Submit your Article

The first tenure of three tiers of governments in the federal system practiced for the first time in Nepal's history is approaching its completion. The five-year term of local governments will be complete in May 2022 while the tenures of seven provincial assemblies and federal House of Representatives will expire in December 2022.

The first batch of representatives elected under the new structure and the federal system are now subject to review.

While federal, provincial and local governments work as three layers of the federal system, the middle layer (province) has faced scathing criticism from various quarters. This is mainly for two reasons: one has to do with historical context and the second with poor performance of provinces.

Local units: Strong social connections

One thing going for the local level is its strong connection to Nepali society. Local bodies composed of administrative units and elected representatives have been functioning in Nepal since before the introduction of a formal democratic system in the country.

The first local election was conducted in May 1947, a full 12 years before the election of the first parliament. It was only for Kathmandu Municipality. Local representatives in Lalitpur and Bhaktapur municipalities were elected a few months later. Similar elections were held in September 1953 and January 1958. All these local polls pre-dated the first parliamentary election in 1959. So, in a way, local polls can be taken as a harbinger of the democratic practice in Nepal.

In 1960, King Mahendra dissolved the parliamentary system and imposed a party-less autocratic Panchayat system. He however gave continuity to local elections in the party-less Rastriya Panchayat system as well. Local polls were held regularly throughout the 30 years of the Panchayat era. After the restoration of multi-party democracy in 1990, Gau (village) Panchayats and Jilla (district) Panchayats were converted into Village Development Committees (VDCs) and District Development Committees (DDCs) respectively. And VDC and DDC elections were held based on multiparty competition. These units functioned effectively for a decade. After that, there was a gap of elected representatives at the local level owing to over a decade-long political upheaval in the country. It resumed only after the adoption of a new constitution and federal system.

Free swab collection for Covid-19 testing at Bardibas Municipality

Elections in the Panchayat system were not fully democratic mainly due to party-less competition and programs like Gau Pharka Abhiyan (‘Return to the village campaign’) curtailed open competition as well as the role of the general public in electing representatives. However, in one way or the other, elected local representatives were active in villages and towns to carry out development activities, take care of social issues and various other facets that directly impacted general people’s livelihood.

Local servants were always among the public. Many of them were accused of corruption and abuse of authority. But locals had no option but to rely on them for social, public or official work. Corruption and abuse of authority made individual representatives unpopular. But be it in the Panchayat system, post-1990 multi-party democracy or the Federal Republic system, people always found local units relevant.

During Panchayat, the anchal panchayat (zonal body) and officials like anchaladhis (zonal head) became quite unpopular due to abuse of authority mainly in suppressing political and social activists. So the zonal level was the first casualty after the restoration of democracy in 1990. Pradhanpanchas and their lieutenants were infamous for their abuse of authority, but that didn't lead to the downfall of the local bodies themselves. Rather the Gau Panchayats and Jilla Panchayats were just renamed VDCs and DDCs and their heads were called VDC chair and DDC chair respectively. Thus while the zonal units were overthrown the local units were given continuity under an almost same structure.

The local units were deeply connected to the public, so much so that even the then banned political parties including Nepali Congress and CPN (Marxist-Leninist) fighting to overthrow the party-less panchayat system fielded their candidates in local elections with the objective of establishing better contact with the public. For example, Congress leader Haribol Bhattarai became Pradhanpanch of Kathmandu Municipality and 21-year-old Purushottam Paudel of CPN (ML) became Pradhanpanch of Nijgadh in local elections of 1987. At the time, Congress and ML had decided to utilize elections, fielding their representatives as janapakshiya (pro-people) candidates. Paudel would go on to be a minister in the government led by Sushil Koirala in 2015. The current Chief Minister of Bagamati Rajendra Pandey was District Panchayat President of Dhading.

In India it was only in the 1990s when local units were made vibrant with new constitutional rights.

Khadga Bahadur Khatri, mayor of Kamalamai Municipality, inquiring about the health of home-isolating people

After the 1990 political change, as Gaupanchayats were converted into VDCs, a large number of former Pradhanpanchas and their deputies adopted democratic avatars and became VDC heads and deputies from various political parties. Some panchayat hardliners stayed in low profile for a few years. They groomed youngsters and helped them gain local power through a political party. So even in the federal system, one can find a second generation of former Pradhanpanchas in VDC leadership and another generation at the helm of rural municipalities.

