Today (Pus 1) is recorded as a dark day in Nepali political history. This day, when Raja Mahendra deposed the elected Prime Minister BP Koirala and took away democracy, reminds us of a tragedy in Nepalese politics. This is where King Mahendra becomes the subject of discussion. Some think of Mahendra as a 'nationalist' king, while others think of him as autocratic and dictatorial.

Once upon a time before 2046, Panchayat supporters used to celebrate 1st of January as 'Rashtriya Diwas' (Panchayat-era Constitution Day) and during that period, Congress-Communists struggling against autocracy took to the streets carrying black flags in an underground style.

In that light, how authoritarian was Mahendra or how much nationalist? The debate continues to this day. It is not intended to repeat this age-old discussion here. Rather, it is intended to further discuss the questions raised about the future of democracy in the context of this day when autocracy raised its head.

Is our democracy still at risk? Why is Nepali society always haunted by the specter of authoritarianism? In particular, not the entire society, but some top leaders of major parties are haunted by the specter of autocracy. Whenever the public activism of a historically limited ex-king increases, leaders suspect a conspiracy to destroy democracy. Although they differ on many other issues, the top leaders stand with one voice in favor of the republic and express their commitment not to let democracy die. However, it is a bitter reality that the future of democracy is surrounded by questions and doubts due to the parties and leaders who fought against autocracy. 

This reality has raised more questions, is democracy in crisis due to the public activism of the former king? Or, is it at risk because of the party system? Aren't the forces that fought against authoritarianism the supporters of autocracy? This column will revolve around some of these questions. Before focusing on these questions, let us briefly discuss the authoritarian practices of Nepal.

Nepali people have a history of enduring the tyranny of Rana and Rajas. Jahannia Rana's rule, which lasted for one hundred and four years, was a total authoritarian and despotic regime. Where not only the people, even the monarchy itself became a prisoner of dictatorship. And, it was limited to the skulls kept by the Ranas with limited identity.

Rana-era authoritarianism was born and raised with the rise of Jung Bahadur, who had excessive governmental ambitions, on the basis of internal conflict, chaos, hatred, and incompetence of the leadership of the royal institution. From the long dungeon of Rana-era autocracy, the king and the people together brought democracy to the country. Against autocracy, political parties emerged as true representatives of the people. However, with the end of Rana rule, the character changed but the trend did not change. 

A decade passed between the transition to democracy in 2007. Meanwhile, there were many conflicts and enmity between the party and the court. At that time, democracy was weakening due to the growing enmity/conflict between the active characters in politics, the distance between the monarchy and the representatives of the party and the fight for prestige and the increasing political instability. In the meantime, King Mahendra, who had governmental ambitions, rose and the country again went into another authoritarian practice.

The country had to put up with the autocratic system for three decades again. Political parties (Congress and Communist) came together in the movement for restoration of democracy. Democracy was restored again in 2046. Political parties came back to power.

The parties that gained democracy through political struggles and sacrifices, whenever they came to power, have not been able to live up to the expectations of the people. The same happened after 2046. At one point, the Communists moved towards the politics of violence to establish a populist power. Parties adopting a multi-party parliamentary system made centralized political practice their main priority. Conflicts between and within parties increased.

The government did not get stability and political instability increased. Parliamentary democracy, which was disrupted by the politics of violence, was further destabilized by the incident of King Birendra's dynasty. Amidst this instability and confusion, when Gyanendra, who became the king after the demise of Birendra, tried to become a 'constructive king', the country fell under the grip of another dictatorship. 

The series of taking away rights between the king and the people and gaining them through struggle ended after the political change of 2063. Leaving the politics of violence, he came to join the movement for democracy in association with the Maoist parliamentary political party. The parliamentarian parties established peace in the country and prepared for a democratic system other than the monarchy. Finally, through the election of the Constituent Assembly, the monarchy became history. The continuous conflict between the party and the palace for 6 decades was resolved in a way. 

After a long transition period, the country has been on the road to democracy for more than a decade and a half. The country got the constitution after two elections of the Constituent Assembly. Inclusive and proportional democracy could be practiced. Periodic elections are held. The state is governed by people's representatives elected by the people. However, there is no doubt from the political circles that autocracy and authoritarianism will not raise their heads again.

Dictatorship is a situation in which one person or one political party dominates. When a ruler succeeds in killing political power by violating the rules and provisions of the constitution, where there is no justification for the basic rights of the people, that is dictatorship.

