Transition to democracy is a complex process stretching over many decades, and democracy, moreover, is by definition a competitive process, and this competition, according to Lisa Anderson gives an edge to those who can rationalize their commitment to it and an even greater edge to those who sincerely believe in it. Authors who confine themselves to their imagined “democratic transition” or to their cherished “type of state and regime” assert that a political society can successfully mediate between state and society and may consider that each country must resolve its problems in its own way. If the long-term goal for Nepal is to create new governance,”institutionalization of broadly shared democratic political culture to stre-ngthen the state structurally and establish mechanisms that will prevent it from working for narrow and factional interests”, three normative ideals of democratic citizenship such as civicism, plebeianism and pluralism must be observed.

One common and crucial factor that has held up trust and cooperation, so necessary for the foundation of liberal polity, such as the Nepali case shows, is that almost all those who have ever occupied a position of prominence have been devoid of vision yet brimming with vanity. Perhaps, democratic values have nowhere been so laudable and vulnerable at once in the absence of what Amratya Sen calls “crucial instrumental freedoms”, which include economic, political and social opportunities, transparency guarantees, and protective security. The cause for democracy is crucial, not only as a means to harmoniously integrate the nation, but also to establish a dynamic society with fundamental human values. We must not forget that transition implies a paradigm shift from state-centered myopia to a broad vision of constitutionalism. It is all the more important for Nepal where large segments of the population remain marginalized and not seldom confront, albeit with little advantage, that tends to make it more dangerous.

Although fully participatory democracy and crystallization of viewpoints that would advance the cause of greater social and economic equality is overdue, the pendulous movements of extremists and the difficulties the nation has faced have to overcome their irrelevance. Nepal is more a case of what may be called “spoilt politics” or what Princeton Professor Kohli would prefer to refer as a “neo-patrimonial fragmented state” despite a plural party system that boasts about democracy.

Which conditions make democracy viable and which ones help it thrive depend ultimately on Nepalese themselves as people but no less as political engineers who must comprehend geopolitical parameters. Nepal is anticipated to drag with unconsolidated porous democracy, largely because of limping proletariat driven by the expired versions of Marxism and Leninism and pompous democrats. The sultanistic appetite of non-retiring leaders is perhaps the paramount hurdle to set up a sound edifice. Democratization requires, in addition, societal accommodation and acceptance of political uncertainty when constitutional restructuring is characterized by heterogeneity rather than hierarchy, creates horizontal modes of governance amidst multitude of actors, involves all stakeholders for unity and common good on Rawlsian lines. However, if a transition is consumed merely in glorifying revolution rather than evolving democratic demeanor, as Diamond had also alerted, the power seekers will continue molesting state institutions. There is also the possibility (everything is possible in politics). Yet the inexorable problem is that most of our political leaders remain elitist, spineless, and shortsighted.

Nepalese know remarkably little how an empty-tomb polluted by raw partisanship Madhav Nepal’s government can ever move decisively, when it will reach out to the Maoists to work out a common ground and show “democratic sportsmanship”. Tocqueville’s famous claim is that one of the core virtues of democracy is that it makes errors that can be corrected. It would be interesting to imagine to what extent Tocqueville applies to the present government to begin with. But, even if it ever does, it will not succeed without new politics, fresh thinking and focused action, which most observers are likely to find the assumption unfounded.

Let’s spare badmouthing. When the people have embarked on the most important journey in their quest for democracy, freedom and prosperity under the present regime, they are pain-fully aware that they will have to deal with all the high minded platitudes, hidden agenda tales, broken pro-mises et al with an outdated and uncertain political calculus. It is customary to defend by pretending optimism and painting dre-ams when democracy must face alienation and apathy. Unfortunately, the problem is very much real; a corollary can be found in any area - health, security or justice. Till now, much to our chagrin, Nepal is no paragon of emerging democracy. Surely, there are elements that point in the negative direction, unwittingly substantiating what transitions are all about: “uncertainty”.

Thapa is Professor of

Politics, TU