Local power-brokers always wanted to make their units, which they had been milking for generations, more powerful. On the other hand, general folks wanted effective and resourceful service-delivery at their doorsteps as they had no access to higher authorities and no connection with high-level political leadership. Hence, the local units got local ownership. With such a strong connection to the public, the local level got a strong base.

Despite some harsh criticism against them, local representatives are always there on people’s doorsteps. People can't ignore representatives even if they don't like them. For instance, even to get a birth certificate, marriage registration or death certificate, one must seek support from the local authority. Family affairs like ownership or handover of property or acquiring a citizenship certificate can't be completed without the local body’s authorization. Even small acts of non-cooperation from ward or municipal offices may force a citizen to make the rounds of district headquarters or higher authorities.

As local bodies are directly related to the public's day-to-day life, people don't take the risk of alienating local authorities. Reports of abuse of authority, corruption and other irregularities by local representatives are exposed on a regular basis but that is no challenge to local governance. In such cases, locals don't blame the system for the failure of the representatives. They rather accuse individual representatives. Thus, historically, local units have enjoyed a sort of immunity from public criticism.

But the opposite is the case when it comes to provinces. The provincial system has no base at all. Provinces are not connected to the public. A large section of the society supports it but only half-heartedly.

Officials of Janakpur Sub-Metropolitan City inspecting a local isolation center 

Provinces: Weak bases, poor performance

Nepal adopted a federal system following a strong campaigning and lobbying from various sections of the society including political parties and ethnic communities. The Maoist party, Madhesi parties and some ethnic groups strongly asked for it. The traditional parties seemed to have accepted the proposal for a federal system, sensing time wasn’t right to go against the tide. But within a matter of years, influential groups within major parties such as Congress, UML and Maoists started voicing their opposition to it. Also, various sections of society that were not in favor of the federal system but were silent for some years have now become vocal.

Of the three federal units, people took central and local levels as natural organs of the state. But the provincial level was considered additional and a burden for the people and state coffers.

While pro-federalists aggressively campaigned for the system, they didn't seem prepared to implement it. They were without planning and vision to run the federal system and make people feel the new system can make their life easier.

Madhes-based leaders were the first to demand a federal system. But their parties showed weak commitment to make the system work. They seemed lackadaisical from the beginning.

When leaders from various political parties wrangled over key issues such as determining the major bases to restructure the country and fixing names and numbers of provinces, those from Madhesi parties floated weak proposals. For long, they insisted on delineating a single province along the entire Tarai-Madhes region. The proponents of the federal system in the country, they should have had convincing vision and planning to this effect.

When leaders from Congress, UML and Maoist party were intensely debating the number of provinces in Madhes and hills, Madhesi leaders were insistent that a single province would do for the country's entire southern belt, while they didn’t even bother to mention the number of provinces in rest of the country. For example, the proposed map officially registered by the then Madhesi People's Rights Forum Nepal led by Upendra Yadav at the State Restructuring Committee of the Constituent Assembly shows a single province in the entire Tarai belt while other parts of the country are not delineated, as if it is not their responsibility to think about the rest of the country (see map).

Also read: The faces of local government 

They displayed a similar tendency while preparing the lists of powers for the three levels of government. Madhesi leaders wanted to devolve powers from the central to the provincial level while they strongly opposed the idea of giving more powers to the local level. Conversely, leaders from traditional political parties including Congress, UML, Rastriya Prajatantra Party and Rastriya Janamorcha were for empowering local units while giving less authority to the provinces.

Even after the promulgation of the new constitution and adoption of the federal system, leaders from pro-federalist parties couldn't work earnestly to make the federal system a vehicle to change people's livelihood and thus get them to ultimately own it.

No political party could do a good job of running the provinces. Provincial governments and assemblies should have worked harder than federal government and local units to prove the anti-federalists wrong. They could have undertaken noticeable work at least during the covid pandemic and other disasters, again if only to prove their relevance. But even during the pandemic they were nowhere to be seen. Amid the pandemic, the chief ministers and ministers resorted to horse-trading and every possible tactic to cling to power in various provinces.

