Where were the main problems of our politics?

There were problems in Nepali politics, we all spoke. But unfortunately, not even once since 2048 BS have we been able to walk the path of consensus on the nature, causes and solutions to our political problems. The most sad aspect of our politics has been that the main political figures always remain stuck in their own understandings, always go after my bulls and do not try to reduce the distance between themselves.

In fact, the work of forcing politics to move in that direction is that of universities, media, think tanks and other civil society. As a responsible member of that sector, I would like to take this article forward by self-criticizing my own weaknesses.

Looking back, there were eight major and immediate issues in Nepali politics that required consensus. First, there is a major problem of different understandings and ownership in Nepali politics regarding the constitution promulgated by Nepal in 2072 BS and the broader definition of democracy established on the basis of the political consensus reached in that process.

There are three main pillars of Nepali democracy – minimal democracy, empowerment-focused multiculturalism and non-majoritarian system. On the one hand, if we fail to build a Nepali model of identity between these three principles, on the other hand, the efforts of Nepali politics in how to institutionalize federalism along with the three principles can never be considered sufficient.

None of the major figures in our politics seem to be convinced that only when we are democratic will there be a fundamental transformation in the production and productivity of people from long-marginalized areas and communities and that a radical change can be brought about in the economic and social life of ordinary Nepalis. How wise would it be to expect good governance and economic prosperity from a politics that does not even fully understand why we adopted the current system of governance?

Second, for any system of governance to be institutionalized and to take the rhythm of economic development, a strong state and a strong national identity are necessary. Our politics have never paid enough attention to that.

Nepal's decision to adopt a comprehensive democratic system was based on the grand goal of making all levels and strata of the state strong, dynamic and autonomous, that is, building a strong state through the implementation of the universal principle of 'governance'. But unfortunately, rather than changing the state of all state institutions, our politics has always been eager to place the reins of politics in the hands of a few limited leaders and leadership.

The issue of nationality has always been a pressing issue in Nepali politics after 2062/63. But how much effort was made to develop a sense of unity among the thirty million Nepalis? Looking at the countries that have achieved economic development by uniting the common citizens on the principle of nationality after 1950, creating a sense of sacrifice and self-sacrifice, it has been possible only when there is trust in the governance system in that country, and among them, the belief that this governance system alone can lead to economic development.

But our debate on nationality has always taken a different path than creating trust in the governance system. On the one hand, talking about nationality and on the other hand, dividing the citizens was done at the same time. Is there a greater national interest than a strong state and a strong nationality? And should we not question the politics that promotes expressions or environments that divide citizens against such national interests?

Third, the question of lack of principles or the justification of principles is a terrible disease of Nepali politics. In particular, Nepali politics lied to itself in this matter, lied to the citizens. No one here is tired of singing the hymn of democracy.

However, as mentioned above, Nepali politics has always been reluctant to fully accept the broad Nepali democracy. On the other hand, even after fully accepting the market economy, it did not stop singing the hymn of socialism. Nepali politics remained unaware of the principle of the need for active control of the state to organize the market. Our politics has not even entered the stage of preparing policies, rules and laws for minimal institutions like the Free Trade Commission.

There are complex problems in politics, society and economy. When the debate begins to find a deep solution to them, the theoretical debate begins spontaneously. The main reason for the lack of principles or the question of the validity of principles is a reflection of the lack of intensive discussion on our main questions. This is never a matter of pride. The world has spent a long time building enough necessary principles on issues related to the country and its citizens. It is in our hands to use them or not.

Fourth, Nepali politics has failed to reach a national discussion and consensus in building a Nepali model for achieving economic growth by institutionalizing democracy. In general, many countries that are now democratic seem to have achieved economic growth before democracy was institutionalized. We do not have the freedom to think about it or go back. We do not have the freedom to say, "Let's develop the economy first and then institutionalize democracy."

