Looking at the make-up of other groups who contested Khanal in the run for prime ministership, Nepali Congress (NC) candidate Ram Chandra Poudel received 122 notes and Bijay Kumar Gachchhdar of MJF-Madhesi Front 67 seats, for a total of just under 200 for the two opposing candidates. Of the 44 votes not cast owing to abstentions and boycotts, at least two-thirds of this number, including most of 25 members from Upendra Yadav’s MJF would finally get aligned with government coalition, while others would support NC in the opposition. These figures show roughly two thirds/one third split of the total 601 CA votes divided up between left-wing and right-wing parties. This is the best thing that could have happened to Nepal to stabilize it politically, put forward a progressive agenda, and institutionalize democracy.
About the last point—institutionalizing democracy—we have had democracy for some time but it has always been a messy one—actually a multiparty mess than a multiparty democracy. This kind of situation is very much expected when political devolution—as it happened in 1990—creates an opening for everyone to pour out pent-up emotions and get-even with grievances--bottled-up while under a “closed system.” Differences among groups and parties in an emerging situation will likely be anchored on personalities and factional interests, and probably none of it relating to ideology and principle. However, with the passage of time and in the absence of someone or some faction taking advantage of the fluid situation to scuttle democratic experiment, factionalism and group interests tend to give way to coalition and alignments built-up around national issues. Most of the mature democracies of today have faced this transition, sometimes lasting for generations and seemingly never stabilizing.
A TWO-PARTY DEMOCRACY
It appears that after traveling a topsy-turvy path and at times losing direction, the moment for Nepali democracy has finally arrived. At this time it looks as though that democracy is being obeyed only in the breach--forced by unusual circumstances—but the period of uncertainty about democracy seems to be finally over.
This optimism ensues from the fact that coming together of left parties reflected in the election of Khanal has sent a strong signal to the right-wing parties in general and to smaller, faction-based parties in particular for them to take up recognizable identity based on transparent principles and national agenda, not representing regional and factional interests. It will take time for such principle-based policy to become the norm but the next generation’s politics in the country is predicted to take this course.
For gaining traction, the wise course for Khanal coalition and left-party alliance would be to come up with concrete proposals that focuses on the economy and improves public facilities in areas where government failure has been most visible and persistent, whether the regime has been democratic or autocratic. Approaches to the economy’s course correction can be progressive without being communistic and socialistic and, in particular, the test for legitimacy of planned measures should be that they are not coercive and do not encroach upon personal freedoms. There is a wide array of useful and constructive reforms that new government can devise and implement within these constraints and avoid creating unnecessary roadblocks.
The main pillar of success for new government will be to establish a different identity in terms of how the government relates to the rest of the society which generally has been antagonistic and adversarial. The general population feels harassed by such experiences almost on a daily basis while dealing with government agencies everywhere, which have their culture rooted in aristocracy and dictatorial regimes they served. If the Khanal government succeeds in making even small progress in making the government machinery work for the people--at least not be obstructive and exploitative-- that will be counted as the single most notable achievement of his administration.
On the highly divisive and, for most practical purposes, esoteric and obtuse issues—those of constitution-writing and peace process—it will be wise to set a time-limit to complete this process and avoid acrimonious and largely unproductive debate. These tasks should better be assigned to bi-partisan commissions of experts without party labels, which would help save time and make resources available for other urgent businesses.
After traveling a topsy-turvy path and at times losing direction, the moment for Nepali democracy has finally arrived. Now, it looks as though that democracy is being obeyed only in the breach--forced by unusual circumstances—but the period of uncertainty about democracy seems to be finally over.
Among such urgent businesses, I place providing visible relief to the public--and earn their abiding trust and adulation in the process. A good start would be find ways to relieve power shortage faced by Nepalis on a permanent basis, not to mention addressing the acute shortage of drinking water faced by the Valley residents. In the short-term, there are very few options to addressing these problems. For power shortage, other than urging India to sell more electricity to Nepal at a concessional rate and even accessing Bhutan facilities for power purchase, there are no other options. Nepal should certainly not be ashamed of asking for help from neighbors to meet an emergency situation which is what the 18-hour load-shedding amounts to but has been ignored by political autocracy that we have nourished until now. And expediting the Melamchi project is the only way to relieve the Valley of the water problem.
Finally, the Khanal government, along with its Maoist allies, should make a sincere effort to hide their communism. They know that they had to take this label out of desperation—to make themselves distinct from authoritarian and oppressive regimes, as explained to me by the late CPN-UML Prime Minister Manmohan Adhikary. But times have changed to show progressiveness in other ways, such as by making the government work for people and not the other way round. A communist label will distract the new government’s attention from engaging in more meaningful pursuits, like preparing the bureaucracy to serve the people, not exploit them.
RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES
The major risks and uncertainties that I perceive the new government will be facing is the manner in which it conducts its business with India. For a good and helpful relation, leaders like Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal should forgo the use of such derogatory labels as “remote control” and “foreign masters” to depict relations with India; this is neither helpful diplomacy, nor serious politics. The Khanal government and its supporters, especially the Maoists, must give India the benefit of doubt, that it wants Nepal to be peaceful and prosperous and, of course, to remain democratic. If the Khanal Government can secure India’s confidence that it commits to be mindful of India’s interests in carrying out its business, there is nothing the new democratic leadership will have to fear of India’s designs.
More important than India’s reception of the Khanal government will be one possible backlash from the rightist forces within the country, most notably from NC, which has until now viewed Nepal’s democracy as its fiefdom and all other claimants to it as intruders and illegitimate. It has never accepted the fact that democracy means a peaceful transfer of power and change of authority, and especially that playing opposition is as honorable as actually being in power. It is difficult to perceive that this mindset will change, otherwise, just with one fifth of the votes in the parliament, why would Ram Chandra Poudel so adamantly pursue the dream of becoming prime minister. The most difficult challenge the Khanal government is likely to face over the next few months and years will be it getting accepted by the NC establishment.
sshah1983@hotmail.com
Related story
No one should dream of going against democracy: PM Deuba
