After the Gen-G rebellion of 23-24 Bhadra displaced the supposedly strong Congress-UML government in about 24 hours and formed an interim government, some serious and complex questions have arisen in Nepali politics. On Bhadra 24, the country was not only left without a government, but an empire of violence, destruction, and anarchy was established in the capital itself.

Public property such as Sheetal Niwas, Singha Durbar, Supreme Court, Parliament building and ward offices in remote villages were burnt to ashes. The Prime Minister, ministers and political party leaders had to be rescued by security agencies via helicopter and kept under guard in an unknown location.

Not only were more than two hundred thousand security agencies unable to protect the people, but the Nepal Police were also unable to protect their own offices and weapons, creating a very dangerous and worrying situation.

Nepal had also witnessed a huge political revolution, movement and a decade-long armed conflict led by the Maoists. But the state had never been so helpless and weak. Is this a failure of the state or of politics? Is it a failure of democracy or of the constitution? Is it a failure of the political party or of the leadership? Is it a failure of the governance system or of the government? Is it a failure of the security system or of the security agencies? Not only are there questions like this, but also serious questions have arisen.

Without objectively addressing these questions, there is no possibility of resolving the current crisis. Therefore, an attempt has been made to objectively analyze the nature of the latest political crises and movements seen in the national and international scenario.

State or political failure?

In the world-famous book ‘Why Nations Fail’ published in 2012 by Nobel Prize winners in Economics 2024 Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, the development of democratic institutions has been given top priority. The authors, who have been studying and researching countries in America, Europe, Africa and Asia, have expressed the view that functional, effective and strong institutions are a prerequisite for the success of democracy and economic development.

They have suggested developing inclusive political institutions for the success of democracy and inclusive economic institutions for economic development. Acemoglu and Robinson argue that – ‘In countries where political and economic institutions are strong, autonomous and functional, democracy has also succeeded and economic development has also occurred. But in countries where they are not, democracy has also been in trouble and economic development has not occurred.’

They have argued that if state institutions become exploitative, it will have an adverse effect on economic development. Therefore, they have expressed the view that only inclusive economic growth and economic development can justify democracy. 

Another world-famous book titled ‘Why Politics Fails’ by Oxford University professor Ben Ansell has been published in 2023. Ansell, who has been conducting comparative studies and research on democratic institutions, has concluded that five basic reasons, or five traps, are responsible for the failure of politics. The five traps are – the trap of democracy, the trap of equality, the trap of prosperity, the trap of security, and the trap of solidarity.

Democracy, equality, prosperity, security, and social solidarity are the natural desires and aspirations of citizens. Those five dimensions are interrelated and contradictory. But all those aspirations may not or may not be achieved simultaneously.

If those five dimensions are interrelated and complement each other, politics is successful. But if they are contradictory, politics is unsuccessful. Politics is neither absolutely favorable nor absolutely unfavorable. Therefore, Ansell concludes that both democracy and politics will fail if democratic systems cannot be institutionally developed and delivered based on liberal values ​​and processes.

Some of the conclusions and indices of ‘Why Nations Fail’ and ‘Why Politics Fail’ are also relevant in the context of Nepal. This is to some extent a failure of the state and to some extent a failure of politics. Nepal is ranked 57th out of 179 countries with a score of 78 in the Fragile State Index published annually by the Washington, DC-based think tank Fund for Peace.

Nepal is currently ranked 57th in the list determined on the basis of indices including political, economic, social, cultural, constitutional, good governance, rule of law, and human rights. This in itself is worrying and risky.

Nepal's position may further deteriorate next year due to the political, economic, constitutional, social, and security situation created by the Gen-G rebellion. If the House of Representatives elections on Falgun 21 do not put the constitution on the right track, then further political and constitutional crises are certain to arise. As a result, the risk of Nepal moving from a weak state to a failed state is increasing. 

