Ram Pradhan

Very soon, it is anticipated, the authorities will announce the dates for the parliamentary polls “to place the constitutional process back on track.” Doubts if the government can indeed hold the polls without creating permanent fissures in the nation-state system are as widespread as they can be. Why not? The security situation as it obtains in the country today assures none that balloting will be free and fair, and that the people’s verdict does not turn out to be a manufactured one to suit the design of the political class that thrives on internal anarchy and loss of direction.

A national poll is indispensable because, as political scientist Kapil Shrestha reckons, it generates a sense of belonging and participation among the people. But if the government is planning to use this universally acknowledged democratic exercise as a means to maintain the status quo or an electoral façade to conceal its ulterior motives, then it gets to be a fight to the finish.

“Election is a double-edged sword. It can cut either way but the main target would be the powers-that-be if the vote turns out to be a farce,” warns Shrestha, recalling umpteen occasions when foolishly engineered popular verdict has not only triggered turmoil within but has also induced extraneous hegemony and domination. Dr. Mathura Shrestha, a catalyst of rainbow coalition called Civic Solidarity for Peace, concurs with the view that the election has to be free, fair and credible. The medico-turned-political activist, however, makes it clear the polls cannot be as they should be until and unless both the security forces and the Maoists firmly agree to give bishram (rest) to the arms in their possession.

Visibly the Thapa Administration is at considerable pains to impress upon the voting public that the security arrangements that it proposes to line up before, during and after the ballot would be adequate enough to make sure the polls are free, fair and peaceful. There aren’t many takers. Even some influential members of Thapa’s own party have their doubts intact about the feasibility of a vote at this fluid and volatile juncture. That said, however, it would be utterly unfair, even perhaps irresponsible, to refuse the prime minister and his team the benefit of the doubt. To dismiss with prejudice the less boisterous bunch as incapable would not be a just assessment, either.

What if the political parties declining participation in this unconstitutional government decide to boycott the proposed election, demanding an all-party electoral government? Hear what septuagenarian Biswo Bandhu Thapa, RPP in-house interlocutor and one-time blue-eyed boy of late B P Koirala, has to offer. “Such a demand cannot be dubbed unreasonable in the context of the need to have an impartial and rig-free election. It is, therefore, not unnatural to ask for an all-party government or a government manned by neutral individuals.”

To the question, would the parties compete in the race for the electorate’s favour given the unsatisfactory nature of the country’s security situation, Thapa bluntly says: “If it’s the people vote in the election, it is parties who field candidates. It is unthinkable that any political formation harbouring the desire to govern or claiming the right to govern would stay away from election.” Ultimately, it’s the people who, through their ballot, dictate which party is fit to govern.