Origin, Evolution and Performance of Nepalese Democracy

Critical analysis of origin, evolution and performance of Nepalese democracy and its comparison with the same of innate, model Democracy of the USA.

The year was 1951. The same year the world first saw the color pictures in their television set, Nepalese politics gained the colors of democracy for the first time. Nepal had been under autocratic rule of Ranas, a privileged tribe at that time, for a hundred and four years.  Eight brothers of a Rana family had ruled as Prime ministers of the country under different Shah Dynasty Kings, who by default had the absolute power of the state.  After unification of Nepal by King Prithivi Narayan Shah in 1768, Shah Dynasty had ruled the country as Kings, but Rana had managed to gain the power of the country by trickery called Kot Parva.  Kings remained the ceremonial head of the country, but the power of the country was vested upon Prime minister. This was ironic, for a privileged group of people ruled the country autocratically, but not the king who was supposed to be the supreme power holder of the country. Ram Sharan Mahat in his book, In Defense of Democracy, summarizes what he calls the Rana Saguante, “The Rana political system was undisguised military despotism with absolute total control over all aspects of public life” (Mahat 2005) . Ranas tried to imbed their political monopoly by restricting the education to Nepalese Population which scattered from the Mountainous region to flat Terai region. They feared that education could lead to the end of their regime. Education was not their priority, let alone other aspects of development (Shakya 2009).

Thus, they adopted the policy of isolation throughout their regime. Thirty three Presidents of America were already elected, twelve Olympics had been conducted, and huge development in the field of science, education and technology had been achieved, but Nepal was still at the starting lineup in just about every aspects.  America had started to rise from the Great Depression, but Nepal lacked even basic economic framework. Nepal was badly plagued by Rana Regime for their shortsightedness.

There is no denying the fact that Nepal started very late with just about every factor that concerns the development of a country. When most western countries, including the United States of America, had achieved quite a lot from industrial, political and economic development, Nepal was just gearing for its identification in the world.  India, which borders Nepal from the east, west and south, was colonized by Britian, and China, which borders Nepal from the north, was speeding up with Communism, but Nepal was neither colonized nor had any sense of democracy until 1951. The isolation Nepal went through before its pre-democracy era is important in evaluating the reason why Nepal is a comparatively below majority of the countries in terms of development. Unfortunately, this relatively lower position of Nepal in development is blatantly linked with the political process of Nepal that followed after 1951. It is, however, wrong to always link  relative under performance of Nepal in development with politics after 1951.

(2013 UN Human Development Report Quartiles n.d.)

King Tribhuwan, who had been crowned the king at the age of five in 1911, was the tenth king of Nepal. He was looking for an opportunity to legitimize his power by overthrowing the Ranas, and his involvement in Nepal Parja Parisad- a democratic force against Rana rule – was a prime characterization of this.  India had gained its independence in 1947, and the communist revolution was in rise in China at the same time.   “The inefficient handling of Government by Rana Prime ministers ignited a feeling for revolution among India educated and Gandhi-Nehru influenced leaders of Nepali Congress.” This was exactly what King Tribhuwan had wanted. This pro-democratic force- in the name of Nepali Congress and Nepal Praja Parisad- provided an impetus to push anti Rana crusade. Although initially propounding a nonviolent movement following the way of Gandhi, the Nepali Congress and Praja Parisad took an armed struggle against Rana from 1947 onwards. They gained the desired outcome in 1951 (Shakya 2009).

When the United States of America gained independence in 1776, it was a new country in the making.  Things cannot be done in the old ways in the new country; therefore, it was required for the USA to improvise on the older British system to fit for their people.  The process of transplanting the older system can remove “many of the shackles” of custom, tradition and system which might have retarded the political or social process of older country. Thus, things are done in the best ways in a new country (Charnwood n.d.). This may be one of the strongest reason why the USA progressed as a democratic nation. However, only a political system changed in Nepal in 1951, but different other aspects of nation including the political culture did not. Democratic principles were ignored by both democratic leaders and the Monarch. As a result, Nepal could not capitalize on what first was promised and expected of democracy, and what had proved to be a strong starting point for countries like the USA.

