is changeable and is developed in different ways throughout the world. However, he emphasizes three dimensions of political democracy that can indicate the status of

democracy specific to a country: competition, participation, and civil and political liberties.