Submit your Article

Once again, the map controversy has surfaced but this time around it’s not between Nepal and India but between China and Nepal. The fresh controversy followed as China issued what it calls its ‘standard map’, which does not include Nepal’s new official map. 

China’s new map has created uproar not only in its neighborhood but much beyond, with the list of countries objecting to the map increasing by the day. In the case of Nepal, the latest map controversy seems to have emerged partly from the way governments dealt with this sensitive issue in the past. 

The recent statement from Nepal’s Foreign Minister indicates that the new map was not officially submitted or communicated to countries including China. If that is the case, it shows double standards on the part of Nepali politicians, who have the habit of doing politics even on serious issues like foreign policy and national security.

The author is a geopolitical analyst 

The national and provincial elections are around the corner for which candidates are in their last leg of campaigning to woo the voters. As in the past, voters are being promised all sorts of things. This is neither unusual, nor are they doing it for the first time. Such promises are common in a country like Nepal where the society has been dependent on politics for everything for a long time.  Interesting as it may be, what is true, however, is that most of the candidates have just become dream merchants. Despite all this fanfare on the part of candidates and political parties, people at large look less enthusiastic about the election.  The overall national mode is not jubilant. This certainly will have consequences in the electoral outcomes as well. The frustration is all pervasive and deeply running across various sections of society, and is already being manifested. The electoral campaign of major political parties and their leaders have been challenged in the form of the ‘No Not Again’ social media campaign. People’s resentment at old established political parties could reflect in the form of low voter turnout. Or, their frustration could impact the performance of traditional political parties. What led to such a state of affairs? Why is there a deep level of frustration towards electoral politics? Part of the reason is that Nepali politics, over the years, has been hijacked by the parties to fulfill their vested interests and that of their close supporters.     True, political leaders and parties have contributed to bring about political changes in the country. But they expect to be rewarded. It does not stop here, there are some leaders who equate their political success with national success and their failure as nations failure.  Similarly, frequent formation of (un)holy alliances—Gathabandhan—either to stay in power or to come into power has only reduced people’s trust—often referred to as Janata—in democracy. From that perspective, Gathbandhan is merely a Thagbandhan—a coalition of thugs.  Many people who have been closely observing these events are ready to challenge this status quo. If that materializes, this certainly is going to have a deep impact for the traditional political parties, who have been running the show in the country for nearly thirty plus years.  During these thirty plus years, there has been a steady rise of the middle class. But it is this group and their children who will likely shape the outcomes of this election. If not, they will at least set a course for future elections.  This group is not affiliated to any political parties, and they are not easily be influenced by rhetoric. Political parties are without true agendas this time and the people can see this.   Perhaps, they might still be under the impression that their dreams and promises can still be sold in the market. But things have changed.   Of course, political parties of various colors and ideologies have come out with their own manifestos with a long list of promises and programs. However, some of them do not truly make any sense to the people, as they are not really connected with their livelihood. Besides, the parties had made similar commitments in the past.   If we juxtapose the roundabouts of events, it appears that political parties, at large, are running out of their bank balance of public trust. Under these circumstances, mere ranting and projecting repeated artificial crises in democracy, constitution and sovereignty will not win them public trust.  A politician’s career crisis in no way endangers democracy, constitution or national sovereignty.  For all practical purposes, the extant election is being contested between two forces: those who are affiliated with political parties in one way or the other, and those who are outside of the party mechanism from every aspect.   The latter want to unseat the former at any cost. In that process, independent candidates have come as a blessing in disguise, though independent candidates, too, are not independent in a real sense of the term. For now, they certainly are becoming successful in delivering a message to the traditional political parties and their leaders. Traditional political parties are facing a litmus test. Let us see how they fare this election. Recycling of the same people for more than thirty plus years in politics has brought a deep anti-incumbency wave even within the pirates. Perhaps their young leaders, too, are seeking genuine change.  Established political forces must reinvent themselves and change their way of politics if they are to survive and remain relevant. 

