Unlike many countries undergoing regime change, Nepal is in a privileged position. Nepal began its transition to democracy with few painful memories, yet the monarchy as the real threat to democracy is far from over. While it is debatable whether presidential system is less favourable for institutionalising democracy than the parliamentary one, many factors remind us that Nepal has been a case of important political developments like perestroika and glasnost, which involved liberalisation but not democratisation of post-autocracy power structure.

The political identities in Nepal are narrow, compounding and often exclusive in which large sections of people often feel excluded and exploited. The ruling elite class seems to have fallen victim to a double whammy of lack of experimental knowledge about democracy and deliberate exclusion of public debate that could have tempered with their submissive views. Both feed into the traditional traits of Nepali politics — elitism and arrogance which exclude the populace from polity and the facade of Nepali polity — focused on rituals and symbols rather than on solving real problems. It would be no exaggeration to characterise Nepal as a country with a history of continuity rather than rupture, where pacts among elites are the norm.

The problem is that every time a major political change occurs here, some segments of society seek access to public life through their organisations. Each group demands that the state respond to its interests, which means that parties represent no more than fragmented interests. It is thus not surprising that no party has emerged to define ideologies, connect themselves to new ideas and aspirations, and synthesise the interests of different groups. One reason for this is that parties have always been very closed and weakly organised hierarchical organisations characterised by authoritarian leadership, undemocratic structure and exclusionary approach.

The current standpoint of mainstream parties of building democratic institutions, especially on their hegemonic and ‘anything-goes’ attitude, make democracy hard to sustain. Nepal remains a family-based fiefdom. The political culture allows politicians a great deal of autonomy to maximise their flexibility to foster personalism and clientelism. Parties are interested more in capturing and distributing patronage than in programmatically-focused governance. Democracy failed in Nepal because it lacked a participant political culture. If our way of thinking does not change, even the best polity will betray us.

Even if parliament is often referred to as a facilitator of the process of change, its members’ claim that they represent the will of the people is virtually illegitimate. The understanding of popular will by most lawmakers is determined not by their coherent ideological stance but by primitive self-interest in institutionalising monarchy. The incumbent legislators have no ties to the constituency they ostensibly claim to represent. The 12-point understanding and the 8-point agreement are political instruments. But underneath the current monopoly of parliament lies a Hobson’s choice: a state of anarchy subject to setbacks and the renewal of violent conflict. In this context, the transformation of their forum into an interim parliament is hypocrisy at best.

Nepal has not become democratic even after toppling King Gyanendra’s dictatorship. It remains a parliamentary oligarchy embossed as democracy in which a few elites hold sway over political and economic destiny against the people’s will. Part of the problem is that on the one hand we glorify the impact of social movements, on the other, we fail to exercise critical judgment at the right moment. If the state cannot channelise public demands, it is likely that the popular demands will be re-politicised, leading to a further realignment of partisan affiliation and alternative forms of representation and participation.

PM Koirala’s Anglo-Saxon twin-pillar syndrome and ideologically narrow mentality disconnected from the interests of the Nepalis have put the country at a crossroads. Koirala and his supporters must know that democracy is not a system for bestowing power on a coterie but a system that allows the citizens to chart their own destiny. Moreover, enhancing peace efforts on the basis of a narrow definition of military and security terms would only be one-dimensional progress that could create instability. No political force can stop Nepal from becoming a federal republic provided the constituent assembly elections are held.

Solutions must be found for political and social problems. This is not possible unless Nepal meets the requirement of forming a government through a free and popular vote that exercises sovereign authority in formulating and implementing policies without hindrance. Three challenges must be addressed: abolishing monarchy, accommodating demands for new channels of participation, and controlling the army.

Thapa is professor of Politics, TU