Each political leader has worked to ensure that the path for the new generation is blocked. They do not seem to understand that 'monopoly' is against the democratic norms. Due to the continuation of the same set of leaders, the anomalous exercise of power has taken hold. They are still at the top through all kinds of machinations
In recent weeks, four major political parties of Nepal held their general conventions to elect their leadership for the coming four to five years. One can find differences in the way and scale these parties exercised internal democracy in their conventions. The largest party and the current main opposition Communist Party of Nepal (CPN-UML) witnessed attempts to elect the leadership through consensus.
However, there were elections for the position of party chairperson and a few other important posts.
The Nepali Congress (NC) also concluded its general convention in this period. The oldest democratic party of Nepal was almost at the point of becoming illegal when it held its convention. The constitution of Nepal requires a political party to hold a convention to elect its leadership within five years. It grants a six months' extension on special circumstances.
Having exhausted all these extensions, the NC held the convention at the eleventh hour. Elections were held to elect its president, general secretary and most office-bearers.
The CPN-Maoist Centre also concluded its general convention recently. Prachanda was once again elected unopposed by the central committee, which itself was chosen by consensus among the delegates.
In the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), a young Janajati leader toppled the senior leader and long-time party president Kamal Thapa to head the party for the coming years.
There were some interesting aspects related to these conventions. While the NC seemed to espouse the most democratic process by holding elections from the ward to district level to province and national level, the CPN-UML is only now holding its district conventions. The RPP also had elections at different stages to choose the final leadership. The Maoist party, however, lacked transparency in its internal democracy in the party processes. All these three major parties chose the same old leadership – Sher Bahadur Deuba and KP Oli defeated their opponents in the election whereas Prachanda was elected unopposed.
During the 29 years and 3 months of Panchayati regime before 1990, political parties were banned. When then King Mahendra laid the foundation of the party-less Panchayati system on December 15, 1960, his only aim was to prove that 'multi-party' system was bad for the country. People with communist schooling were also hell-bent on uprooting the parliamentary system. However, they, too, have preferred to walk the democratic path. Even so, the activities of neither the communists nor the Congress have been helpful for the cause of democracy.
In the midnight of April 8, 1990, multi-party democracy was restored in Nepal, and the ban on political parties was lifted. The constitution promulgated on November 9, 1990 made the parties a part of the constitution itself. In the constitutions promulgated after the restoration of democracy – constitution of 1990, interim constitution of 2007 and constitution of 2015 – there is little difference on the fundamental objective and character.
The constitution, by saying that the statute and the rule of political parties shall be democratic, has underscored the necessity to ensure timely general conventions and healthy competition among the aspirants.
But in the recently concluded general conventions of the major parties, there was the drama of 'consensus and agreement' to avoid an election.
Political parties are the major actors of democracy and also the tools to institutionalise democracy and rule of law. Hence, they are important for the multiparty democratic system because they rise to the parliament and government through public endorsements.
In Nepal, issues of relevance of liberal democracy, party system and their leadership are discussed only during the party convention or general election.
Once the election is over, the discussion also evaporates.
That is why, the same faces have been in the leadership in the Congress or communist parties since 1991. Deuba has been in one or the other position, either in the government or NC, continuously for the last 31 years. The same is true for KP Sharma Oli who has been active in the party, government or both since 1991. The old guards of the Panchayat are still active in the RPP.
Each political leader has worked to ensure that the path for the new generation is blocked. They do not seem to understand that 'monopoly' is against the democratic norms. Due to the continuation of the same set of leaders, the anomalous exercise of power has taken hold. They are still at the top through all kinds of machinations.
The current set of political leadership faces numerous challenges, namely, giving stability to the government; holding timely elections in the next one year at all levels; dealing with the pandemic; uplifting the economic conditions of the people; and more recently resolving the impasse seen in the judiciary since the past two months.
The half a dozen constitutional commissions, too, are similarly ridden with controversies, non-performance issues and outright passivity.
It is believed that citizens are strong in a democracy.
But in our case, the citizens are becoming weaker whereas a handful of political party actors have become stronger and also rich. One must say that currently the political parties and democracy are not on the same side.
Citizen-interest and party-interest are not the same in Nepal. The parties represent limited and vested interests, not the public interest.
The fundamental interest of the political parties should have been to advance the overall interest of the people. Only then democracy would be strong.
The upcoming year of elections can be an opportunity for the people to seize their rights. They should evaluate their leaders based on performance and not only promises. The elections must serve as a time to hold the leaders to account, too. Only such robust processes can lead to a strong and durable democracy, as well as happy and prosperous citizens.
A version of this article appears in the print on January 20, 2022, of The Himalayan Times.
