Democratic Nepal: Problems and Prospects
gya...@gmail.com
Democratic Nepal: Problems and Prospects
Paper presented in the Annual Convention of Nepalese Association in
Southeast America
Prakash S. Mahat1
Minendra P. Rijal2
December, 1992
1. Mr. Prakash S. Mahat, a Fulbright student, is currently pursuing Ph.
D. in Economics at Southern Illinois University. Mr. Mahat was
General Secretary(1985-87) of Nepal Vidhyarthi Sangh, a national
democratic student organization in Nepal. During the Democratic
Movement of 1990, he was also a member of the political committee of
the
Nepali Congress for the restoration of democracy in Nepal.
2. Mr. Minendra P. Rijal, a recipient of the Wall Street Journal
Student Achievement Award, is a doctoral candidate in Management
Science at New York University. Mr. Rijal, Lecturer with Tribhuvan
University, was Vice President (1979-81) of Nepal Vidhyarthi
Sangh, a national democratic student organization in Nepal.
===========================================================
Background
Democracy was restored in Nepal in 1990 after thirty years of
struggle. This struggle for the restoration of democracy was not easy
by
any means. Hundreds of youths sacrificed their lives and thousands of
others, youths and adults alike, endured persecution in the hands of
the authoritarian Panchayat regime. Late B. P. Koirala and the leaders
of his generation inspired thousands of Nepalis to pursue the path of
struggle. Their lives, struggles and teachings will continue to inspire
countless Nepalis, in generations to come, to put their best efforts
for
the actualization of development aspirations of a common Nepali. They
have set a standard, par excellence, for the leaders of the next
generation to strive for.
In the past two and half years since the restoration of democracy
Nepal's achievements in the political arena have been very impressive.
Many actions were taken to build the foundations of the democratic
institutions. The swift rebuffs by the Nepali people of the various
efforts
by the reactionaries to undermine the process of democratization and a
politically mature leadership during the transition period made the
democratic constitution, which embodies the features of the
constitutional monarchy and the multi-party system as its
cornerstones, a reality. Elections were held for the parliament. The
Nepali Congress party, on the merits of the past thirty years of its
honest
and relentless leadership in the struggle for the restoration of
democracy, has been accorded the trusteeship of the national
government. In the local election that followed a year after the
general election the Nepali people reaffirmed their faith in the
centrist political course. The clarion call of these elections does,
however, go beyond that. The Nepali people have made it clear that the
buck
should now stop at the prime minister Koirala's desk. Before
reviewing the performance of the Koirala government so far, we would
like to dwell into the general political scenario of the country.
The Current Political Scenario
Since Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world the task of
economic development that lies ahead of her is horrendous. Aside from
the problems of development, an equally intriguing challenge facing
the nation today is how to come out of the shackles of
ultra-nationalism and be able to redefine its relationship, political
and of course economical, with the outside world. Nepal's relationship
with its giant neighbor India is very important. Nepal's past
experiences with India especially in the matters of sharing of water
resources have been such that feelings run very high among many
Nepalis on issues like the Tanakpur hydro-electric accord. In times
like this we are not surprised to hear the shameless uproar of the
pseudo-nationalist guards of the Old regime, who would like us to
believe that Nepal as a nation still faces the problem of independent
identity. And so some people would not hesitate to argue that
democracy is still vulnerable to the conspiracy of the extremists on
the left who have no faith in democracy and the right wing
reactionaries loyal to the Old order, who were stripped off of the
power and privilege with the dawn of democracy.
But we argue that the process of democratization in Nepal is
irreversible. There are several reasons for this:
The level of political consciousness in Nepal today is far
higher than that in 1959. The scale, intensity and militancy of the
masses involved in the Democratic Movement of 1990 speak for itself
in this regard. People have not forgotten their sufferings under the
Panchayat regime which promised economic prosperity in place of
democracy but deprived them of both.
