Political Parties and People

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.

67

make them intelligible for citizens.¹⁹³” They offer alternative programs, provide a mechanism by which citizens can aggregate, articulate, and communicate their interests and opinions, and build the civic competence of citizens through political socialization and social mobilization.

Political parties equally inform the citizens about political priorities in certain areas of public interest, such as foreign policy, security, federalism, economy, environmental protection, and nation-building, while maintaining differences on other issues, such as education, irrigation, marriage, decentralization, and so on.

Dahal highlights that a political party is a part of society, not the whole society. In this sense, a modern political party is defined as a group of persons organized to acquire and exercise political power through constitutional means and defend popular sovereignty and commonly agreed-upon national interests. In all multicultural societies, political parties play key roles in the political integration of citizens of diverse social origins and provide them access to the services of the governing institutions. Huntington says, “The function of the party is to organize participation, to bring together separate interests, to serve as the link between social forces and government.”¹⁹⁴ Politics is the periodic alteration of political parties in power through elections, ensuring the circulation of elites and a peaceful change in society. Multiparty systems have become successful in those societies where property and power-sharing arrangements have been settled and parties have developed a stable consensus on the rules of governance.

With regard to the political parties of Nepal, Mikesell mentions that a major factor is the lack of internal democracy in the parties; candidates are selected by party bosses,¹⁹⁵

bureaucrats, businesspersons, and other powerful national and international agencies, and they become instruments in their hands and are ultimately rewarded by the leaders in the future. The candidate who wins the election, therefore, feels no accountability to the

193 Ibid., 1.

194 Huntington, 67.

195 Chairmen, general secretaries, supreme leaders, etc.

68

people.¹⁹⁶

Mikesell makes clear that during the transition to democracy in the 1990s, the misgivings of the opposition about the undemocratic nature of the election process were not unfounded, because the leaders of the interim government did not show particular confidence in the people, while at the same time appearing to take the people’s support for granted. At first, the people were asked to participate in the movement; once this participation gained momentum, became spontaneous, and finally brought down the government, they were asked to

demobilize and not participate. Instead, they placed their faith in the leaders of the People’s Movement and the “martyrs” who legitimized their decisions and actions.¹⁹⁷

Shyam Shrestha, a member of the Citizen’s Movement for Development and Peace, points out that, in Nepal, everything has changed except “the status-quo mentality and attitude of our political leadership.”¹⁹⁸ His criticism is that political leaders are against the change for which the Nepali people have struggled in every aspect of social and political life.¹⁹⁹

Suri K.C.provides a comparative analysis of South Asian countries, including Nepal, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. He uses a systematic approach to understand the

functioning of political parties, elections, and governments in different South Asian nations.

The critique of political development in Nepal has its own characteristics and gives a comprehensive picture of Nepali politics. Suri says, “In 1990, a multiparty democracy was established within a constitutional monarchy framework. However, this multiparty

democracy was threatened by Maoist insurgency launched in 1996. In 2001, the Prince killed the royal family members, including the King and Queen, before he eventually committed suicide. As a result of this incident, in October 2002, the new King Gyanendra dissolved the

196 Mikesell, Class, State, and Struggle in Nepal, 142–3.

197 Ibid., 126-27.

198 Shrestha, Shyam,” Nepal at the Crossroads of Great Prospects and Great political Crisis.” In Democracy and Development in Nepal, ed., Karvinen, Anu, 5.

199 Ibid.

69

cabinet and held power in his own hands.”²⁰⁰

Baral narrates the extraordinary events of October 4, 2002, when King Gyanendra dismissed the elected PM, Sher Bahadur Deuba, for “incompetence,” seized power himself, and derailed the constitutional process.²⁰¹ This drastic change in the political equation brought about political uncertainty and a division between political parties and the monarch that resulted in new alliances within parties and protests against the monarch.²⁰²

According to political scientist Baral, the parliament, as the representative institution of the people, has not demonstrated its effectiveness in resolving the problems of the country.²⁰³ In the parliament, political parties are the actors that make government institutions effective;

unfortunately, in Nepal, they have failed to do so because of internal conflict. Baral believes that the parliamentary democracy has reached a dead end owing to three trends. First, the constitutional monarchy visualized under the present constitution has not existed since King Gyanendra’s coup of October 2002. Second, before the April 2006 movement,²⁰⁴ the

parliamentary parties were in a dilemma over whether to change their position on the monarchy.²⁰⁵ Finally, the Maoists were demanding a CA to frame a new constitution. Since the April 2006 movement resulted in the reinstatement of the parliament, the formation of the SPA,²⁰⁶ and CA elections, the above argument has been proved.