During the Gen-G rebellion, serious questions have been raised not only about the failure of the security agencies, but also about the security system itself. Why could the army and security agencies not save Sheetal Niwas, Singha Durbar, Supreme Court, Parliament Building? Did they not save it or could they not save it? The question is on the mind of every Nepali.

The government and security agencies need to give the people an answer to this. This is why there is a debate going on about whether this is not a failure of the state. The government and security agencies need to seriously review this matter and adopt appropriate policies and strategies without delay. Otherwise, another unimaginable accident may occur in the future. 

Failure of democracy or the constitution?

The book ‘How Democracies Die’ written by Harvard University professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Zieblett concludes that the crisis of liberal democracy is complex and challenging. The authors of the book, published in 2018, conclude that ‘Cold War communism, fascism, military rule and one-party dictatorship are no longer the main challenges to democracy. Populism, ultranationalism, illiberalism, elected authoritarianism and totalitarianism, anarchism are the main challenges.’ They have also predicted that if these challenges are not addressed in time, further crises will arise for democracy. 

The teachings and indices of ‘How Democracies Die’ are equally relevant and noteworthy for Nepal. In the international context, some serious questions have been raised on democracy and government and in the context of Nepal, democracy, constitution and government.

When the essence of the three aforementioned books and the national and international context are properly analyzed, three main conclusions are reached. First, not only have the democratically elected governments not been running the state according to democratic values, but they have gradually become unaccountable, authoritarian and totalitarian. Second, the government has not been able to guarantee economic development, delivery and good governance as per the aspirations of the people.

Third, there has been widespread dissatisfaction, anger and disgust among the people towards the state, democracy, government and party. Not only are populist, ultra-nationalist and liberal individuals, trends and parties emerging through sponsored propaganda and exaggerated trade, they are also gaining significant public support. Therefore, the state, democracy, government and parties have become unpopular and defensive. 

But in the context of Nepal, is it a failure of democracy or the constitution? Before reaching a conclusion in the debate on whether democracy and the constitution have been fully implemented in Nepal, it is necessary to resolve another dispute. That is – have democracy and the constitution been fully implemented in Nepal or not? In the opinion of the columnist, democracy has not been fully implemented, and the constitution has not been fully implemented either.

If the state had been run according to the spirit and spirit of democratic values ​​and the constitution, the current political and constitutional crisis would probably not have arisen. What has been practiced in the name of democracy for a long time is not democracy. It is party system, leader system and syndicate system in the name of democracy. No matter how bitter it may be, this is the political reality. Accepting this reality will be beneficial for the interests and future of democrats and parties themselves. 

On the one hand, the institutional development of democracy has not been achieved, on the other hand, democratic, constitutional and public institutions are not strong and capable. In some times and contexts, there have been contradictory relationships and conflicts between the executive, legislature and executive. Therefore, those institutions have also lost the trust of the people.

Since democratic institutions are not strong, capable and functional, the government, party and leadership have not been accountable to the people. Therefore, the problem is not democracy and the constitution, but party system, leader system and syndicate system. Until such a distorted system is ended and advanced democracy and civilized politics are practiced, there is no possibility of resolving the current crisis. 

Democracy is a system, method, and process. If democratic institutions are functional and effective, the system will develop, and only if the system is developed can the system develop. Democracy does not mean just a system of governance, but a way of life. If the government and the party fail to assimilate it as a way of life, then the legitimacy of democracy itself will be questioned.

In the context of Nepal, the most important problem is good governance and accountability. There is a democratic system, a constitution, and parties. But there is no good governance and accountability. There is no alternative to democracy for the Nepali people. The alternative to democracy is more advanced democracy. The alternative to democracy was not populism, ultranationalism, and liberalism yesterday, not today, and not tomorrow. 

If democratic institutions are not effective and functional, authoritarian and totalitarian rulers are born, as concluded by Levitsky and Giblat. Despite being empowered due to the institutional development of democracy, no American president has ever been an authoritarian or dictatorial.

Visionary leaders like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt had laid a strong foundation for democracy and economic development. If there were no strong systems and strong institutions, an accident could have happened during Donald Trump's tenure. But Trump could not weaken democracy even if he wanted to.

