Submit your Article

Nepal’s constitution offers a flawed concept of democracy. The current constitutional crisis is, in part, an exhibition of those flaws.

In this five-part series, I explore the elements that make our constitution inherently frail and call on civilians to build a truly apolitical (or non-political) movement to save it.

Part III: The tyranny of the minority

Constitutions of most democracies, worried about the tyranny of the majority, placed safeguards against overreach by the executive branch of the government. They did this, for example, by making the executive accountable to the legislature. In parliamentary systems, this meant the legislature could sack the prime minister through a vote of no-confidence any time.   

By contrast, Nepal’s constitution worried about the tyranny of the minority and curbed the powers of the legislature to destabilize the executive. Scarred by past instability, the new constitution placed safeguards to protect the stability of the executive.

The constitutional clause that prevents a vote of no-confidence for up to two years after an election is an example of that intent to protect the executive’s stability. Such clauses limit the accountability that legislature can exercise over the executive.

These safeguards, though intended for stability, make Nepal a flawed parliamentary democracy. By sacrificing accountability of the executive, its drafters incorporated an undemocratic thought.

The mistake that the drafters made, and one we often echo, is in believing that political stability comes from having a stable executive. For example, many of us believe we are most likely to get a stable prime minister (or executive) if a political party were to gain a majority in parliament. Thus, we are disappointed that even with a two-third majority in parliament the current communist government is unlikely to serve out its full term.

Nepal’s diversity, its electoral system, federalism, and the nature of its political parties make it near impossible for a single party to get a majority in the federal parliament. But unlike the drafters of our constitution, we shouldn’t be afraid of such fragmented legislatures. We shouldn’t be afraid of legislators being self-interested and politically motivated. We shouldn’t be afraid of the fact that legislators will pull each other down, engage in horse-trading or transact their votes for their narrow self-interest. At this stage of our young democracy, we should be prepared for such behavior.

Instead of trying to curtail such self-interested behavior through clauses that undermine parliamentary processes, the constitution should have focused on addressing how to make governance possible even with such self-interested parliamentary behavior. It is entirely possible—many countries offer excellent examples of how that could be done.

One way would be to understand what motivates legislators in Nepal. Our constitution has a very low opinion of legislators—imagining that they will always act in narrow self-interest. (Ironic, perhaps, that a parliamentary system would distrust its legislators so fundamentally, which makes you wonder if those who drafted the constitution really believed in parliamentary democracy in the first place!)

Our constitution fails to dig deep and ask why legislators will act in such narrow self-interest. The answer: political power is supreme in Nepal’s constitution—it determines everything. Political power determines everything from who will win a government contract to who will get appointed to constitutional bodies. In such a context, a better way to seek political stability would have been to reduce the allure of political authority, for example by explicitly limiting what it can achieve.

Nepal’s greatest tragedy following its new constitution was that a single party—the Nepal Communist Party—had near a two-third majority. Many were excited that this would lead to an era of stable government. As it turns out, it hasn’t been stable, and in hindsight, apparently it wasn’t even a single party in the first place.

The lesson from the current political crisis is to stop believing that good governance requires a single party’s majority in parliament and continuity in the executive. Nepal’s democracy will be better off with a parliament lacking a single-party majority. Legislators should jostle, argue, negotiate, and change prime ministers every month if they so wish. This acrimonious, cantankerous base could yield the most stable democracy if the business of governance could carry on without the need for political authority.             

[email protected]; Views are personal.

A boy called me a whore. He couldn’t have been older than 15. The reason: I brushed against the side-mirror of the scooter he was riding pillion on while crossing a road peppered with potholes, and the rider had to swerve a little. The teen, with a mask strapped below his chin, gesticulated wildly and even turned back to glare at me from some distance away.

The sad thing is these kinds of incidents are quite common. It doesn’t take much for people to lose their cool and start spewing obscenities. Consumed by an underlying rage, we have never been a tolerant lot. A banal, inconsequential thing can send us over the edge. Worse, those in power have always brandished their authority by raising their voices.

