“I authorized the General Election [in May 1959]. I agreed for multi-party democracy. I also served as the Head of Government [before the Election]. However, the Prime Minister chosen from the majority party [BP Koirala] installed his own people in the Cabinet. Suppose tomorrow you get the chance to become Prime Minister, you will probably do the same. But this way of running the government will create difficulties. Does only your party have good and capable people? Aren’t (sic) other parties also have such people? I, for one, think that good people can be found in all parties. Unfortunately, they [the ruling Congress Party leaders] do not view things this way. And, this is the reason I had to outlaw the multi-party system [after the Government was dismissed in December 1960]. I have taken this step with full conviction that doing so is in the best interest of the country.” [King Mahendra talking to communist leader Dr Keshar Jung Rayamajhi in1962 as quoted in Surjprasad Upadhaya: A Multi-Dimensional Personality, p. 67, Mahamunishwor Acharya, Editor (Kathmandu), July 2011] [break]
The widely-held belief seems to be that King Mahendra dismissed the democratically-elected government of BP Koirala in 1960 to serve his dynastic interests, which was to reestablish monarchical rule interrupted by illegal seizure of power by Rana rulers more than a century ago. However, this particular view of the events may not be all true.
This is so because King Mahendra knew that growing public awareness of Rana misrule and political campaign launched by nationalist Nepali Congress (NC) had spearheaded the political change of 1950 that helped restore monarchy. It was then evident that, as King, his power would be limited but he believed that he would continue to have a role in governing the country, especially when it occurred to him that country was headed in the wrong direction.
More relevant to the events that later unfolded, as a Crown-Prince during the early 1950s King Mahendra had let his displeasure be known of the way political parties had been jockeying for power, which also meant that he wasn’t eager to embrace democracy if that encouraged divisions, strife, and conflict among parties to gain absolute control of government. He didn’t see how such a conflict-ridden system could be trusted to serve public interest when the leaders can be so absorbed in securing dominance and staying in power once they got there.
King Tribhuvan sensed his son’s antidemocratic instincts which he genuinely believed were not in the long-term interest of monarchy—that monarchy must accept democracy and be guided by it, not the other way around or by envisioning an absolute monarchical rule. In fact, as BP recounted to me in one of the conversations in late 1970s, King Tribhuvan was so enraged by his son’s apparent hostility towards democracy that he would rather see his younger son, Prince Himalaya, become King, rather than Mahendra. However, BP advised the King differently—that if he deprived Mahendra from succeeding him on the throne, the inheritance would rightfully go to Mahendra’s eldest son and not to Prince Himalaya. This led King Tribhuvan to abandon his quest for changing the succession.
True to his instincts, King Mahendra dismantled the multi-party democracy a few years after he ascended to the throne in 1956. He didn’t do so immediately and, reportedly, he got along with BP quite well and BP also viewed him favorably. In fact, prior to the 1959 election, the two of them had maintained such cordial relationship that BP used to dine with Royal Family at the Palace and was served meals cooked by Queen Ratna herself! What this closeness established was that King Mahendra respected BP as a public figure and he always believed that whichever way Nepal gets ruled, BP will involve him actively and seek his advice on issues of national interest. In other words, King Mahendra’s expectation of BP was that, whenever he came to power—of which Mahendra was quite certain—BP will not ignore him in the running of his administration.
As it happened, things didn’t develop in this way when BP became Prime Minister in 1959, but that had less to do with his arrogance or dictatorial instincts. His sidelining the King while filling his Cabinet positions had more to do with the accepted democratic norm for which BP always looked at British and Scandinavian monarchies as models for Nepal. Looking back, then, BP could have saved himself, the democracy, and half a century of nation’s lost time if he had tried to have a better understanding of King Mahendra’s intentions and, as such, would have accommodated his ego. This would have been a win-win situation for everyone, with the tradition established for valuing cooperation and comradeship in the nation-building effort, relegating personal and party interests as second- or lower-level objectives.
What the history then teaches us is to exercise discipline in the way we view our democratic freedom which begins with the right of dissent but with obligation to channelize our disagreements by forming groups and organizations of which, in the context of new democracies like Nepal, political parties seem to be the most dominant choice. However, like many things in a democracy, unrestricted freedom to establish political party can lead to abuses and give rise to diminishing returns, as all sorts of excessive binges are known to produce. What is then the right number of political parties for a country that will optimize social returns—in terms of the quality of governance and protection of democratic rights?
Surprisingly, there is no agreement on the right number of parties to make a successful democracy but plain commonsense should tell us that a lower number is better, meaning that a fewer number of political parties will make democracy more manageable, more transparent, and more accountable. Also, the economic cost of sustaining democracy—providing for the party leaders and their workers—will be substantially lower with fewer parties. This is because, of all the professional groups politicians are deemed as least productive, measured by the benefits they are perceived to bring to society and cost they entail, in terms of the loss of productive efforts if so many people were not actively engaged in politics.
Looking at the current line-up of 119 political parties registered for contesting the forthcoming CA election, we must have a sympathetic view of King Mahendra’s displeasure with multiparty democracy and his decision to outlaw it in favor of a partyless system—later labeled as guided democracy—which allowed individuals to be politically active and contest elections but without party labels. While we can debate ad infinitum about the merits and drawbacks of the partyless system, the immediate advantage from the change was a substantial reduction in political strife and improved security situation in the country. This provided an enabling environment for reaching agreements on long-term initiatives on flood control, national highway projects and a comprehensive land reforms program.
Looking at the magnitude of consensus needed for the government to undertake this level of “transformative” initiatives, the issues could have been endlessly debated in a multi-party set-up without ever reaching agreement and sustaining it once the decision has been taken. Absence of progress on the Constitution and Government’s inability to come up with credible plans for improving electricity and water supply problems in Kathmandu Valley are examples of the failure of multiparty democracy and not that we lack vision or resources for doing the job.
There is little doubt then that democracy can’t function in a situation when political landscape is overcrowded with hundred-plus parties having conflicting goals and ideologies. This doesn’t mean that we need to return to a one-party State but it also looks improbable that we can make a success of multi-party democracy in its current form.
Related story
Butwal launches perspective development plan
