Krishna Khanal: Political System Blueprint of Nepal

Krishna Khanal served as a Professor of Political Science at Tribhuvan University from 1979 to 2010. He also held the position of Executive Director at the Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies, Tribhuvan University (1994–95), and advised Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala in 1999. Engaged in contemporary political studies, he is an expert on constitutional discourse and frequently writes research-based articles on Nepali politics. Additionally, he is recognized as a civil society activist advocating for peace and democracy.

In this write-up, Khanal discusses the political system and the way forward, stating that our issues stem not from the political system itself but from our political culture and leadership.

Foundation

We are currently in a democratic regime, characterized by an open political system. This system began in Nepal with the revolution of 1951. It provided a vision for a political system. Although there were earlier attempts to overthrow the Rana regime, they lacked a subsequent plan for where Nepal would head after throwing out Ranas. The 1951 revolution, however, had a broader vision and succeeded, which is why I consider it a foundation. It provided a blueprint for Nepal’s political, economic, and social direction after the end of the Rana regime. From 1951 to the present, we have witnessed numerous political changes and the incorporation of many new elements into our political system. However, the 1951 revolution remains the foundation because the broader liberal and democratic values we uphold today originated from that revolution.

Nature

In our system, the constitution provides direction. When someone comes to power, the constitution guides them, and if they exit power, it is also dictated by the constitution. This is a fundamental aspect of our political system. However, there are unique features in our system that other countries might not have. For example, not all countries have federalism, proportional representation, or even a parliamentary system. The form of government and electoral system can vary greatly between countries, tailored to their specific needs.

Core values

Federalism, republicanism, inclusion, proportional representation and secularism are core values of our constitution. However, these values could be changed through parliamentary practice. Unlike some constitutions, ours does not have provisions for a basic structure or unchangeable elements. But if these core values were to be removed, the identity of our constitution would be gone. As intended, the constitution won’t function as intended.

Political practice

Political practice is influenced by individual behavior. Just as people have different orientations and exhibit different behaviors, political leaders do the same, which impacts political practice. When leaders do not comply with the legal and ethical principles of the constitution, our political practice becomes marred by unscrupulous actions. I believe it will be difficult to overcome this issue as long as the current generation of leaders remains in power, as they are the architects of this constitution and often see themselves as being above it. For this too, leadership change as expressed in periodic elections is essential for better political practice. Practice serves as a precedent that helps drive a nation. Over time, political practice can become more influential than the constitution itself. Therefore, the better the practice, the better the future.

Political culture

In the language of political science, political culture refers to how individuals engage with politics. This concept encompasses not only political leaders but also citizens. Political culture, also known as civic culture, involves how citizens learn about politics, their behavior, voting patterns, support or protest actions, mobilization of political parties, formation of leadership, and the alignment between popular vote and leadership, among other aspects. Since many behavioral aspects fall under political culture, it plays a crucial role in building a political system. A political system isn’t solely sustained by creating a constitution; the constitution is merely the foundation. The system itself must evolve, and this evolution is facilitated by political culture and practices.

Sustainability

Political practice builds political culture, and this culture sustains the political system. When parties, leaders, cadres, and citizens take ownership, it ensures the sustainability and longevity of the political system. For example, the Maoists, who once fought against the parliamentary system, are now a part of it. Their orientation and schooling were once different and contradictory to their current stance. However, their acceptance and ownership of this system is a positive step toward making it sustainable. Even though the concept of democracy once differed for democrats and communists, they now share a consensus on these core values. This alignment strengthens the political system.

Stability

We often hear the term ‘instability’ in discussions about our political landscape, but I don’t quite agree with that assessment. Our system itself is stable; it is primarily the instability of the government due to frequently shifting coalition partners to retain power that tends to be weak and unstable. Despite this, the power vested in the position remains consistent. Even those who were initially opposed to this system and constitution are gradually adhering to it. Therefore, our system is not inherently unstable. However, when the prime minister is weak and unstable, it affects many aspects, such as government plans and policies. Additionally, shifts in power at the central level often lead to similar changes in the provinces.

Coalition culture

Given the fragility of government longevity, our political system requires consistent electoral behavior, fostering a culture of coalition. However, in Nepal, we often see alliances during elections, but we lack a true coalition culture. Electoral alliances and coalitions are not the same, and this distinction is a major source of instability. Since the 2015 constitution, we’ve had two parliamentary elections, and neither indicated a crisis in the system itself. In the first election, the alliance of CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center) resulted in a two-thirds majority, and the parties even merged temporarily. Their eventual split was due to internal conflicts, not the system. In the second election, the Nepali Congress, along with CPN (Maoist Center) and three other parties, formed an alliance and secured a majority vote. However, they failed to form a stable government. The lack of a coalition culture has contributed to this instability, not the political system itself. If we had a sustaining coalition practice, it could provide a more stable government.

Citizen participation

We should appreciate the active participation of citizens in Nepal, especially in the political landscape. This level of engagement is rare in many countries. Since the revolution of 1951, there has been active, voluntary participation of people nationwide. In a democracy, mass participation is crucial. Despite not having compulsory voting, we consistently see an average voter turnout of 70 percent, indicating active civic engagement. Furthermore, the ability of people to protest freely is another asset of our political system. Also, we have observed voter shifts. While voter swings are normal in electoral maps, the last election highlighted a significant shift, with the rise of new parties and independent candidates. This phenomenon is also a strong indicator of active citizen participation in the political process.

External factor

The international environment significantly impacts a country’s political system. For instance, the global wave of democracy in the 1980s influenced our own democratic movements. Immediate external factors are particularly important for us. Being situated between China and India, their concerns have a direct impact on our political landscape. India played a direct role in our political changes in 1951 and 2006. These relationships are not always beneficial; sometimes, external factors negatively affect us. While India has long been a significant influence, China has recently become more involved. The roles of both neighbors are contradictory, further complicating our political dynamics. We can’t simply assert that we are a sovereign country and that no other nations can interfere with us. Our leaders need to practice proper diplomacy to manage our relationships with our neighbors, balancing their interests and maintaining their confidence. We should avoid leaning too heavily toward either China or India. Unfortunately, some leaders tend to engage in geopolitical swings between these two countries based on their own interests, which does not help us. Effective diplomacy and a balanced approach are essential for our nation's stability and growth.