K. C. has presented his empirical findings on candidate selection and party organization in political parties of different countries.²⁰⁷ This is very useful because the author analyzes

200 K. C., Suri, “Political Parties in South Asia,” 26.

201 Baral, “Nepal Political Parties and Parliament,” 9.

202 Ibid., 33.

203 Ibid., 8.

204 The April 2006 mass protests known as Jana Andolan II, in which at least three to four million Nepal is participated, marked the beginning of the journey towards a new Nepali democratic state. For more information, see IDEA, A Study on the State of Democracy, 19–43.

205 Baral, “Nepal Political Parties and Parliament,” 8–36.

206 The formation of the SPA saw the transformation of the CPN (Maoist) from an armed insurgency group into a political party that had become an integral part of the anti-monarchy movement of April 2006. The seven parties were NC Party, the CPN (UML), the CPN (M), the People Front, Nepal, the Nepal Workers and Peasants Party, the Nepal Sadhvawana Party, and Samyukata Bammorcha (United Leftist Front).

207 K.C., “Political Parties in South Asia,” 131–5.

70

the social structure of the parties, and this approach can be applied in Nepal’s case. K. C.’s recommendations for reforming the system are also very useful. He suggests that the party chiefs, the office-bearers, and members of the top executive body should be directly elected by delegates, and that this will help South Asian political parties facing internal disputes and unhealthy alliances of power. In the context of Nepal, Suri’s recommendation about party reforms is very important, where political parties have always proved undemocratic.

According to K.C.,

[H]ow the parties become more stable, enduring, and democratic, so that they discharge their function well in democracy. However, a desired outcome is not

possible when the agencies that are responsible for operation of a system are deformed, weak, and unstable. This is the truth of government; Parties are the operational

agencies of government in any modern representative democracy.²⁰⁸

In light of K. C.’s views, it is true that Nepali political parties have not established a fair and transparent system for selecting their leadership through democratic elections. In most of the parties, decisions are taken by leaders who are bound by family and kinship.

There should be a new democratic provision that allows a contest for any position, and the election process should be transparent.²⁰⁹

Baral asserts, “Political parties and the parliament are inseparable in a parliamentary democracy. Without parties, a parliament cannot be formed and without a parliament the parties’ relevance, power, and political process cannot exist.”²¹⁰ His discussion of Nepali political parties and their role in parliament makes clear that political parties have failed to develop a common political culture, and neither the role of parliament nor the government’s agenda is clear. The Mahakali Treaty²¹¹ was an example of the inability of the government to

208 Ibid., 125–7.

209 Ibid., 130–6.

210 Baral, “Nepal Political Parties and Parliament,” 1.

211 The Mahakali Treaty was a treaty between Nepal and the government of India concerning the integrated

71

implement policy even after its endorsement by a two-thirds majority in parliament.²¹² On this issue, Manmohan Bhattarai states, “The Mahakali Treaty was not out and out wrong that occurred between Nepal and India.”²¹³

Baral compares the Nepali parliamentary system with that of Britain, and concludes that, in fact, it could not function properly in Nepal. He visualizes the Nepali general election, and how the political leadership acts unfairly during parliamentary elections. He notes that whenever the government changes and a new administration is formed, it has had a negative impact on the general public as well as the bureaucracy. He states,

Corrupt political practices have been encouraged to gain power. The race of power has considerably weakened the prospects of stable government as well as its capability to implement policies in sustainable manner. There have been frequent shifts in the policy rhetoric from one government to another rather than having substantive and sustainable policy measure.²¹⁴

In recent literature, Indra Adhikari, in Military and democracy in Nepal, mentions that Nepalese army, military, government and democracy are all interrelated²¹⁵. The author further notes that, in the Nepal democratization process, all these elements have a direct impact on the sustainability of political process. Further, he elaborates on the need for establishing civilian supremacy over the military. Nepal military is the only institution that is not effected by politics and maintains a neutral position, aligned with national interests.

As noted by Adhikari, “Post-1990 politics show that the main problems before the elected government were: (a) the king`s negative attitude towards deploying the army against the

development of the Mahakali River including the Sarada barrage, the Tanakpur barrage, and Pancheshwar project, which was signed in 1996. As the treaty was being signed, the nation was facing a political crisis over the issue of sovereignty. The parliament was divided, and the political parties had internal conflicts on the issue.

212 Ibid., 34.

213 Appendix 5, 291- 92.

214 Baral, “Nepal Political Parties and Parliament,”36.

215 Adhikari, Indra, Military and Democracy in Nepal, 1.

72

Maoists; (b) the non-cooperation of the army in the field after its mobilization; and (c) the army pressurizing the government to fulfill its own preconditions before entering combat operations in Maoist affected areas.”²¹⁶