I remember a traffic police yelling at my dad in Durbarmarg, Kathmandu. We had just stopped to get some ice-cream and had parked the car by the road for five minutes. I was barely seven and thought the man would harm my dad—the way he kept repeating the same thing over and over—“Will you give me your license or should I puncture the tires?”—was menacing. I still think about that incident every time I see policemen argue with the public, which is all too often. They rarely ever speak properly, grunting and huffing unnecessarily. The public, in return, doesn’t relent easily either.

The outpouring of aggression seems to get worse by the day. Political discourses drip with sarcasm and rage. Social issues have extremists fighting nasty battles complete with name-calling and rape/death threats. The online debates (if you can call them that) and comments on the Rupa Sunar-Saraswati Pradhan controversy will make you want to scoop your eyeballs out and give them a vigorous scrub. Oh, the blasphemy.

Neuroscientist R Douglas Fields, in his book ‘Why We Snap’, says we are more prone to lose it when it’s a matter of life, family, honor, our freedom, territory, resources or social justice. Stressful situations, he writes, can initiate an automatic rage response. Thanks to our evolutionary past, he adds, under the right circumstances, anyone can lash out violently. The neural circuits that helped our ancestors protect themselves and survive recognize and respond to dangers in our current environment as well.

Anger, historically, might have been necessary for survival but today, I feel, it’s more an assertion of power and our inability to accept even an iota of responsibility in any wrong. Articles on anger management and how it affects our bodies claim people are busier and thus strapped for time which predisposes them to anger when things don’t go their way. But does anger serve a purpose? Or do we worsen our situations by reacting like lunatics? Are harsh words necessary to convey a message?

I, for one, stop listening when someone’s voice goes above a certain decibel. I’m sure that’s true for most of us. Tell me something in a controlled tone and I’m receptive to what you are saying. Say the same thing, in a higher pitch and throw in a few gestures, eye roll, headshake, and the like, and, in my head, I’ve made you out to be a dumb, illogical person and switched off my senses.

That doesn’t mean I don’t fight anger with anger. But over time, I’m learning to control my emotions because all arguing with an angry person does is get me riled up. It’s a disruptive force. As clichéd as it sounds, deep breaths help. As does picturing myself with a puffy red face and saucer-sized eyes. I have used that technique a gazillion times to calm down.

My father once said being angry is like having poison and hoping the other person will die. The line might have been copied from somewhere but he was also speaking from experience. These days, he prefers to keep quiet and listen rather than retaliate in anger and further upset himself. Let it go, seems to be his mantra. It’s a stark contrast to a man whose self-righteousness never let him back down from an argument.

Apparently, research backs his claims too (though it for sure wasn’t what was on his mind when he had his Buddha moment). Studies have shown that anger can cause physiological changes that affect blood pressure, heart rate and digestion. Chronic anger has even been linked to heart attacks and other cardiovascular problems.

The problem with us these days is we are rarely, if ever, trying to make a point. The focus is largely on proving the other person wrong or belittling them. Paul Bloom, in the book ‘Against Empathy’, says we feel empathy most for those who are similar to us and not at all for those who are different, distant, or anonymous. Perhaps it’s a lack of empathy that’s the source of all the anger that fuel conflicts these days. When the Covid-19 pandemic has made it obvious that life can be fickle, gone at the blink of an eye, aren’t we better off being a little more compassionate and a lot less angry?

I was five-years-old when I met Rover—a mongrel I picked outside my house in New Road— for the first time. Beige in color and with the most adorable black nose. He did not come with a name tag but I named it after our Land Rover. After a couple of days, my uncle, who didn’t want a dog in the house, took Rover to our factory. Rover died of food poisoning a couple of weeks later.

With time, my love for dogs has only grown. I talk to dogs, be it at my friend’s place or on the street. I have had five dogs of my own till date: Rover, Shimpu, Zimbu, Pasa Precious, all now resting in peace, and Ba:la Princess, who lives with me right now. All through my life, the veterinarians have had issues with how I pamper and spoil my dogs. Dr. Pranav Joshi from Vet for Pets Clinic warned me that I was not only allowing Ba:la Princess to get on my head but also letting her do jumping jacks. That said, he appreciates how I love her like my own daughter. Dr. Joshi keeps repeating a mantra to all his dog owners. If you don’t have three things, don’t get a dog: money, time and space.