Hopes were high when democracy was institutionalized in Nepal. Year 1951 opened Nepal’s entrance upon the world stage and its first attempt at modernization towards an industrial society was then felt.  The talks for constitution drafting started with this process, which extends to this date. An interim Constitution was drafted and the first general Election was held in 1959. B.P Koirala was elected as the first elected Prime Minister of Nepal (Shakya 2009).

The inefficiency, which is apparent from Egypt to Iraq, after a change in political system in modern day world politics can be extrapolated to the political history of Nepal as well.  Whether it was for the inability of founding fathers of democracy or the mismatch of the democratic process in Nepal, the reason which still looks unclear, Nepal could not capitalize on an opportunity to draft the constitution, and also on an opportunity to establish democracy for a very long time.  The legacy of years of isolation, an administrative structure that had changed little since medieval times, capital, a proper long term plan of action and the scarcity of people with the capability to manage development projects proved big hurdles. Corruption, favoritism and nepotism proliferated in the nascent democratic state, and a chance to modernize and democratize was, thus, squandered. King Tribhuwan died in 1958. His youngest son- Mahendra- became the king of Nepal in 1958 (Shakya 2009).

A research by David Dunning in 2012, a psychologist at Cornell University has revealed that the democratic process produce mediocre leadership and policies (Livescience 2012). Sixty two years before these results were published, King Mahendra might have thought the same to reach a conclusion that democracy was not a right choice for Nepal.  He changed democratic system to party less panchayat system in 1960. Panchayat system was another version of autocratic rule, but this time under direct rule of King.

King Mahendra died in 1972 with no political parties. It was the turn of his Harvard Educated son King Birendra to succeed the regime. With an erudite political knowledge, he tried to speed up thus slow development process, and tried to eradicate deep-rooted corruption in a dismantled Nepalese political system (Whelpton 2005). Birendra came to a realization that panchayat System ,like any other political system ,could not hold up to what was required for the country.  In 1979, King Birendra held national referendum to choose between party less panchayat system, and multiparty democracy. The result was in the favor of Panchayat System by a narrow margin. The result was a shock for different entities associated with underground political parties. King shifted his focus to retain absolute Panchayat System after the referendum. In the meantime, Nepali Congress and Communist Parties started strengthening their political network in different corners of the country.  The creation of this powerful network fueled Nepalese people in revolt of Panchayat System (Shakya 2009).   

            The year was 1990. Berlin Wall had collapsed, USSR was sent home in disgrace from Afghanistan, and Communism was in the verge of collapse, but Nepal was roaring up for a massive revolution in the name of democracy. King Birendra had to give back the power his father had taken from the Nepalese people back to Nepalese people following massive mass movements. “Hopes season 2”came along with the restoration of Democracy. Multiparty democracy brought transient waves of changes in a form of new constitution drafted by a consensus of major political parties, economic reforms and general election after more than three decades.

Performance of a political system is linked with the economics status or the development of the country. Economy can again be linked with economic resources that a country possess, and development can somewhat be linked with geography. Nepal and the USA lie in two extreme poles when their geographic advantage and economic resources are compared. “The boundless space and untrammeled conditions of USA made liberty and equality in some directions highly attainable ideas, much so that they seemed to demand little effort or disciplines. The patriotic orators…ascribed to the political wisdom of their great democracy what was really the geography” (Charnwood n.d.) This typical feature of the USA helped to create a strong economic foundation. Nepal, on the other hand, had comparative disadvantage because of its geography. Nearly 80% of total land of Nepal falls either in hilly or Himalayan region of Nepal, and this has increased the development cost of the country for already poor country due to technical difficulties the hills and mountains create in expanding development activities. On top of that, Nepal lacks strong economic resources to build strong economic stature without having a good political system- democracy- which is true for most of the Arabic countries.

