With the end of the Maoist insurgency and the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2006, most civil society leaders probably thought their job was done. What was then considered a near-im­possible task had been completed, and Nepal became a federal republic. Political order was restored and peace, by and large, prevailed. With the announcement of the first constit­uent assembly elections, some civil society activists even joined active politics while oth­ers chose to retire, in line with the idea that civil society’s major role had ended. The major responsibility of institutionalizing the political gains of Jana Andolan II (People’s Movement of 2006) was left to the political parties and their leaders.

 

Furthermore, because of the mingling of prominent civil society activists with political parties in the lead up to Jana Andolan II and thereafter, civil society leaders slowly began to lose their credibility. A fissure among the prominent names laid the foundation of what was to come: a fractured, fragmented and highly polarized civil society space with little credibility.

 

Erosion of respect

 

In the past three decades, the same network of civil society that worked closely in the 1990s and leading up to 2006 on larger issues of national interest slowly crumbled with no concerted effort to pick up the pieces or recon­cile. Instead, leaders began to see the political change and ‘transition’ as opportunities to pursue personal interests.

 

As a result, in the public eye, civil society was no longer meaningful and was mired in competing interests. Respect was lost with the loss of neutrality. People started viewing civil society leaders as representatives of petty interests. Civil society was divided along the lines of geography, race, ethnicity, gender, political parties, donors and what not. And when respect is lost, so is the capacity to mobi­lize the masses in times of need.

 

Greater vigilance

 

From 2006 to 2018, the political parties failed to meet basic public expectations. In the absence of a vibrant civil society, the political parties’ performance went unchecked. They acted recklessly. They institutionalized the politics of spoils-sharing (bhagbandako rajn­iti). Corruption was rampant and impunity received political license. On such vital issues, civil society remained largely ineffective.

 

Although 2006 was a major turning point for the country in terms of political gains, it was the beginning of a political process that needed the vigilance of a vocal and active civil society. It took 12 years to push through a con­stitution and hold a set of elections, a process that went largely unchecked and in which the erosion of the state was palpable. Nonetheless, that is water under the bridge and the year 2018 has heralded yet another milestone in Nepali politics. This time, civil society must rise up to the challenges that the forthcoming years will bring.

 

Left domination

 

There is a left majority in all three tiers of government and the ruling coalition seems poised to garner a two-thirds majority in the federal parliament. There is also a leftist inclination in the Supreme Court (which will be more pronounced once the current CJ leaves). And historically, the majority of civil society leaders and NGOs have leaned left. The president, the vice president and the attorney general also lean that way.

 

This means all the major state organs and non-state actors are currently dominated by the left. While this could well be a sign of bet­ter days to come in the form of development and prosperity, the situation also calls for an unprecedented role of civil society leaders to demand accountability and integrity from all state institutions.

 

The civil society space needs to grow and efforts to shrink it must be fought, regardless of one’s political inclinations. In the past decade, the media in many ways played the role of civil society: it continuously exposed cases of corruption, impunity and political misdeeds, but there was no strong civil society movement to act upon them.

 

And it isn’t easy for the media either. The ongoing “contempt of court” case against Kantipur publication is an example of how the judiciary may be used in the coming days to silence the media. At which point, the responsibility falls on all of our shoulders to speak up in favor of what is just. No majority government or political stability can deliver growth without accountability. That is where our civil society must focus.