The name of American economist Alan Greenspan may not be known to Nepal's budding politicians, although it is unlikely that Nepali policymakers and economists who support neoliberalism are unaware of him. He was the chairman of the Federal Reserve (1987–2006), the central bank of the United States, and a prominent spokesman for neoliberalism.

Greenspan presented the achievements of the implementation of neoliberal principles in 2001 in a point-by-point manner: (1) It provided for the widespread development of various methods, clean drinking water, and the discovery and research and management of pharmaceutical technology for health.

(2) It provided universal education and made it easy for people to travel to different countries. (3) It provided easy employment for people. (4) It taught people to use natural resources and resources in a sustainable and reliable way, according to the assumption that while using natural resources and resources for their livelihood, they could protect the environment around them.

In theory, a market-oriented economy generated a little more than a living wage, which enabled them to purchase necessary goods and services. This is the sign of a civilized society (Alan Greenspan, On Globalization, Lecture Delivered at the Institute for International Economics, First Annual Stavors Niakos Foundation Lecture, October 24, 2001).

Greenspan's conclusions about neoliberalism at the beginning of the new century were actually a bundle of white lies. However, most leaders, policymakers and economists in the Third World blindly accepted the same bundle of lies, paralyzing the entire political movement and the country's economic and political system. In Nepal too, the Congress, UML and Maoists have been implementing a narrow neoliberal capitalism by giving a false talk of socialism orientation.

This time, the National Independent Party, which has good political prospects, has openly talked about building an egalitarian society through a liberal economy. The agreement document signed when Kathmandu Mayor Balen Shah and Kulman Ghising's Ujjaya Party merged with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (Kulman has already left the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) used the phrase 'taking to heart the unique situation created by the changing political developments in the country, committed to the equitable progress of all Nepalis, committed to a liberal economy with social justice, committed to pluralistic democratic progress, and committed to good governance to address the aspirations of the common citizen'. This statement is also consistent with Greenspan's white lie and can be considered a new attempt to keep Nepali society out of economic democracy again.

The issue of social justice in political science

The issue of social justice was born out of the industrial revolution of the nineteenth century. Extreme social inequality and excessive exploitation of workers had created that situation. Labor unions were formed against exploitation and oppression and linked to socialist ideology. Their organized resistance and rebellion against oppression led to demands for a system that ranged from redistribution of wealth to human rights, equality, and access to resources and means for all.

In the face of the inequality in wealth, scholars such as John Stuart Mill and Luigi Taparelli raised legal and religious issues on behalf of the poor. Then, labor organizations, women's rights activists, and anti-racist and anti-racist forces jointly launched resistance movements for the right to a normal life, good wages, medical protection, and public awareness, and gradually achieved social security (John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971)).

After the global depression of 1929 and World War II, many capitalist countries adopted social security policies, including education, health, and land reform, fearing a possible socialist revolution. After World War II, social security was not only in the economic sphere, but other issues such as the protection of voting rights, decisive participation in policy-making, systemic discrimination and the prohibition of discriminatory behavior on the basis of gender, ethnicity, language, religion, etc. were also included in social security. Similarly, these issues were legally interpreted and made legitimate at the local, national and international levels.

In fact, the welfare state was established due to the leftist ideological forces that became stronger in capitalist countries after World War II. If the leftist forces had not thought about systemic change, had not raised the issue of reducing inequality, and had not waged a struggle to resist oppression and tyranny of the marginalized classes, the concept of the welfare state would not have come to the fore.

In the context of Nepal itself, from 1960 to 1990, welfare policies were limited to words in the Panchayats. The neoliberalism established by the Congress after 1992 entrusted welfare work and activities to the market. If there were no leftists in parliament, even a small amount of public welfare work, including old-age pensions, would not have been possible.

Neoliberalism and an egalitarian society

Neoliberalism, which was born in 1929, carried more political elements than the market, money, and goods used in the definition of a liberal economy. The Great Depression of 1929 was a symbol of the failure of the old laissez-faire economy. The main principle espoused by the neoliberalism that emerged thereafter is that the government cannot generate economic growth, nor can it benefit the poor, and that instead of the state, private companies and individuals, i.e., the open market, generate economic growth and that the taxes they pay can benefit society.

Since 1970, various forms of neoliberal policies have been implemented worldwide. The neoliberalism adopted in countries like Nepal has become a tool for corporatization of universities, the right of a certain class over natural resources, privatization of schools and health centers, subordination of natural resources and resources to a certain class, work for low wages, privatization of state-run corporations in the name of deep responsibility, and monetization of elections, thereby limiting politics to the lap of the rich. 

It is impossible to even imagine that justice can be done on the word egalitarian in a neoliberal society. The work of neoliberalism, based on principles such as deregulation, privatization, and reduction of financial concessions, is to produce inequality. This economic policy- (1) causes economic inequality. Except for a dozen or so wealthy people, some entrepreneurs, and some highly educated technical power, it gradually pushes the entire class and level towards poverty and destitution. (2) It destroys the social security system.

Public welfare service-oriented programs are being cut. Such as health security, education, employment schemes, and unemployment allowances were cut in the past. (3) Privatization or marketization of services led to divestment in education and health. When these were left in charge of the market for profit, ordinary families gradually withdrew from quality education and health. This is why there is rapid migration from villages. (4) Market instability: Neoliberal deregulation leads to financial instability and economic crisis in the country. Inflation and black marketing increase.