The political success of a country is closely associated with the development of the country, and for that reason neither Nepalese politics nor fitful Nepalese democracy has gained acclaim from Nepalese population. Manjushree Thapa, Canada based Nepalese writer, defines politician as the epitome of all that is worst about Nepal.  “Disenchantment in Nepal has been worse because of the exhilaration which attended the end of the party less Panchayat system and perhaps also because of special features of the South Asian attitude towards power and those who seek it” (Whelpton 2005).

            Not only is the performance of political system evaluated by the economy of the country, but economy also relates to the stability of a government or political system. While discussing the role of economy in democratization, Maddison argues that countries need to attain certain level of economic well-being for democratic stability. Taking this facts into consideration, the economic indicators particularly after 1990s have not been very satisfactory. More importantly, very little attempts were made to invigorate economic activities that could have sustained the political change and addressed, to some extent, minimum aspirations of the people. As Maddison argues, this economic fragility led to political turmoil in Nepal right from the onset of democracy. This political turmoil has always stumbled the promises those political changes offered to make. In a vicious circle, this leads to instability in political system, which again derogatively hindered the economy of country, one of the chief reason for weakening of economy (Bhatta 2013).

             History was repeating itself again. The hopes of reformation brought by restoration of multi-party democracy were frittered away by conflict between the political parties which had paved the way for democracy. Government led by Girija Prasad Koirala was made to step down due to intra party conflict within Nepali Congress, the then largest party of the country. This led to Midterm election in 1994 which saw the rise of New Party – Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxists Leninists) (CPN (UML)). The minority government formed by CPN UML also could not last long more than nine months due to cut throat political battle between Nepali Congress and Ruling CPN (UML). Lack of strong ideological conviction and the feeble attempts at power retention was apparent with the political parties.  Ephemeral coalition governments before and after general Election in 1999 showed the ineffectiveness of multiparty democracy system.  Yet again the issues of institutionalization of democracy were questioned (Mayhew 2012).

            The beginning of the 21st century only worsened the political situation in the country. King Birendra who had tried to steer the country through some extraordinarily difficult times was gone. The mysterious massacre of King Birendra and his entire family in June 2001 brought King Gyanendra, yonger brother of Birendra, to power, who suspended the House of Representatives to grab the power to his hand in 2005. Prime ministers were sacked and replaced in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. A total of nine governments were formed in 10 years. “The fragile position of Nepali politicians is well illustrated by Sher Bahadur Deuba, who was appointed prime minister for the second time in 2001, before being dismissed in 2002, reinstated in 2004, sacked again in 2005, thrown in jail on corruption charges and then released!” (Mayhew 2012).

            Political instability, corruption, dissolution of the communist government and failure of government to perform promise of democracy aggravated the Nepalese people. Thus, economic reformation, corruption monitoring, and political stability became the political agendas of the parties, and Maoists capitalized on this political doldrums to start an insurgency in post 1990s era. Maoists had a strong grip on some of the rural mountainous and hilly part of the country, and made these places their battlefield (Chaulagai 2013).   By 2005 nearly 13, 000 people, including many civilians, had been killed in the insurgency, more than half of them since the army joined the struggle in 2001. Ironically, “the Maoist insurgency only worsened the plight of the rural poor by diverting much-needed government funds away from development.” This also caused different aid programs to be suspended due to security concerns (Mayhew 2012).

King Gyanendra dissolved the House of Representative and the constitution declaring the multiparty system as a failure on February, 2005.  King’s Steps to snatch multi-party democracy from people through coup sowed the seeds of yet another revolution. Big Parties which were already in political mainstream, were infuriated by King’s Step. They gained moral support from Maoists to lead People’s mass movement. Nine months after Gyanendra’s dissolution of multiparty democracy, seven parties and the Maoists signed an unprecedented 12 point agreement for peace and democracy. Nepalese from various walks of life and the international community praised this step as an appropriate response to address the political tension that was developing.  Ramesh Chandra Bisht in his book International Encylcopedia of Himalayas praises this step: “Against the backdrop of the historical sufferings of the Nepalese people and the enormous human cost of the last ten years of violent conflict, the MOU, which proposed a peaceful transition through an elected constituent assembly, created an acceptable formula for a united movement for democracy” (Bisht 2008).