Rival coalitions in Gandaki Province competed to please and get support of provincial members like gangster-turned-politician Deepak Manange and make him minister. They were hell-bent on prolonging their stay in power. Such activities in provinces further disenchanted the general public.

While most local governments are criticized for irregularities and abuse of authority, some municipalities have done exemplary work. But none of the seven provinces fared well. The first batch of provincial governments and assemblies should have come up with innovative programs and impressed the public to prove their relevance. Chief Ministers in most provinces have instead bifurcated ministries to accommodate more leaders as ministers, so as to get their support and prolong their stay in power. As of now, the number of ministries in seven provinces has reached 71. One-third of MPs in all seven provinces have become ministers. Instead of proving themselves relevant in the changed context, they are becoming a burden for taxpayers.

Also read: What if… the 2015 constitution had been delayed? 

Was federalism adopted overnight?

Many politicians even within Congress, UML and Maoists argued federalism was not their demand and that it was included overnight at the behest of certain interest groups. Even Netra Bikram Chand of the former Maoist party said so publicly. Mohan Baidya has given a similar statement. Poor performance of provinces has emboldened anti-federalists in major parties and they have now become more vocal in demanding review on some constitutional arrangements including the federal system. Also among general masses, those who didn't buy the argument previously, have now started to agree on the narrative that provinces are 'white elephants'.

Some continue to believe federalism was not the demand of all of Nepal and that it was pushed at the behest of certain international interest groups. It is true that the demand for a federal system wasn't raised continuously and strongly, unlike the demands for multiparty democracy and republic, for which at least three generations of Nepali people have shed blood, sweat and tears. Federalism wasn't a major demand even during the people's movement of 1990. However, it would be unfair to say it was included in the constitution overnight by a group of leaders in the midst of the statute writing process.

In 1951, the then Nepal Tarai Congress had demanded formation of an autonomous Tarai province, in what was the first time the concept of federating Nepal was floated. However, this couldn't be a major political agenda as political parties had to struggle for restoration of democracy until 1990. After the reinstatement of the multiparty system, the Sadbhawana Party first raised the issue of federalism in parliament. But the Madhes-based regional party couldn't establish it as a national agenda.

Various ethnic groups and sections have, over the years, stressed on the need for greater autonomy and self-governance. The Maoists took up this issue in order to get the support of ethnic and marginalized communities promising that the system would put them in the driving seat of national politics. This strategy helped the Maoists expand their support in ethnic constituencies. While Sadbhabana Party had raised this issue in parliament after the restoration of parliamentary democracy in 1990, the then underground Maoists picked it up in 2000. However, the credit for the constitutional guarantee of federalism ultimately goes to the Madhesi People's Rights Forum led by Upendra Yadav. A day after promulgation of Interim Constitution in 15 January 2007, Yadav led a protest against the exclusion of federalism in the statute. The agitation spread across Tarai-Madhes, making the government concede federalism.

In both the first and second Constituent Assembly, the issue of federalism was the most disputed and debated agenda. It was as strongly debated outside the CA. Political parties made it a major agenda in both CA polls. Various independent groups, civil society organizations and experts were continuously engaged in intense debates on the matter. Federalism remained a buzzword in national media and public forums for at least a decade until 2015. It was only after rigorous debates across the country that the system was included in the new constitution.

Also read: The events that shaped Nepal in 2021 

Despite years-long debates, the decision to adopt federalism was divisive. Some aggressively lobbied for it while others fiercely criticized it. So, the first batch of the system’s beneficiaries, such as chief ministers and ministers in provincial governments and members of provincial assemblies, should have worked hard to prove that the federal system can work to the country’s benefit. But most of their activities disappointed the public and made provinces unpopular within a few years.

The way forward

The country has lost an opportunity to popularize the system and strengthen its base. However, we have no option but to improve and sustain it. Nepal cannot now revert to the old system. The country can't afford yet another political experiment. A better option is to improve service delivery and good governance in the provinces. For this, most important is for provincial assembly members, ministers and other officials to connect with the people. They can do so by working based on the list of powers the constitution grants to the provinces. There are a number of things directly related to the general people's life.

The statute has allocated vital powers like law and order, health and education, individual tax, property tax and land ownership tax to the provinces. Similarly, tourism, agriculture, issuance of citizenship and passport, land reform, use and conservation of local language, culture, religion and scripts, industrialization, trade and entrepreneurship and Guthi management, fall within their jurisdiction. If the provinces come up with innovative programs and improve things on these fronts, they can help strengthen relations with the public.