In this sense, we have set a new path that few countries in the world have experienced. To succeed on that path, we are forced to build our own model. The level of discussion that was necessary for that cannot be considered sufficient from any perspective. That is, our politics does not seem to be very conscious of simultaneously encouraging institutions that support democracy and economic development and discouraging institutions that hinder it.

Fifth, Nepali politics has often been frustrated in discussing the gap between the theoretical foundations of our governance system and our beliefs. The discussion needs to focus on the gap between our understanding of inequality, the path we have chosen, and the narrative prevalent in Nepali society. Around 2062/63, Nepali politics generally acknowledged that there was widespread inequality in Nepali society.

At that time, there were two main perspectives explaining inequality in Nepali society. First, the perspective of class inequality and second, the perspective of socio-economic inequality created by political inclusion. The solution to the first was the principle of redistribution, while the second was the maximally democratic practice of giving high priority to dialogue, asking the concerned citizens every time important decisions about citizens were made.

But after a long tug-of-war, Nepali politics reached a consensus on the current democratic model based on the principles of modern liberalism as a middle ground. Yesterday, it was believed that expanding representation in political decision-making institutions from genders, communities and regions that were marginalized due to social and political reasons and that such quantitative growth would develop every sector of society over time through the formulation and implementation of policies, rules, laws and programs would lead to a radical transformation of Nepali society.

Rather than implementing such a principle that Nepali politics had set itself, it ran after a commentary that was completely different from the perspective and path that it had set itself. The principle centered on the 'maximum happiness of the majority of citizens' that was once prevalent in Europe remained prevalent here as well. 'Despite limited resources and means' is hanging on everyone's lips. In other words, it seems that politics is forgetting the issues of the marginalized and the issues of inequality.

Sixth, Nepali politics, which fills the void of democracy, has been plagued by 'populism' for a long time. It is a popular topic in Nepali politics to divide citizens, make them poor, portray the established leadership as corrupt, and claim that they have a magic wand to solve all these problems. Due to all the current problems, corrupt leaders other than themselves and the current cumbersome methods, statutes, and procedures, they appeal to give themselves an opportunity to overcome them.

For a few decades, Nepali politics has been aiming to institutionalize this situation rather than ending it. Nepali society still does not seem enthusiastic about questioning such things. Nepali politics seems to be moving in the same direction for some time. Now let us think, is there no need for an in-depth discussion about the gap between the path we have set above, the agreed principles, and the ‘populism’ prevalent today?

Seventh, the disease of ‘populism’ at the center has spread to the lower levels of society. The personalization of politics, that is, from being a candidate in an election to being elected, is a situation where individuals have to coordinate and manage everything. This is clear even by looking at the 2082 parliamentary election alone.

The very legitimacy of political parties has begun to be questioned. Not only in the elections to select public representatives, similar practices are also prevalent in the internal elections of political parties. Organizations or principles are now just show teeth. The personalization prevalent in politics has institutionalized unhealthy competition. It has encouraged the misuse of money and power in politics.

Eighth, in this process, the Nepali Parliament has become not only weak, but also helpless. We are citizens of a country where we elect members of the House of Representatives by spending billions of rupees, spending months of citizens' time, resources, means and energy, and do not even consider it necessary to discuss the issue of giving them offices and work. If we argue that MPs need quality offices, services and improvements, everyone portrays them as 'nonsense'.

If an employee working in an ordinary office is considered to need a minimum office environment including an office, chair, computer, why does a federal MP who determines the future of the country not need an office? If our MPs have no work to do, why are we spending so much energy on elections? The politics of making the parliament and MPs innocent, which has been practiced since the first Constituent Assembly, and of a few limited leaders and leadership capturing parliamentary practice outside the parliament, is not beneficial to any of us.

Election: How successful, how unsuccessful are we?

This election has been held in a unique situation. We all expected and argued that this election would provide a political outlet. Yes, the election was inevitable to bring democracy, which has gone out of control, back on track. But how much effort have we made towards solving the main problems of Nepali politics mentioned above? This is an important time to reflect.