All political forces including civil society and professional organizations actively galvanized the people. This resulted in massive and spontaneous demonstrations and rallies held across Nepal against King Gyanendra's autocratic rule (Bisht 2008). The desired result was achieved: House of Representatives that was paralyzed by King Gyanendra’s move in February 2005 was reinstated in April 2006 following days of mass demonstrations, curfews and the deaths of more than twenty protestors. 

 (History of Nepal n.d.)

Thus reinstated House of Representatives decided to conduct the much awaited Constitutional Assembly Election, and after nearly two years, first Constitutional Assembly Election was held in Nepal. Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) garnered the most seats in the election. It established itself as the largest party in the Nepal above Nepali Congress and CPN (UML), the heavyweight of Nepali Politics before Maoists’ entry in mainstream politics. A federal republic was established in May 2008, with only four members of the 601-seat Constituent Assembly voting against the change which ended 240 years of royal rule in Nepal (The Maoists Triuph 2008).

However, when Maoists reached the heights of political powers, all the agendas which had won the hearts of many Nepalese people and which had placed them to supreme political position were left behind. Maoists, the most progressive party of the time, unfortunately ignored the issues of poor, powerless, equality, prosperity, and socio-economic transformation once it climbed the ladder of the power. People at large believe that Maoist only used the issues of poor and powerless for their won gain  (Bhatta 2013). This is testament to the results of Second Constitutional Election as well, in addition to other factors, in which Maoists suffered a huge setback, only coming third after Nepali Congress and CPN (UML).

USA is an example of responsible Party Model where its democracy is dependent on strong competitive parties in which one party wins the control of government based on its policy proposals, enacts those proposal once it is in control and stands or falls in next election on performance in delivering on its promises. Nepal, on the other hand, is only partly into Responsive Party Model. Power, Money, and Manipulation plays an important role in winning and regaining the election. A party hardly wins based in terms of political ideology.

It is important to note what followed the introduction and eventual restoration of multiparty democracy system in Nepal. Democracy, which was gained on leverage of mass revolution that occupied the streets of Nepal in 1990 and 2006 unfortunately changed the definition of democratic system in Nepal. One legacy of the mass revolutions was that it boosted the attraction of extra-systemic protest. Mobilizing crowds on the street forced political change, and people in general showed disposition to use similar tactics again rather than using the less dramatic channels of constitutional politics (Whelpton 2005) . “Agitating cable operators cutting off transmission of cable channels, taxis expressing grievances by parking along the Ring Road to obstruct the traffic in and out of the airport, garbage pilling up in the street when someone in garbage chain is unhappy are the routine occurrences. Ironically, business and hotels which lamented the impacts of strikes call for strikes when their demands are unmet” (Shakya 2009).

            This comes along with the undemocratic political process Nepalese Politics has veered itself into. Chandra Dev Bhatta argues that political leaders have failed to value the democratic principles on which the entire political systems rests. He argues:

Although Nepali political leaders worked to install democracy, thirty plus years of democratic [1950-1960, and 1990-till now] practice has not even instilled democratic political culture upon them. The classic example to cite is: it is normally considered that the leader of the parliamentary party in the house is the candidate for the Prime Minister but those who are not chosen leaders of the parliamentary parties are also found to have been vying for the same position…If the political heavy weights could not work as per their interest, they even go to the extent of splitting the parties. Another classic example is that those who are founders of the parties were displaced by others. These exercises stand against the norms of democracy…

Maoists’ preliminary decision to boycott the Second Constitutional Assembly after unexpected poll outcomes also validates the argument made by Chandra Dev Bhatta that Nepalese politician have not been able to learn democratic principles to rule the country in an effective way. (Harris 2013) Similarly, corruption proliferated more in multiparty democracy as so in party less Panchayat System. The trading of political support for favors or protection “will occur to some extent in any political system but is particularly pervasive in Third World polities” (Whelpton 2005). John Whelpton from his interview with Minendra Rijal, a former Minister of Nepal in his article Nepalese Democracy and its discontent furthermore writes:

...Both cadres and voters frequently sought immediate favors for themselves or their friends and relations in return for their support rather than opting for the party whose blueprint for the future of Nepalese society most appealed to them. Examples were villagers who sold their votes, the bus conductor who got his job through Congress connections and feared he would lose it when some other party came to power.

