Derivatives of Nepali political forces

Political and constitutional changes have been a long-drawn-out affair, in the case of Nepal. 

For instance, the Constituent Assembly (CA) materialized 55 long years (in 2008) after its germination as an idea in 1951 following the advent of democracy. This delay can be attributed to manipulation on the part of our political parties.

One school of thought, though, assumes that the historic charter (the Constitution of 2015) promulgated through a CA does not have much to do with popular aspirations of Nepali citizens, whereas the other argues that it does. 

Sovereign Nepali citizens and their representatives—leaders of political parties—presumably have a central role in determining the kind of political systems they want and the roadmap for the future, with the Constitution acting as a point of reference. 

But our political parties are not acting in line with their very own manifestos and ideologies, giving rise to a state of impunity. First and foremost, these forces need to become clean, clear and accountable toward their political manifestos and ideologies. If this happens, we will have a drastic transformation in our views and visions. 

The derivatives

We encounter a lot of confusion while trying to trace the roots of our parliamentary democracy. Discourses tend to show that external diplomatic influences played a pivotal role in the establishment of democracy in Nepal rather than the domestic forces. This couriers a miserable deal with our preamble of sovereign state and somehow paves a depraved way out. 

What shall we do in such a scenario? Opt for a diplomatic transformation?

Amid all this, the to and fro of the former king has political parties, the old guard in particular, panicked along with the Hindutva factor. However, the new forces are quite upbeat and have already begun preparing for 2027, when general elections will take place. 

Hindutva does not necessarily mean an absolute religious rule. Rather, it can lay the foundation for good governance. Caught in a crossroads, Nepal has a gigantic opportunity to put its development agenda on the front-burner by going for collective bargaining with external forces like India, China, the US and the UK instead of focusing on the trivial issues.  

Parliamentary democracy constitutes a robust foundation in the countries with a laissez-faire governing system, where power is vested in the public or citizens. However, laissez-faire may result in despotism in the long run. This very idea of political shift may lead to an imbalance of power between the government bodies as seen now in Nepal between federal and local governments. A clear example of this imbalance is the relation between Kathmandu Metropolitan City and the federal government of Nepal. Potential tyranny, lack of trust between coalition partners and tyranny by majority can also be a clumsy manner for political derivation maintained through parliamentary democracy.

The way forward

The literacy rate has gone up in Nepal, as indicated by the 2021 census, possibly pointing toward rising public awareness, among others. Thanks to growing factionalism within their ranks, political forces are losing their cadres and followers, prompting new generations to seek alternatives of the old guard. 

All this is likely to deal the status-quoists a huge blow in the next general elections, with the scholar and well-versed political marcher possibly fielding their candidacies. 

To minimize the damage, the old guard needs to minimize social, developmental and inclusive gaps via politically collaborative foundations. Their focus should be on maintaining the rule of law, ending impunity, striving for economic reforms through diplomatic dialogues, and development of politically collaborative environments.