Back in 1959 the International Communist Movement was at its peak and
the mainstream communists all over the world were openly critical of
parliamentary democracy. But then the Communists in Nepal did not
constitute a viable national political force. Their impact in the
national
politics was marginal and their activities limited to the streets of
few townships only. Hoping that they would flourish in the closed
society the Communists in Nepal chose not to seriously obstruct the
King Mahendra's grand design. This situation has changed now; the
Communists in Nepal have a respectable presence in the parliament. If
the recent statements by some prominent communist leaders
are any indications, it is clear that they believe that the political
power in Nepal is not very much out of their reach. Still being the
prisoners of their past, the Communists are shy of accepting the
liberal
democratic values for the fear of loosing their support base
to the extremists. Mere cosmetic changes will not reach them where
they want to go. They should accept democracy or face a rapid slide.
Changing the name of their party -- the idea that they are currently
ploying with might not be bad to get started in the right direction.
They are now facing an ideological dilemma due to the collapse of
communism globally. They need political help; the intellectuals and
media should lend a hand.
The King and the Palace also seem generally supportive of the present
political system. The Congress government, except for few instances
when it seems to have gone beyond just giving the Palace its due,
has so far done a good job of dealing with the King. Moreover, the
ties between the Palace and the Army have also changed qualitatively
since the advent of democracy.
The end of the Cold War has fundamentally altered the way foreign
policy
is conducted today. The sea of changes in the global politics is
clearly evidenced by the overriding importance the issues of trade
between and among nations have come to assume in the sphere of
international politics. The impact of these changes in both India
and China has been tremendous. This has opened up significant
opportunities for Nepal to make some important adjustments with both
India and China in some of the major premises of the bilateral
relations. It is quite conceivable that the nationalist democratic
government can be compatible with both India and China.
Notwithstanding these favorable factors, the survival of Nepal's
infant democracy vitally depends upon the ability of the Congress
government to cater to the needs of the large mass of poverty stricken
Nepalis. We have argued in a number of formal and informal Nepali
gatherings
and our previous writings that a political system can not be
democratic if it does not deliver prosperity and development. The
responsibility of the ruling Nepali Congress party in this regard can
not be overemphasized. It should be able to rise above the petty issues
of
conflict and recognize the enormous responsibility of running the
state-craft it is entrusted with. Though occasional skirmishes among
the leaders of the Nepali Congress is not new, it should not stretch
to the point where the whole party machinery becomes paralyzed. We
have tremendous respect for the leaders of the Nepali Congress for
their contribution to the struggle for democracy in Nepal, but when we
talk about development our eyes are set on the youth leaders. Given
the stage of ``development'' of our country, the agenda for the next
generation of national leadership is clear -- they must be able to
lead the country toward the path of economic prosperity. They should
have as strong a passion for development as their predecessors do for
democracy.
As far as the Communists are concerned they should first come out of
the present state of confusion. The ruling Nepali Congress should not
deny the Communists a fair role in the process of nation building
either. We argue here again, as in our previous writings, that the
democrats should be more than willing to help the Communist party's
potential democratic evolvement in our national life. Regarding the
party of former panchas which is now called ``National
Democratic Party'' we can only hope that it remains true to its new
name.
We finally turn our attention, in the next section, to review the
performance of the Koirala government.
The Koirala Government
Given the limited resource base the country has, the political
parties, especially the ruling Nepali congress, have to be the
flag-carriers of the development process to radically change the
socio-economic landscape of the country. Soon after the achievement of
the primary political goal, the leaders of revolution in any society
face an even more demanding task of constantly sharpening their
programs and policies based upon the past accomplishments and the
future possibilities. We hope that the Congress leadership will attend
with an utmost priority to the need of institutionalizing the party
which still exists largely in the form of a political movement. It is
however ironic that the Nepali Congress president took about an year
since the Jhapa Conference to form the central working committee.
Well! Better late than never.