If we are to make a brutal review of the above issues, the period from 23 Bhadra to 21 Falgun, i.e. until this election, cannot be considered very successful. That is, there is a lot of work to be done in the coming days, for which intensive dialogue and cooperation between the entire state, political parties, and civil society is indispensable.

First, as in the past, the most time and energy was spent during this period on abstract political discussions. Everyone spoke about good governance and corruption prevention, but the entire political system failed to create a concrete picture of the path that Nepal should follow. Important time was wasted by emphasizing the need like yesterday. The debate on ‘how?’ remained abstract.

For example, although many argued that the amendment to the Public Procurement Act was essential, from accelerating development to combating corruption, there was no general consensus on what kind of amendments the post-election government should make. Although there has been a long-standing discussion on the need to change the role of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority in the public and private sectors, there was no concrete consensus on that either.

In other words, the debate on good governance is likely to continue in the same vein even after the election. If the future roadmap cannot be created on the topic that everyone is discussing, what can be expected on other topics?

Another glaring example is the debate on nationality. Everyone needs a strong national identity. But Nepali politics never seems to be ready to accept the global experience that national identity is based on the system of governance adopted by that country. शासन प्रणालीका बारेमा कसरी नागरिकको विश्वास अभिवृद्धि गर्ने भन्नेमा कोही कसैको ध्यान गएको देखिँदैन । शासन प्रणालीबाहिर राष्ट्रियताका सिद्धान्त खोज्ने हठले नै निरन्तरता पायो ।

दोस्रो, माथि उल्लेखित गरिएका नेपाली राजनीतिका प्रधान समस्यामा हामी लगभग मौन नै रह्यौं । लाग्थ्यो, प्रमुख राजनीतिक दलहरूले राजनीतिका चुरो प्रश्नमा मौन रहने आमसहमति नै गरेका छन् ।

लामो संघर्षबाट स्थापित लोकतन्त्रको बृहत् परिभाषामा नेपाली राजनीतिले किन कन्जुस्याइँ गर्‍यो ? लोकतन्त्रका बारेमा रहेको संकुचनको निरन्तरताले असमानताको अवस्थालाई कस्तो असर पार्ला ? लोकतन्त्र संस्थागत हुन र आर्थिक विकास हासिल गर्न अत्यावश्यक संस्थाहरू विकास गर्न राष्ट्रिय सहमति हुनुपर्नेमा हाम्रो राजनीतिमा आमसहमति निर्माणमा नेतृत्वको ध्यान गएको अनुभूति नहुनु आफैंमा दुःखद दृष्टान्त होइन र ? यस्ता तमाम प्रश्नहरू छन्, जसका बारेमा घनीभूत छलफल गर्नुपर्ने ‘गोल्डेन समय’ हामीले खेर फालेकै हौं ।

साथै, नेपाली राजनीतिको प्रधान समस्याका रूपमा रहेको ‘पपुलिजम’ लाई अन्त्य गर्नेभन्दा पनि प्रोत्साहन गर्ने, संस्थागत गर्नेतर्फ उन्मुख हुनु सबैभन्दा ठूलो चिन्ताको विषय हो ।

संसद्लाई सशक्त बनाऔं, सांसदको प्राधिकार स्थापना गरौं, कानुन निर्माण गरौं, नीति बनाऔं, राज्यका हरेक क्षेत्रमा नीति निर्माणकर्ता एवं प्रशासकको क्षमता विकास गरौं, हरेक संस्थालाई स्वायत्त बनाऔं जस्ता विषयले पर्याप्त समय नै पाएनन् । अर्थात्, राजनीतिका चुरो विषयलाई यथावत् राखेर हामी निर्वाचन पर्वको साङ्गे गर्दैछौं ।

तेस्रो र सबैभन्दा महत्त्वपूर्ण विषय भनेको यो निर्वाचन पूर्णरूपमा अर्थ–सामाजिक मुद्दाकेन्द्रित हुन्छ भन्ने आमअपेक्षामा तुषारापात भएकै हो । जुन उमेर समूहको रगत, त्याग र बलिदानको आडमा यो निर्वाचन हुँदै थियो, उनीहरूकै मुद्दामा राजनीति लगभग बेखबर जस्तै थियो ।