If the provinces, just like the local levels, can cut short the general people's travel to the federal capital and provide services closer home, people will start defending it. The way provinces are working at present doesn't help. Drastic reform in the present working style and prioritization of provinces has become essential. Again, there is no other option.

The author is a veteran journalist

January

The Supreme Court of Pakistan orders the Pakistani government to rebuild a Hindu temple—the Shri Paramhans Ji Maharaj Samadhi temple in Teri, Karak District. The temple was earlier destroyed by a mob of 1,500 local Muslims led by a local Islamic cleric and supporters of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam party in December 2020. As a part of renovation, the temple plans to expand and the houses nearby will have to be razed, irking many locals and Islamists.

February

India and China agree to push for a mutually acceptable resolution of friction points at Gogra, Hot Springs and Depsang along the Line of Actual Control in Ladakh in a steady and orderly manner. However, in subsequent months, there is little progress on border talks between the two countries.

March  

On March 26 and 27, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits Bangladesh at the invitation of his counterpart Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, and takes part in two gala celebrations—the golden jubilee of the independence of Bangladesh and the birth centenary of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the iconic leader of Bangladesh’s freedom struggle and the country’s first prime minister. Protests erupt across the country, with protestors accusing Modi of committing crimes against humanity during the 2002 Gujarat riots. They slam his anti-Muslim policies and India’s interference in Bangladeshi politics.

April

The United States decides to withdraw US and NATO troops from Afghanistan, stating that “there is no military solution to the challenges Afghanistan faces”. Then Afghan President Ashraf Ghani welcomes the decision.

May 

X-Press Pearl, a Singaporean container ship, catches fire off the Sri Lankan coast of Colombo, and was engulfed in flames on May 27. The Criminal Investigations Department of Sri Lanka arrests the ship captain in June after the incident draws global attention due its harm to the local biodiversity. 

June 

Foreign Minister Abdulla Shahid of the Maldives is elected new president of the United Nations General Assembly. Shahid pledges to push for equal access for coronavirus vaccines, a stronger and greener economic recovery and stepped-up efforts to tackle climate change.

July 

Acclaimed Indian photojournalist and Pulitzer Prize winner Danish Siddiqui is killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan on 13 July 2021. He was embedded with a convoy of Afghan security forces and covering a clash between the security forces and the Taliban near a border crossing with Pakistan.

August 

Taliban returns to power in Afghanistan after two decades. Amid the chaos, incumbent Afghan President Ashraf Ghani escapes the country on August 15. America withdraws all its troops, to worldwide condemnation of its ‘hasty’ decision.

September

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Joe Biden hold their first in-person meeting during Modi’s US visit. Two leaders discuss trade, security and other regional issues. In 2021, India and the US come closer on many issues in the backdrop of souring India-China relations.

October  

A mob damages 66 houses and sets on fire at least 20 homes of Hindus in Bangladesh over an alleged blasphemous social media post. This follows protests by the minority community against temple vandalism incidents during Durga Puja celebrations.

In a step towards resolving their boundary disputes, Bhutan and China sign a three-step roadmap to help speed up talks, at a video meeting of their foreign ministers. The roadmap is expected to kick-start progress on boundary talks that have been stalled for five years.

November  

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, not known for backing down from his political moves, announces the repeal of three new agricultural reform laws on November 19, on Guru Nanak Jayanti. The repeal forbids the entry of private players in farming which would have cut farmers’ income.

December  

India’s Chief of Defense Staff Bipin Rawat, his wife Madhulika Rawat, and 11 others are killed in a Mi-17V5 chopper crash near Coonoor, Nilgiris district, in Tamil Nadu, on December 8. The four-star general is the single-point advisor to the Indian government on military matters.

Amid growing India-China and China-US rivalry, Russian President Vladimir Putin visits India to participate in India-Russia Summit. The two countries agree to enhance bilateral ties. 

January

Amid the political chaos that ensured following Prime Minister KP Oli’s decision to dissolve the federal lower house at the end of 2020, four former chief justices—Min Bahadur Rayamajhi, Anup Raj Sharma, Kalyan Shrestha, and Sushila Karki—release a statement on January 8 terming the dissolution unconstitutional. The unprecedented statement by ex-chief justices on a political issue draws mixed reaction.  