The woeful state of democracy does not end here. The dismantled first CA had a few notorious members facing life sentence with confiscation of entire property on the charge of murder as per the judgment of the Supreme Court. “The unfortunate thing is that they are gracefully protected by their leaders and political parties they are affiliated with” (Dahal 2012).

(TransparencyInternational 2013)

Corruption, which is rampant and deeply rooted among politicians in power, bureaucracy, police, and judiciary, has emmerged as a threat to survival of democracy in Nepal. Corruption has gained momentum with secret but implicit auction of all top-level government positions with lucrative remuneration and perks. Those appointments are strictly offered not on merit but preferably own yes man comprising kith and kin and political workers on priority against installment-payments, which is true of all the parties. In addition to that, anarchy and impunity have rapidly grown over the years with strong emergence and domination of muscle power at national politics (Dahal 2012). The Report of International Watch Dog and Transparency International corruption index explicitly only prove the same.

Time is another factor that can be helpful in evaluating democratic performance of a country. Nepal has been under representative democratic system for little over thirty years, while USA has been under the representative liberal democracy for more than 210 years now. Democracy is a slow process, and it can get tougher when it is at its nascent stage. This was apparent in the case of United States of America, and that holds true for Nepal as well. Nepal is trying to adjust with the democratic process, and one can see Nepal’s shuffles with political and democratic system since first institutionalization of democracy in 1951.Nepal was united in 1768 by King Prithivi Narayan Shah, but Democracy was institutionalized in Nepal after 183 years of unification. On the contrary, United States of America had already been under system of democracy before the unification of the states began. The task of unifying the country developed a need for valuation of democratic principles. This again proved an advantage in making a strong democratic country with the constitution that has gathered praises from most of the countries of the world.

Lack of a one half majority to form the government and lack of a two third majority to draft a constitution invited a situation of political instability once again in the country. Nepal was ruled by four different prime minister in four years from 2008 to 2012 in an effort to forge a consensus on controversial issues of constitution writing process.  However, consensus among largely polarized powers in Constitutional Assembly could not be reached even after tireless attempts. Thus, the Constitutional Assembly was forced to be dissolved from the ruling of the Supreme Court.

This shattered the hopes cherished by the Nepalese people to live in peace and dignity in, what was proclaimed as, the new Nepal. Many Nepalese expressed dissatisfaction over the dissolution of Constituent Assembly as an unwelcomed and unprecedented repetition of history. Madan Kumar Dahal in Nepal: Democracy and Development at the Crossroads states the dissolution of Constituent Assembly without promulgating new constitution as the biggest catastrophe in Nepal’s political history. This entire episode has led the nation into oblivion with increasing risks and uncertainties. Moreover, this has only pushed Nepal into jeopardy to sustain peace, stability, democracy, and development (Dahal 2012).

The constitution writing process has been approached very differently in Nepal in comparison to that in the USA. Constitution writing was a work accomplished only by the founding fathers of the USA, while this job is left upon the representatives chosen by people in Nepal. This direction for Nepal has only caused the political chaos as the major parties could not forge a consensus to write the constitution. The USA, in this sense, had a head start with a constitution writing process. However, what made the constitution of the USA that is highly lauded?  Lord Charnwood in the biography of Abraham Lincoln  mentions that the peculiarity of American Constitution is partly due to sheer misunderstanding of the British Constitution, but much more to the want at the time of any strong sense of the national unity and to the existence of a good deal of dislike of all government whatsoever… (Charnwood n.d.).

            There have been a very good buildups at the recent time in Nepalese politics. Nepal had a second election for the Constitutional Assembly on 19^th November 2013 with 70% of the registered voters turning in to vote in the Election Day (Haris 2013). Poll results showed massive discrepancy with the  results of the  first Constitutional Assembly six years ago. Maoists Party which had established itself as the largest party in 2008 election, is now at the third position way behind ideologically similar, if their stand on first Constitutional Assembly is to be evaluated,  Nepali Congress and CPN (UML). These two parties need to collaborate with few small parties to garner two third majority needed to draft the constitution

(Election Commission 2013).

