Ganga Thapa:

Corruption is the term for any policy or decision in which an individual or group personally benefits. Political corruption means whenever a power-holder is induced to take actions which favour a certain individual or group, often for a consideration, thereby doing damage to the public and its interests. Presumably, then, the abuse of power for private gains deprives the most needy of vital public services creating despair that breeds conflict. Corruption turns a democracy that should be based on the will of the people into one that is based on the selfish will of those in power. Bribery and graft are two prevalent forms of corruption. Corruption is disheartening in democratic nations because of its undemocratic nature.

The 1990 movement primarily had two objectives: an end to unlimited monarchy and and an end to corruption and irregularities. Though the movement achieved the first aim, at least constitutionally, the fulfilment of the second one still remains a distant dream. In fact, corruption and irregularities have become more popular in the open society. General thinking has been that political liberalisation would spur economic recovery and lead to more accountable, transparent, and effective governance. Yet, it is certain that this is not the fault of a democratic polity but leaders’ failure to meet people’s demands.

While a variety of social, psychological, political and administrative circumstances are responsible for abetting corruption, the primary cause of corruption lies with politicians. We have also to realise that the primary cause of corruption in Nepal is the lack of effective anti-corruption measures. Despite legal provisions, corruption, being a white-collar crime, poses a great problem. It is clear that these laws and institutions are not effective.

The central concern of most politicians in Nepal is that large amounts of funds are needed to remain in politics. They raise the funds through corruption and irregularities and through contracts and commissions. And how much money they accumulate and spend is practically impossible to record. But this consequently creates a nexus of politicians, bureaucrats, contractors and industrialists thus furthering the growth in corruption. When politicians become the protectors and, moreover, the medium for corrupt practices, there can be little hope of controlling corruption in the country.

Corruption is rampant in bureaucracy as well, and politicisation of bureaucracy means there is a division of public servants along party lines. The lack of transparency, outdated and unnecessary rules and regulations, inefficiency, and ineptitude bureaucracy means that a lot of people suffer as a result. The government-led development strategy is another important cause of corruption. Surely the public corporations have become money-spinners for a certain class of people, and the government, in a nexus with the businessmen, is making profits by policies for the benefit of the latter.

The truth for Nepal is that for several years all governments talked of controlling corruption but when in power they attempted to expand their political base by distributing resources in exchange for favours. Those actually punished were some of the small fry, and punishments against them amounted to tokenism. Even the Royal commission now cannot win with words alone. Thus, it is imperative that for a long-term solution those who profit from regimes should be dismissed from the scene. Stability and crisis belong to the most disputed concept in political science. Yet, if we are to see the political field in terms of relations of force, the problem is that this antagonism can lead to the dissolution of the very political dimension it constitutes. We are certain that democracy’s victory in 1990 is only a partial victory. While mechanisms of democratic control have proved to be indispensable tools for constraining misguided governance, Nepal offers a soft-authoritarian or semi-authoritarian democracy. Several factors conspire to produce this effect. The robustness of authoritarianism, however, is largely a result of the imperfect nature of its democratic institutions.

Nepal suffers from a severe democratic deficit, and at the same time, it is faced with an inherent lack of democratic legitimacy. If anything, the institutional environment has become more uncertain after the fall of party government. The current state-centred conception of political power is misguided. Citizenry is the sina qua non of a democratic polity. What is characteristic of modern democracy, in other words, is the legitimate function of power.

Time has come for social engineering reform through systematic indoctrination and mass persuasion. Referendum can be an effective device only if a broad issue of principle is at stake, and if the people clearly understand it. Given the nature of problems, lasting solutions cannot be achieved without radical changes in politics and unless people play a key role.

Though the Royal proclamation of February 1 captures the feelings of a significant portion of Nepalis, through its capacity for self-correction, the democratic system of governance is far better equipped to absorb new information and adjust to changing circumstances. One is the important role played in democratic politics by a legitimate opposition. The left-right extremists should understand that peace, security and corruption-free governance prevail in Nepal only under the supremacy of democracy.

Thapa is professor of Politics, TU