By money, I don’t mean you should have enough to purchase a St Bernard or a Rottweiler. When we bring a pooch home, it comes with an expense. Even if you are a vegetarian, let’s accept that dogs need a large portion of meat in their diet, after all, they are pure carnivores. If you have a big dog, their basic food intake is equivalent to that of three adult humans. An adult German Shepard or a Labrador Retriever needs 300-500 grams of meat a day. It is a big misconception that dogs like bones. Chewing a bone is an activity and they do it to alleviate boredom and to satisfy the innate urge to chew. They need toys to keep themselves busy and like toddlers they also get easily bored with their toys. Bones definitely are a good option but not the only one. 

If you have noticed a dog eat, they do not chew but swallow the food. They do the same with bones mixed with their food. Those bones can get stuck in their intestines and might rupture organs. A good vet will recommend you avoid giving bones, especially chicken bones, to your dogs as they have sharp ends. It will be unfair to feed your dogs just leftovers from your kitchen, even though it is a regular practice in Nepal. You need to have a good budget to give a good life to your four-legged companion. We don’t compromise with the needs of our children, do we?

Dogs are from the wolf family. They live and move in packs. That is why when dogs are domesticated they believe the family they are living with is their pack. So when they are left alone they suffer from separation anxiety. A lot of times we hear people complain about dog’s destructive behavior when left alone, and their relative calmness when they see their family. As we keep dogs for companionship, it is also vice-versa. They too need companions. In Kathmandu, I see people spend thousands to buy a dog as a status symbol and later it spends 99 percent of its time with the caretaker or helper.

When we speak of space, we talk about two spaces. The first is the space where a dog can run, play and exercise. When they consume a large amount of meat protein, they need to burn it. So the larger the dog, the more space you need to have for them to exercise. I understand the sentiment and desire to keep a big dog in an apartment, but then you need to make it sweat and exercise. There should be a committed time you make for your dog. They need to walk or run to burn the energy or else they are again extremely destructive. A tired dog is a disciplined dog. 

The second kind of space is the space to poop. The streets outside your house is not a place for your pooch to poop. It is a pretty normal practice in Nepal to let the dog outside on the streets in the morning or at night for their disposal and pretend you didn’t see them poop. There should be a proper arrangement of their daily disposals. The Kathmandu Metropolitan City is coming up with a strict rule to control such behaviors and is planning to register dogs in ward offices. How effective it is going to be, only time will tell.

I strongly believe having a dog is the best thing that can happen to me. They understand my vibes, they love me unconditionally, they are my antidepressants and they are always around. Their memory is worse than a goldfish’s. I yell at Ba:la Princess for five minutes and send her out of the room. Ten seconds later I call her and she is back wagging her tail and in love with me like never before. Lastly, I try not to be too judgmental about people, but if they say they don't like dogs I question their existence. I don’t trust a person if dogs don’t trust them.

Among other things, some liberals and pseudo-liberals are hell bent on portraying PM KP Oli as trying to re-establish Nepal as a Hindu country—and I personally hope PM Oli is indeed working toward that objective.

But again, Oli has been blamed for many things, some justifiable, some ludicrous. For some blaming him is a passion, for some a fashion and for some wannabe copycat liberals, blaming or suspecting Oli for the things he is yet to do is the only way to establish their liberal credentials. And when you attack both Oli and Hinduism and the majority’s aspirations of a Hindu state, it becomes doubly easier for you to gain the membership of the “elite liberal club of the most bigoted liberals” and be seen as the most enlightened thinker. 

Let’s be clear: Just because they have issues with the Hindu state does not mean the whole of Nepal has problems with it. You illiberal liberals of the leftist kind could have problems with Oli providing a couple of millions to one of the holiest Hindu temples in the world, Pashupatinath, or his insistence on Lord Ram being born in Nepal, I don’t, and nor do many of us. We see it as Oli finally accepting the fact that the majority of Nepal is Hindu and it makes no sense to alienate us with the irreligious leftist ideology that has only caused misery wherever it was/is practiced.