Struggle of Nepalese democracy has been with associated with economic well-being of majority of Nepalese people.  Getting back to the big picture again, one can question what really distinguishes United States of America as a paradigm of successful democracy and Nepal as a failed democracy. The general answer can be accessed with each country’s typical history, geography, time and development of democratic practice in each country and time of each country’s introduction to global arena, on which this paper has tried to delve.   It is not that countries with largest economy, including the USA, in the world now did not go through same political struggle as Nepal did, but they had gone through that process much earlier than Nepal did. So, all the political turmoil they went through are not the sources of grievances, if big picture of country is to be compared. It is this concept of relativity of time that marks Nepal as poor country, the reason of which is also vested for its failed attempt at democracy. If Nepal is to be isolated on its own in evaluating the performance of democracy, it has not at all done a poor job given the comparatively lower democratic years, but it is when Nepal is compared to other countries, such as the USA, that Nepal is marked as a failed democratic state.

References

n.d. 2013 UN Human Development Report Quartiles. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2013_UN_Human_Development_Report_Quartiles.svg.

Bhatta, Chandra Dev. 2013. "TelegraphNepal." TelegraphNepal. June 5. Accessed December 6, 2013. http://www.telegraphnepal.com/views/2013-06-05/nepal:-antinomies-of-democracy-peace-and-ideological-crisis.html.

Bisht, Ramesh Chandra. 2008. International Encyclopedia of Himalayas. Mittal Publication. http://books.google.com/books?id=x3D_E_ynbsoC&pg=PA188&lpg=PA188&dq=Nepalese+from+various+walks+of+life+and+the+international+community+regarded+the+MOU+as+an+appropriate+political+response+to+the+crisis+that+was+developing+in+Nepal.+Against+the+backdrop+.

Charnwood, Lord. n.d. The growth of the American Nation: Biography of Abrahm Linclon. New Delhi: Satyam Interprises.

Chaulagai, Yam Prasad. 2013. "Ekantipur." The Kathmandu Post. 11 10. Accessed 12 6, 2013. http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2013/11/09/related_articles/outside-the-ring/255551.html.

Dahal, Madan Kumar. 2012. "Nepal: Democracy and Development at the Crossroads." TelegraphNepal. http://www.telegraphnepal.com/national/2012-06-17/nepal:-democracy-and-development-at-the-crossroads.

Election Commission, Nepal. 2013. CA Results. Election Results, Election Commission, Nepal. http://election.gov.np/CA2070/CAResults/reportBody.php?selectedMenu=2&rand=1386158106.

Haris, Gardiner. 2013. "Voter Turnout in Nepal Is Heavy Despite Violence." New York TImes. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/world/asia/nepal-holds-vote-amid-scattered-violence.html.

Harris, Gardiner. 2013. "Vote Fraud Is Claimed by Maoists in Nepal." The New York TImes. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/world/asia/nepals-maoists-losing-vote-charge-election-fraud.html.

n.d. History of Nepal. Accessed December 7, 2013. http://www.nepalvista.com/features/history/media/timelinebrief.gif.

Livescience. 2012. People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say. February 28. Accessed 12 12, 2013. http://www.livescience.com/18706-people-smart-democracy.html.

Mahat, Ram Sharan. 2005. In Defense of Democracy. Kathmandu: Adroit Publishers.

Mayhew, Bradley. 2012. Nepal. Lonely Planet. http://www.lonelyplanet.com/nepal/history.

Shakya, Sujeev. 2009. Unleashing Nepal. Kathmandu: Penguine Books.

2008. "The Maoists Triuph." The Economists.

TransparencyInternational. 2013. Transparency International: Corruption Perception Index. http://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results.

Whelpton, John. 2005. "Democracy and its Discontent." Research Paper, Kathmadnu.