February

On February 23, the Supreme Court overturns Prime Minister Oli’s Dec 20 house dissolution, calling it unconstitutional, and orders the government to summon the house within the next 13 days.

March

The Supreme Court on March 7, the day the meeting of the restored House is scheduled, revives the CPN-UML and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Center), invalidating the Nepal Communist Party (NCP), the outcome of the two parties’ May 2018 merger.

April

Then main opposition Nepali Congress initiates moves to topple Prime Minister Oli and form an alternative government under its leadership with the support of the CPN-Maoist Center and other parties. The party Central Committee on April 3 decides to form a new government under its leadership.

May

President Bidya Devi Bhandari dissolves the House of Representatives as per Article 76 (7) yet again and declares two-phase elections—November 12 and November 19—on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers. This happens after Prime Minister Oli fails to get a vote of confidence in parliament on May 10.

June

PM Oli expands and reshuffles the cabinet, which now has 14 members from CPN (UML) and 11 from Mahantha Thakur faction of JSPN. The Supreme Court issues an interim order, annulling the cabinet expansion. The order relieves 20 ministers of their positions, with the cabinet now composed of only four ministers.

July 

The Supreme Court on July 12 overturns Prime Minister Oli’s May 21 house dissolution and orders the appointment of Sher Bahadur Deuba, Nepali Congress president, as prime minister. The five-member constitutional bench led by Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana says Oli’s claim to the post of prime minister as per Article 76 (5) is unconstitutional. The SC also orders the government to reconvene the house by July 18.

August 

Kul Prasad KC is appointed the chief minister of Lumbini on August 12. On August 18, Ashta Laxmi Shakya is appointed the CM of Bagmati province; there is a fissure in CPN-UML, the largest party in parliament, with the formation of the breakaway CPN (Unified Socialist) under former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal; and the JSPN splits to form LSP led by Mahantha Thakur. The outcome is that there are now six national parties.

September 

The Sher Bahadur Deuba government replaces the KP Oli government’s budget ordinance with a fresh bill on September 10. Finance Minister Janardan Sharma presents a budget of Rs 1.632 trillion, reducing the size by Rs 16.74 billion.

October 

Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba leaves for London, UK for the COP26 summit, on October 29. Nepal Bar Association and SC justices protest, seeking the resignation of CJ Cholendra Shamsher JBR following rumors of his involvement in cabinet expansion.

November 

CPN-UML convenes its 10th general convention and re-elects KP Sharma Oli as party chairman, who handsomely defeats Bhim Rawal, his nearest rival for the post.

December 

Nepali Congress holds its 14th general convention. Prime Minister and incumbent party president Sher Bahadur Deuba is re-elected party president. Rastriya Prajatantra Party holds its general convention where Rajendra Lingden beats Kamal Thapa for the party’s top post.

A year of political turmoil and ‘politicization of democracy’, 2021 witnessed political parties and their custodians exploit democracy to weaken its basic tenets. Then-Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli dissolved the House of Representatives twice and each time defended his unconstitutional decision, saying fresh elections would buttress Nepali democracy.

Opposition parties dubbed Oli’s move “regressive” yet they too tried to influence the judiciary from the streets in the name of defending democracy. In fact, in 2021, all major political forces tried to use democracy to serve their personal or party interests.

Political analysts thus reckon there was an extreme politicization of democracy in 2021. PM Oli dissolved Parliament on 20 December 2020, and its repercussions were evident throughout 2021. The Supreme Court (SC) invalidated Oli’s move but that didn’t deter him from dissolving the House, again, in May 2021.

Political analyst Chandra Dev Bhatta says 2021 was “the year of politicization of democracy” as power-struggles among political leaders manifested in such a way that they started blaming each other for undermining democracy.

Each labeled the other ‘a threat to democracy’ and went to the extent of splitting their own party, says Bhatta. “In reality, they were only trying to hide their weaknesses.” Not only that, they went a step further and dragged the country’s neighbors into their mess, again all in the name of protecting democracy, adds Bhatta.

The year also saw a hollowing of democratic institutions. For instance, the Election Commission, an independent constitutional body mandated to hold elections and regulate political parties, was hamstrung due to political pressure.