On Nov 20, Nepal is holding elections for the federal parliament along with seven state assemblies. These elections, in principle, will provide governments both at the center and provinces for the next five years. Earlier this year, Nepal conducted elections for the local governments. The year 2022 has been the election year and it certainly is a great opportunity to consolidate democracy in more than one way. From that perspective, upcoming elections should be seen with a positive angle at least for two reasons: first, these elections are taking place in the stipulated time frame, second, despite serious doubt—political parties—have come together—and expressed their commitments towards electoral democracy. Yet elections alone are not sufficient to, what scholars call, consolidate democracy. That said elections do provide legitimacy, but the broader legitimacy comes when such elections truly work for the broader welfare of the citizens. Experience, however, is such that Nepal’s electoral democracy has failed more than one time in the past. What certainly has been noticed, to our dismay, is that successive elections have only brought the same elites again and again in the political landscape thereby not only stalling the circulation of elites but also contributed to establishing what can be referred as the formation of an electoral dynasty. This perhaps could be the reason, among others, why interest toward ‘electoral democracy’ is declining not only in the emerging but also in the so-called consolidated democracies of the west. In the context of Nepal, there certainly are problems but that does not mean that one should lose hope in democracy as there are always rooms for improvements which, yet again, largely happens from the elections. Overall, democracy is a work in progress project and is certainly a better system than many of those available in the market. Still, one may ask a question as to what extent upcoming elections can be a step towards ‘work in progress’. Nothing can be said now, everything hinges on how the electoral results pan out. Yet the way ‘tickets’ were distributed by the political parties and alliances were formed—there is little scope for the improvements. Once again, political parties have filled the same candidates who have been tested in Nepali politics on more than one occasion. In fact, if we look at the list of nominees chosen to contest election, it looks as if parliamentarians have become permanent (same faces) whereas the ‘legislative assembly’ is temporary in nature as its term expires in every five years and only gets its residents through elections after that. The new political parties and independent candidates—who are only promising goodies and change the political demography of politicians. The underlying situation and the political economy of the election, however, is not really conducive for them to be elected at least for two reasons: first, as hinted, the political ecosystem is entirely captured by those who can be termed as the resident political parties, and it certainly will be difficult for them to dismantle that ecosystem under the current circumstances. Second, the so called ‘independent’ candidates do not necessarily have any clear policies and programmes. On the contrary, most of them are the product of ‘neoliberal populism’ which does not really work here. For good or bad reasons, they have largely thrived on the inaction of the ‘resident’ political parties. Whatever the electoral outcome is, if the political culture does not change Nepal, for sure, will not have a comfortable journey towards democratic consolidation process. The fall of Nepal Communist Party’s two-third majority government earlier has forced people to conclude that most of the time it’s the internal factors which are creating more problems than the external ones. The NCP which, at hindsight, promised many things, splintered in many parts and the Supreme Court of the country have had to intervene to settle the political dust unfurled which certainly is not good not only from the perspective of separation of power but also the ‘sovereigns—the people—were insulted time and again. Questions may arise—who the decision makers are in a democracy. There are equal chances that Nepal’s upcoming parliament will also meet the same fate as the earlier one did. Such conclusions could only be made based on the way political parties have selected candidates to contest the election. If elected, most of them will have nothing to do with democracy. In contrast, while some of them are careerist political leaders, others wanted to enhance their own business and networks. There certainly are some who might have democratic impulse, but they will be overwhelmed by others. Sad as it may be, we have developed democracy into a political system that offers multiple benefits to those who are associated with the process in more than one way but for those who are out of the ring—it’s not really anything. The second point in that regard is the lack of civic political culture. And, of course, the external factors—which certainly are going to be there as they were in the past—could well be taken as the third factor. Yet, so far so good, despite all these, good part of Nepal’s journey towards democratization process is such that, at least, elections are being held even at least to come into the power then and now—although they may not have been able to bring about substantial changes into the life of people—which certainly provides relief to the people. If otherwise, means were taken to come into politics, it certainly would have been disastrous. The author writes commentaries on domestic politics and international affairs. [email protected]; Twitter: @Cdbhatta  

Nepal is among the South Asian countries that get American aid. In fact, Nepal’s extant ‘developmental industry’ was set up by the US in 1951. Other countries such as India, China, and the former Soviet Union then joined the fray. This was the beginning of the Cold War period. Foreign aid then was aimed at the US and the USSR wanting to checkmate each other, often through their proxies. The two were poles apart in terms of political ideologies and worldviews.

The stated objective of foreign aid had always been to fill the gap between the investment needs and the domestic savings of recipient countries and to get them moving on the path of development. In reality, foreign aid contributed to the creation of ‘underdeveloped countries’. The term coined by the then US President Henry Truman in his Four Point Program meant half the world population became ‘poor’ overnight.

But in reality and most cases, aid recipient countries have neither been able to develop nor to strengthen democracy in the past 70 years. In contrast, most of them fell apart somewhere down the road or became mired in internal conflict. This was primarily because of the unstated objectives of foreign aid.

Foreign policy objectives often guide ‘developed’ countries’ aid disbursement. In the context of the US aid to Nepal, this can be seen in three different phases. The first phase started in 1951 and continued until 1988-89. In this phase the main objective was to contain communism in the region (not promotion of democracy) and any regime that could do so got foreign aid. The idea was that Nepal should not go into the USSR fold or fall into the communist trap. (Nepal did eventually fall into the trap.) The aid, however, contributed to strengthen the Panchayat regime for 30 years until 1990, when the global political situation changed in favor of the US.

Then came the Democratic Pluralistic Initiative (DPI) undertaken by the US in Eastern European countries to promote civil society organizations. This was also applied in Nepal. The objective was to strengthen the civil society organizations which would help usher in and strengthen democracy. The major chunk of foreign aid shifted from the state to the non-state actors and developmental activities from hard to soft areas such as human rights, democracy, and the like. In line with these objectives, many countries, including Nepal, have made human rights key component in their foreign policy.

After September 11, 2001, and until the announcement of the Belt and Road Initiative by China, the major chunk of US foreign aid was channeled, once again, for the purpose of state-building to counter the activities of non-state actors. This was because non-state actors became so strong that states were unable to contain them. Nepal too became a beneficiary of this approach. The situation changed again recently with China’s rise as an economic giant and its subsequent floating of the BRI. America has once again gone to back to the 1950s era of big-power rivalry-guided aid disbursement.

The author writes on and teaches political economy