A syndicate of monopolists is established in the market and the livelihood of the common people becomes increasingly difficult. Neoliberal pundits say that if the rich earn in the economy, it will trickle down and the entire lower class will also benefit. But in the nearly 5-decade long practice, income and wealth have been accumulating in the hands of only a few people, and the majority of people are losing their income and wealth. Therefore, it is not possible to build an egalitarian society with social justice in neoliberal capitalism.

BS The Eighth Five-Year Plan, formulated in 2049, was a plan based on neoliberal principles. This economic policy did not encourage industrialization linked to agriculture. The state shied away from the responsibility of providing employment in the country for the approximately 570,000 young workers entering the Nepali market. A gap arose between students studying in market schools and public schools.

Today, most public schools are awaiting complete abolition. Today, what the Nepalese people are seeking is a socialist-oriented mixed economy. But in the name of socialism, the ruling syndicate introduced activities such as open markets, deregulation, privatization, and reduction of financial services and facilities.

Laws were made in favor of a handful of rich people. The movement against them arose because the old parties were implementing neoliberalism by pretending to talk about socialism. But the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which is trying to present itself as an alternative force, has also started cultivating lies that neoliberalism will lead to an egalitarian society. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is a clear sign that it is moving towards right-wing liberal capitalism in terms of ideology and policy.

The alternative party sought by the people

It is necessary to first be clear about why political parties are needed in a parliamentary system. In a parliamentary system, it is believed that no single party can represent the entire nation in terms of ethnicity, region, economy, ideology and society.

A multi-party system is needed in a country to include the voices (demands) of minorities. Principled parties are needed to ensure that individuals or a one-party dictatorship do not suffer or that the country does not fall victim to a political syndicate in the name of a multi-party system. It is also believed that the ruling party should transfer power peacefully when the majority of the people do not like it.

Since BS 2051, Nepal has been a victim of the syndicate system. The Congress-UML and later the Congress-UML-Maoist syndicates flourished by making the principle that no one has a long-term enemy or friend in politics. After some time, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) also got involved in it. The neoliberal market that they had set up in turn concentrated income and wealth in the hands of a handful of industrialists.

Under that, the wealthy businessmen, the leadership, and multinational companies came to control politics in their own hands. This gave them control over the entire electoral system. This destroyed the traditional parliamentary democratic and social security network, values, and norms. For the past 35 years, the above-mentioned 'three plus four' parties have formed syndicates and are engaged in valueless, unprincipled, and unethical politics.

The economic politics carried out by putting the neoliberal market at the forefront did not allow industrialization in the country. School and university education became substandard. Quality education and health became expensive for the general public. Agriculture could not turn a corner due to the lack of land reform and management. Not only was there a brain drain from the country, but migration became common due to wrong agricultural policies. The export of manual labor began and the ‘Dutch disease’ was introduced by introducing unproductive or low-productivity products.

Instead of a progressive tax system, a flat tax was adopted, creating a huge gap between the rich and the poor in the country. The rich made the country a ‘transit point’ and a place for the outflow of movable property. Not only the youth, but also teenagers and children are unable to see their destiny and future in the country.

That is why the Gen-G movement took place on 23-24 Bhadra, the government was overthrown, dozens of people were martyred, hundreds were injured, and property worth billions was burned and destroyed. That martyrdom shook the political parties but could not become a carrier of change. That rebellion could not bring the government that committed the massacre and those who planned arson in the name of the movement to justice. Nor has an alternative party been established against the unprincipled, unideological, programless and unethical nature of the three or four party syndicate. 

The RSVP leadership has claimed that it has become stronger since the 23-24 Bhadau rebellion, especially after the unity with Balen and Kulman Ghising (Ghising has left). But their unity did not come about through discussions on any theoretical, ideological and programmatic unity. What they are calling new, that neoliberalism is not a new policy and program in Nepal. Ravi, Balen, Kulman and Wagle are also not people with an ‘untested’ honest image.

On the other hand, some new parties have emerged in the political arena under the umbrella of wealthy businessmen and with the support of some monasteries and churches. But none are in the race to become the bearers of change systematically. Based on the above-mentioned arguments, the political parties that Nepal seeks today need to be based on some specific principles and agendas.

A political party is needed that wants the government to play an active role in equality, social justice, and economic and social upliftment. The movement and armed war from BS 2007 to 2062/63 institutionalized many political achievements, but due to the lack of economic democracy, those achievements could not be institutionalized. If today's political parties are to be complementary, it seems that they should put forward specific principles and agendas at the very least. Which can make Nepali politics stable and prosperous. 

(1) Social justice and equality are not limited to slogans, but it is also necessary to put forward a commitment to institutionalize the program. 

(2) Structural change: Since BS 2044, Nepal adopted the policy of structural adjustment program. That is, it did not seek structural change. As a result, works such as land reform, industrialization, employment within the country, access to quality education and health for the common people, etc. did not happen. Today, such works should be guaranteed.

(3) Government intervention: It does not mean that the government should not do this and that. The government should do a lot for the upliftment of society. In particular, progressive taxation should be managed, a plan for economic regulation should be put forward through social programs, and the role of the state in its production and distribution should be strengthened, including a definition of what constitutes a social good. A policy should be adopted to protect the common people from inflation, black marketing, and syndicates created by the market.