The commission could not take a timely decision on the split of Nepal Communist Party owing to the due influence of political parties, an issue that was later settled in court. This clearly demonstrated compromising of the autonomy of constitutional bodies like the EC, undercutting their credibility.

Appointments in constitutional bodies sans parliamentary hearings came under national and international scrutiny. Appointments in the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), for instance, drew national and international criticism and there were concerns about its independence. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in an unprecedented move, even sought clarification from the commission over its autonomy and independence.

Also read: Will Deuba ditch the coalition for MCC? 

Similarly, questions were raised over the appointment process and autonomy of other constitutional bodies.

Moreover, Nepal’s judiciary faced an unprecedented crisis this year. Probably for the first time in the country’s judicial history, SC judges launched a revolt against a sitting Chief Justice, bringing the judicial process to a grinding halt. CJ Cholendra Shumsher Rana was accused of trading court verdicts for political appointments. Similarly, there were accusations of corruption against other judges.

“The judiciary is the guardian of democracy. But then Nepal’s judiciary is in crisis, which means its democracy is also imperiled,” says advocate and another political analyst Dinesh Tripathi. He adds that the judiciary is on the verge of a collapse, and bad governance characterizes all state institutions.

The nexus between politicians and judges also deepened.  

Political parties, on the one hand, tried to influence the judiciary to issue verdicts in their favor through street protests and other propaganda machineries. Supreme Court justices, on the other hand, hobnobbed with the politicians, to bargain for favors in exchange.

Similarly, the Parliament came under increasing executive pressure. The Parliament was dissolved twice, only to be revived each time by the judiciary’s help.

In another important development, there was a lot of bad blood between then Prime Minister Oli and Speaker Agni Prasad Sapkota. Several times, the government would close House sessions without consulting the speaker. The war of words between PM Oli and the Speaker affected the principle of separation of powers.

Even after the Parliament’s reinstatement, it was never allowed to function smoothly. The main opposition CPN-UML has been disturbing the House, raising questions over the Speaker’s role.

In fact, due to the executive’s constant inference, the Parliament’s role has been severely constrained. Both KP Sharma Oli- and Sher Bahadur Deuba-led governments showed their lack of commitment to parliamentary supremacy, for instance through the issuance of ordinances by skipping the House of Representatives.

Also read: Does Deuba’s victory mean early elections? 

Most ordinances were issued to fulfill petty interests such as splitting parties or making political appointments.

Tripathi says there were attempts to cause massive damage to democracy. There were repeated attacks on the Parliament, the temple of democracy. “There were attempts at no less than to dismantle democracy but fortunately, it survived,” says Tripathi.

The office of the president was also dragged into controversy. President Bidya Devi Bhandari was accused of siding with then Prime Minister Oli instead of playing a neutral arbiter. 

Along with the backsliding of democracy, the general public’s hopes for political stability—rekindled with the formation of a two-thirds majority government in 2018—were dashed. The window of stability had closed and 2021 had sowed seeds for another bout of political instability.

The powerful Nepal Communist Party (NCP) suffered a three-way split, which now means the chances of a single-party majority government is slim in the near future. NCP missed a historic chance of steering the country on the path of political stability and economic development.

Now, there is a fragile five-party coalition government that could crash any time, plunging the country into uncertainty.  

Analyst Bhatta points out that the intra- and inter-party tensions that were the result of the leaders’ unchecked political ambitions have marred Nepali democracy. Over time, everything ended up in court and Nepal’s democracy became a “legal issue” and not a “popular one” based on people’s sovereignty.

If things go as planned, 2022 will see the start of three-tier elections. Timely elections could heal the damages inflicted upon democracy in 2021.

But advocate Tripathi isn’t optimistic as Nepali democracy is already on a shaky ground. “We can say democracy is on the verge of a collapse due to our weak state institutions. Even though the Parliament was reinstated, it is defunct. Moreover, it is no more a place to champion people’s voices and aspirations, which is not a healthy sign for our democracy,” says Tripathi.

This year the major political parties held their General Conventions electing new leaderships yet serious lapses were seen in their practice of internal democracy. Tripathi says almost all parties once again failed to ensure internal democracy, their long-standing vice. “There can be no democracy without internal party democracy,” says Tripathi.