Governance system or failure of the government?

Another popular 'narrative' today is that the governance system and government followed after 2046 have not been able to deliver according to the people's sentiments. Political system and governance system are different.

The political system followed by Nepal is a democracy, while the governance system is a parliamentary system in which the Prime Minister is elected by the parliament. The parliamentary system has caused political instability and such a system has not been able to deliver. Therefore, the debate has resurfaced that a directly elected executive is necessary for a stable and effective government. It is not surprising that such a proposal is popular at a time when we are going through a cycle of political instability and misrule. 

There is partial truth in the accusation and the 'narrative'. Because it is a failure of the government and the governance system. But the alternative to the parliamentary system is not a directly elected executive system. If adopting a directly elected executive system in the name of stability to get rid of political instability is like fulfilling the Nepali proverb 'a fish that escapes from the frying pan falls into the sea'.

Because international practice has confirmed that the risk of a directly elected executive system becoming authoritarian and totalitarian is even higher. But what is equally true is that the existing governance system has become unstable and the state bodies that run the state have not become functional and effective. Therefore, both the governance system and the government have become unsuccessful, unpopular and weak.

Therefore, how to make the government more accountable to the people and how to develop this governance system as a delivery system? It is an appropriate time to reach a concrete conclusion by conducting serious study, discussion and debate on this. The problems are caused by the lack of democratic culture, political instability, endless power games, corruption and misgovernance. These problems are inherent in the style of governance and leadership rather than the system and institution.

On the other hand, the prevailing trend of Nepali politics, ‘kakistocracy’, seems to have become more unpopular and infamous than the system and government alone. The system in which the incompetent rule is called ‘kakistocracy’ in English, i.e. incompetent rule.

In fact, ‘kakistocracy’ is the main cause of the current crisis. The sooner Nepal frees democracy and government from the vicious cycle of ‘kakistocracy’, the sooner it will also be free from the current crisis. In a democracy, the government and the governance system are meritocracy (meritocracy). But in the case of Nepal, it has become ‘kakistocracy’ (incompetence). What could be a greater misfortune for democracy than this?

The failure of a political party or the leadership?

After the Gen-G movement, another ‘narrative’ of finding alternatives to the old, i.e. mainstream parties, seems to be gaining popularity, claiming that they have failed. It is not surprising that this accusation was made because the parties have been running the state continuously since the establishment of democracy in 2046, except for the 15 months when King Gyanendra ruled directly in a ‘coup’ in 2061.

There is also partial truth in this accusation. If the parties had run the state in accordance with the values ​​and norms of the democratic system, the spirit and spirit of the constitution, and the aspirations of the people, the current crisis would not have arisen. Therefore, the parties are responsible for the current crisis from both a political and moral perspective. It is inevitable for the parties to assimilate this reality.

But this is not entirely the failure of the party alone. It is the failure of the main leadership of the mainstream party, which has failed to deliver despite having the opportunity to lead the state and the party repeatedly. Similarly, it is the failure of the influential second-generation leadership, who have been close to the main leadership and have been exploiting power to the maximum. Therefore, the party should not be made a victim of the failure of leadership.

On the other hand, the Congress, UML, Nepali Communist Party and other parties are dominated by elderly leadership, which is called ‘gerontocracy’ in English. ‘Gerontocracy’ is also one of the main reasons for the current crisis. ‘Gerontocracy’ was also the main agenda of the Gen-G rebellion.

Therefore, it is necessary to free the mainstream parties from the gerontocracy and establish a new generation of leadership with vision and ideas. Such a new leadership with generational transfer must fundamentally transform and improve the party. Otherwise, such parties have no future or justification in the status quo.

But today’s need is a leadership that is not a populist, totalitarian, authoritarian, or authoritarian who propagates in the style of Goebbels, but a visionary, energetic, responsible, clean image, and transparent lifestyle. Therefore, today’s need is not illusion, but vision and not propaganda, but performance.