But why are you self-professed liberals concerned though, beats me. On the one hand you argue that Nepali people are aware and revolutionary and secularism is an achievement and no Nepali wants to do away with it. But on the other hand, you feel threatened by PM Oli’s moves. Isn't that contradictory? If the majority doesn’t want to revert to Hindu state like you all argue, then, why do you feel threatened by Oli supporting a major Hindu temple and or insisting Ram was born in Nepal? Maybe it’s because liberal left’s favorite pastime is to create contradictions and indulge in senseless ramblings.

The problem with the mainstream Nepali media is that it is dominated by a group of ultra-leftist thinkers in liberal garb. Their views are repeated to the point that people who feel differently have to think 10 times before arguing against them—that is if they get the chance/space in the media to present their views. Freedom of expression is understood and practiced as freedom to promote leftist ideology and that has led to silencing of the rational other-than-leftist liberal voices. That is why we are bombarded with pieces highlighting the dangers of doing away with “hard won” achievements including the secular state. And it gets funnier: we are made to believe that if we revert to non-secular state, Nepal will witness the Indian Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS)-brand of militant Hinduism, and the minorities’ rights would be curtailed and all sorts of liberal nonsense.

But what they don’t tell you is that the leaders did away with Hindu state despite the majority population opposing it. If we go by the number of letters sent to the second Constituent Assembly, most letter-writers wanted to retain Nepal’s Hindu country status. But in this land of bizarre democracy their suggestion was ignored, thereby going against the very idea of a constituent assembly. The hastily written constitution was imposed by a group of leaders and their (i) liberal narrative setters and no wonder it is failing.

And no, Nepal will not be importing or influenced by the RSS-brand of “militant” Hinduism if we become a Hindu country. There is absolutely no evidence to support it. Even when it was a Hindu kingdom, we seldom experienced religious clashes and not at all the gruesome kind a la India. Even the rare occurrences of religious clashes in old Nepal are increasingly rarer in today's “new” Nepal because Nepalis of all faiths are going to the Islamic countries to work and are sharing rooms with each other and getting to understand each other more. And let’s not forget the most gruesome and excruciating violence we witnessed in Nepal had nothing to do with religion but with the radical leftist ideology.

We have far more violent radical left youth organizations and not a single RSS-like organization in the country. So, the whole argument is absurd and inserted just to show the writers know what is happening in the neighborhood, and we should take them seriously for their worldly views—or it could be that they need to meet the word-requirement for an article and in the absence of real rational arguments, they just write all things irrational to bring the word count up to 1,000. That's another reason for you, the readers, not to take these pieces seriously.

Further, none of the pieces by democratic and liberal writers advocating secularism in the country calls for letting people decide whether they want a secular or a Hindu state. If you are so democratic and believe in the people, why not use your privileged status of a narrative setter and opinion maker and use the media space generously provided by the equally “liberal” and “enlightened” editors to call for a referendum on the issue and settle it once and for all? No constitution is un-amendable and if you are so threatened by the Hindu state and yet believe that the majority of rational Nepalis will vote against doing away with the hard-won secularism, why not argue for a referendum so that you and the group you represent feels validated? If you win, more power to you.

And as for the argument, suspicion rather, that PM Oli is working in cahoots with his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi to do away with secularism and we should oppose it, what happened to your patriotism and pride when your revered leaders were working with the Indian establishment to do away with monarchy and Hindu state? So working with foreigners to promote your agenda is fine and even democratic and patriotic, but when it's against your and your agenda, it's a betrayal and regression?

This is more of your frustration at India for not opposing PM Oli's moves than anything to do with secularism and Hinduism. Had India opposed PM Oli, you would be the ones singing PM Modi’s praises. You illiberal liberals are the ones inviting foreign intervention and that India chose not to intervene on your and your leaders’ behalf has made you lose your sanity, so to speak. And you see a conspiracy.

Come on, give us a break! Go ahead, call me a rightist or hurl whatever colorful adjective you can think of. Make my day, illiberal liberals. I expect nothing less.