In a nascent democracy the task of the government is formidable. Good
intention alone can not propel a nation in the direction of economic
development. The government should be able to constantly communicate
its priorities to the people. It is also critical to win the
confidence of the grass-root party workers who can act as catalytic
agents of development. A concerted assault on rural poverty can be
orchestrated only by empowering the local governments. The
decentralization of power not only helps deepen the roots of democracy
but also energizes a greater involvement of the masses in the
development process. The difference between where Nepal was in 1991
and will be in 1996 will clearly show up in the political
balance-sheet of the Nepali Congress government. It is not out of
place to mention what the President-elect of the US had to say in his
first press conference after winning the election. One of the major
responsibility that he outlined for himself as the President was to be
able to explain to the American people where their country is today,
how it has gotten there and where he intends to take it. If we judge
the Koirala government from this perspective, the report card will not
be very exciting. The prime minister Koirala must communicate his
ideas to the Nepali people. The Nepali congress should be able to
provide a forum for serious discussion and deliberations on the issues
relating to the political economy of the country. These deliberations
will help the party leadership to devise the policy directives to be
given to the government. At the same time, the prime minister
Koirala can use these forums as useful channels of communication with
the people.
The prime minister Koirala's task -- the task of managing the change
of the Nepali society from an authoritarian to liberal democratic one
--
is not easy. He has been vocally criticized from within his party on
some mundane issues. This is very distracting. Mr. Koirala's authority
as the prime minister of the country and responsibility to lead
the country in the direction of fulfilling the basic needs and
aspirations
of a common Nepali have to be respected by his party colleagues. Mr.
Koirala should also have genuine respect for and willingness to seek
advice and assistance from the two senior colleagues of his party. The
political mandate expressed by the people of Nepal through the
national and local elections is that they want to be led by the
collectivity of the three leaders of the Nepali Congress -- Mr. Ganesh
M.
Singh, Mr. Krishna P. Bhattarai and Mr. Girija P. Koirala -- toward the
direction of the total upliftment of the Nepali society.
Some of the policy actions taken by the Koirala government have been
impressive. The recent decision to trim the size of government
bureaucracy is a bold step in the right direction. Some of the staff
agencies he has put together have done a good job of creating the
mechanisms to monitor the progress of the government projects. On the
other hand, the performance of a number of line ministries has been
mediocre. For some reasons, the passion, vigor and zeal with which Mr.
Koirala started his term in the office have been less forthcoming
lately. In some of his recent political appointments he seems to have
tried to not only accommodate the dissenting voice within his party but
also compromise the standards of scrutiny he employed in the past.
Accommodation of the various interests within the party is perhaps a
prudent political act but the general standards of honesty and
excellence and commitment to the democratic process should not be
de-emphasized.
Since the next paper to be presented this morning deals with issues of
economic development, we will not review the major achievements and
shortcomings of the government in this arena. However, we can not
resist the temptation of briefly touching upon the need for the
reorientation and redirection of Nepal's foreign policy to make it
harmonious with the development needs.
An overwhelming proportion of Nepal's development budget expenditure
is met by foreign grants and loans. The conventional wisdom had it
that since Nepal is not only a nascent democracy but also a very poor
country in the world, the amount of international assistance it
receives will significantly increase under the democratic government.
Had poverty been a sufficient argument for increase in such assistance
some of the countries in Africa whose economies are declining have a
stronger case than Nepal does. On the other hand, a number of
countries in the world have achieved democracy in the past few years.
Since some of these newly emerging democracies are placed in the
locations of strategic importance to the West, the competition among
the members of the family of nations to attract foreign aid and
investment has become more intense. Nepal should, therefore, increase
its efficiency and effectiveness in identifying and implementing the
development projects. Unless we can prove that Nepal's development
apparatus is such that it can earn a higher return for a buck
invested than many other newly democratized developing nations
competing for the limited international financial assistance, our
chances of attracting an increased share of such resources are not
very realistic. Aside from this consideration, the increased
importance of the economic and trade issues in the foreign policy
arena necessitates a radical redefinition of the foreign policy
objectives of our country.
Conclusion
Nepal's political achievements over the past two and half years have
been momentous. It is not reasonable to expect economic miracles to
happen in such a short span of time. However, the performance of the
Koirala government has not been up to the expectation. The current
stage of political development in Nepal is such that the Nepali
Congress party is best equipped to provide the stability essential to
the economic upliftment of the country. And so weakening the prime
minister Koirala's hands will neither help the cause of democracy nor
bring about economic prosperity in the country. Finally, of course, we
do sincerely hope that Mr. Koirala will learn from the shortcomings of
the past and be better able to garner support of his party
colleagues as well as his fellow citizens, which is quintessential for
the development and prosperity of democratic Nepal.