युवाका समाज र राज्यप्रति दुई प्रमुख गुनासाहरू थिए । पहिलो, उनीहरूले जहाँ शिक्षा प्राप्त गरेका थिए वा गर्दै छन्, त्यहाँको गुणस्तरीयता, सेवा र खर्चप्रति असन्तुष्टि रहेको थियो । दोस्रो, दुःख गरेर पढ्यो अनि रोजगारी पाउने बेलामा फेरि भनसुन गर्नुपर्ने वातावरणप्रति उनीहरूको गुनासो थियो ।

यो समस्या निजी क्षेत्रमा अझ बढी व्याप्त रहेकामा उनीहरूको चरम असन्तुष्टि थियो । यसको सुधारका लागि राज्यले लिने नीतिका बारेमा छलफलबाट आशा सिर्जना गर्न हाम्रो राजनीति नराम्ररी चुक्यो । अर्थात्, विद्यार्थीहरूले जाडो वा गर्मी बिदामा गृहकार्य नगरी विद्यालय गए जस्तै हाम्रो निर्वाचनमा पनि राजनीतिक मुद्दा र निकासका सम्भावनाका बारेमा पर्याप्त छलफल नगरी एउटा स्वर्णिम अवसर गुमाएको छ ।

अबको बाटो ?

समग्रमा, हामीले एउटा ठूलो अवसरलाई सदुपयोग गर्न सकेनौं । यो आलेखको सुरुमा मैले आत्मालोचना गरेझैं यसमा कोही एक जना मात्रै, कुनै एक समूह मात्रै जिम्मेवार छैन । इतिहासले दिएका हरेक स्वर्णिम अवसरहरूलाई सदुपयोग गर्न नसक्नु हाम्रो नियति नै बनेको छ ।

फेरि एक पटक त्यस्तै नियति दोहोरिएला कि भन्ने चिन्ता आमनागरिकमा छ । हाम्रो हैसियत नै यत्ति हो भनेर स्वीकार गर्दा मात्रै अगाडि बढ्न सकिन्छ । यदि हामी साँचो अर्थको परिवर्तन चाहन्छौं भने हाम्रो समग्र क्षमताका बारेमा प्रश्न गर्न कदापि कन्जुस्याइँ गर्नु हुँदैन ।

अब जनतालाई आश्वस्त पार्ने प्रयास गर्नु हाम्रो राजनीतिको प्रमुख कार्यादेश हुनुपर्छ । त्यस्तो वातावरण सिर्जना गर्न सक्ने र नेतृत्व लिनुपर्ने एक मात्र संस्था संसद् हो भन्ने विषयलाई सबैभन्दा पहिले स्वीकार गर्नुपर्छ ।

नेपालको राजनीतिको समस्याको मूल कारण नै संसदीय सर्वोच्चताको अभाव हो भन्ने विषयलाई हाम्रो राजनीतिले स्वीकार नगर्दासम्म हाम्रा समस्याहरूमा तात्त्विक भिन्नता निर्माण गर्न नसकिने यथार्थलाई सबैले आत्मसात् गर्नुपर्छ । अर्थात्, संसद् जति चलायमान भयो, त्यति नै हाम्रा राजनीतिक गृहकार्यहरू छिटो सम्पन्न गर्न सकिन्छ ।

दिन–रात नभनी चल्ने संसद्ले नेपाली राजनीतिका आधारभूत प्रश्नहरू र नागरिकका दैनिक समस्याका बारेमा एकैसाथ संवाद सुरु गर्नुपर्छ । राज्य कस्तो हुने, राष्ट्रियताका सिद्धान्तहरू के हुने, आर्थिक र राजनीतिक विकासका लागि आवश्यक संस्थाहरूको विकास कसरी गर्ने जस्ता न्यूनतम आवश्यकताहरूका बारेमा हरेक दिन छलफल हुनुपर्छ ।