Such governance is not accountable to the people. People's opinion is completely ignored. The stories of dictatorial brutality of Germany's Hitler, Italy's Mussolini and Russia's Stalin are remembered as examples. In the context of Nepali, Ranashahi and the autocracy of Mahendra/Gyanendra are remembered. Is there a situation where people's basic rights will be trampled upon and a regime like that will be established again? 

Although the top leadership raises the grave autocracy and expresses doubts from time to time, neither the domestic environment nor the international one can be favorable for a monarchy or any other kind of authoritarianism like in the past in Nepal. However, under the guise of democracy, extremism and autocratic tendencies are on the rise. Therefore, the formulation of the above question has two parts.

First, Nepal does not have the domestic and external environment for the emergence of authoritarianism as in the past. The recent incident in South Korea a few days ago is the latest illustration that extremism does not stand against democracy. South Korea's President Yoon Suk Yeol, who tried to take away the democratic rights of the people, has been impeached by the parliament there. 

In the context of Nepal itself, issues of reform within the democratic system have been raised. Debates have been going on whether to keep a direct executive head or to continue the current arrangement of electing the executive head through the parliament. They are looking for their role within the democratic system in the parties that have emerged as a new alternative. His bottom line is to give effective delivery to the people based on the frustration that the governments formed within the democratic system are not working. 

Let's talk about the royalists. They advocate constitutional monarchy. A small number of monarchists are demanding a constitutional or ceremonial role for the former king. In other words, there is not a little public opinion in favor of an active king. There is no significant difference between the parties regarding the democratic system.

People are more dissatisfied with the democratic system than with the characters in its leadership. In the past, Nepalese society is not in the same environment as when Mahendra overthrew democracy and took over the government. Or any other risk of military dictatorship is not seen in Nepali context.

Are there no risks to democracy? Looking at it from another angle, the answer is yes. At the moment, the risk of autocracy growing under the guise of democracy is enough. Three trends of extremism growing under the guise of democracy can be seen in Nepali politics now. 

First, party dictatorship. We are currently practicing a democratic system. After a long struggle, there is a constitution made through the Constituent Assembly. Political parties and leaders never tire of advocating democratic value systems. However, in practice, the whole political system has been run under the guise of democracy under the control of some parties and some special leaders. Although democratic methods and methods are discussed in the constitution, statutes and formal speeches, in practice the party and its leadership are dominated by autocratic tendencies. 

Nepali Congress, the leading party in the fight for democracy, revolves around a leadership that has proven to be incompetent time and time again. People accused of corruption and mismanagement are brought under the reins of government. There are meetings/discussions in the party mechanisms, but the decision-making process is dominated by the leadership. The party is wounded by factionalism and opportunism. 

The situation is no different in the case of UML, which is leading the ruling coalition. Here the question itself is forbidden. Those who question certain decisions and actions of the leadership are either sidelined or prosecuted. Within the UML, there is a competition for the devotion of the leadership.

The latest example is Finance Minister Bishnu Paudel. When there was a market rumor that Paudel was being removed by Prime Minister Oli, he said that there is no other leader in UML who can compare with Oli. General Secretary Shankar Pokharel is always one step ahead to praise Oli. Internal democracy within the UML has been limited to 'praise' as those who question are marginalized and those who praise are protected. 

The Maoists, who have abandoned the desire for democratic power and accepted the politics of multi-party competition, have not undergone a complete political transformation. This party is doomed to endure Prachanda's sole leadership. Even the new parties that have come to give an alternative lack of democratic practice and conduct. In other words, the parties are dominated by tyranny.

Second, religious extremism. Nepal has not been spared from the religious extremism seen in Indian politics. Religious extremism, sometimes latent and sometimes visible, is another challenge of Nepali democracy. Not only the anti-federalist right wing, but also the pro-democracy movement, religious extremists are expanding.

Third, romanticism. Due to the inability of the parties that emerged from the movement of democracy to protect the democratic behavior and value system, extreme despair has increased among the masses. Priyatism is taking root in Nepali politics on the basis of this disappointment. Under the guise of sensitive issues like increasing misrule, corruption, religion, nationality, philanthropic politics thrives. Privatism is a political strategy against the ruling class and oligarchy.

It is the character of romantic politics to play emotional games on the hopes, beliefs and trusts of the public by showing them many dreams. On the cover, raising people's issues, keeping them settled in many dreams and feelings, but their inner intention is how to reach power and strength. Lovers see everyone else as incompetent and themselves as competent and worthy. Lately, this character has become more prominent in Nepali political newcomers and some old party characters.

On a recent day, Prime Minister Oli repeated again, 'Congress and UML together will not let democracy die.' However, democracy itself has reached a crisis due to the actions of political parties. We have gained many people's rights, especially through the democratic movement. The constitution has also ensured it.