The latest election in the country's political history has set a record by all standards. This election has completely rejected the old incompetent rulers and approved the Balen style. Balen can be considered as the only 'messiah' who can stop the former rulers.

The problem is not with the voters to run the government and address the aspirations of the people, but rather with the unscientific method of 'counting heads' to decide. When the method itself is not rational and scientific, then the result is becoming random, illogical and populist. The majority cannot always determine 'right/wrong' or 'good/bad'.

America is becoming a good example of the (un)social media that continues to create the worst habits, habits and governing tendencies that provoke populism, mob rule and minority oppression. If you look closely, India is also an example, where Indian democracy has put Modi at the head.

Balen's recent past style, nature and reactions are in the 'public domain', so even on that basis, it cannot be said that there are no strong suspicions among the common people as well as voting trends. Moreover, the ambiguity about the broader scope of the RSP's federal democratic republic and liberal democracy has left room for serious doubts. Voters have demonstrated the power of the miraculous vote revolt against historical instability, underdevelopment, misrule and arrogance of governance. In the wake of the Bhadaura rebellion, the only beneficiary of it was the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and especially Balen. This political development has led to the emergence of the Balen factor in Nepali politics. If the difficult situation of party management is changed, there is little danger of the government led by him failing. 

But it is not otherwise that Balen should suffer the most as the Prime Minister from the assessment of the terrible future that party chaos and personality ego will lead to. Such a series of signals has already begun to be understood from the unprecedented trend of the vote results. No one can ignore the fact that the same social media noise that is currently deifying such suspicions is contributing the most. Sociologist Sudhindra Sharma has said somewhere, ‘It does not take a moment for such popularity to collapse.’

Even on the basis of Balen’s recent past style, nature and reactions being in the ‘public domain’, it is not possible to say that there are no strong suspicions among the common people as far as voting trends are concerned. Moreover, the ambiguity about the broader scope of the RSNP’s federal democratic republic and liberal democracy has also left room for serious doubts. At this point, there may be an equal risk of freedom being curtailed by the political hormones produced by the overwhelming majority that is considered unthinkable.

However, it may be hasty to make such suspicions without forming a government. However, in the larger and global context and in the historical period, the example of civil rights being trampled under the yoke of majoritarian domination is having frightening consequences for liberal and ‘comprehensive’ democracies globally. Moreover, the geopolitical risk that has been much discussed about Nepal itself has actually come to stand at the very door as the Balen government is being inaugurated. The first blow to civil liberties by both these threats and trends is on civil liberties. Such a fundamental challenge cannot be underestimated in any sense.

Although democracy is called ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’, this system itself is causing a serious crisis in today’s world. The phenomenon of voter turnout towards incompetence seen in our recent elections has become the mother of the phenomenon that has reached the point of explosion in the US. The decade-long period of Trump’s rise has become a wonderful experiment. When we say, ‘The real problem is not the voters, but our testing methods.’ Aren’t we starting to prefer the warning that, as Plato sums up in ‘The Republic’, ‘too much freedom in a democracy leads to too much slavery’? Plato’s implication was that the majority does not always represent knowledge and virtue, but rather is guided by emotion and self-interest.

Structural Limits of Majoritarianism

The foundation of majoritarian democracy is the assumption that the sum of individual votes provides the best decisions for society. But the famous political philosopher Gustave Le Bon, in his book ‘The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (1895), has already explained in detail – ‘The crowd is always intellectually weaker than the individual, individual conscience is lost in the crowd, emotion is contagious and excitement prevails over reason (p. 24).’

John Stuart Mill had warned about the ‘tyranny of the majority’ in ‘On Liberty’ (1859) two and a half centuries ago, ‘Society executes its own orders and if it gives wrong orders, it is a social tyranny more terrible than political oppression.’ This trend is increasingly manifesting itself in the electoral democracies of the contemporary world in the form of ‘mass hysteria’ and suppressing minorities. Its amazing trailer can be considered to have been displayed in our recent elections.

It is not an exaggeration to say that if slavery had been abolished by voting in America, slavery would have remained without a civil war. Populism is connected to the ‘survival instinct’ of man. In Robert Frank's analysis, populists behave irrationally to show their credibility, which appeals to the ancient group-protection instinct of voters. To some extent, even in countries with high literacy (USA, Australia - 99 percent literacy), such an impulse is frightening, so the level of education seems to have negatively linked the explosion of political populism. Therefore, it is clear that this trend, i.e. the mass hysteria of searching for a supernatural messiah, is not due to the level of education, but rather a continuation of natural tendencies.

It is not an exaggeration to say that if slavery had been abolished by voting in America, slavery would have remained without a civil war. Research has even warned that if China had adopted majoritarian democracy, it would have remained at the same level as India today. This does not mean that liberal democracy is bad. Jason Brennan says in ‘Against Democracy (2016)’, ‘Democracy does not empower individuals, but rather empowers the momentary will of the majority.’ Our election, held amidst fears that contemporary electoral democracy has begun to accept democratic decline around the world as the norm, has broken all kinds of standards around the world. The frenzy of victory everywhere has given rise to panic, chaos and despair within the winning party, and the signals being made have raised the question of whether we should be afraid.

Knowledge-based democracy and deliberative democracy

The alternative to majoritarianism is not only dictatorship. Jason Brennan proposes knowledge-based democracy and says, ‘The right to make policies should be given to those with knowledge and expertise.’ This is the aspect that former Mukhtiar KP Sharma Oli has taken the most pride in. In the context of the party that advocates a decision-making process based on merit rather than the number of votes, it should be able to adopt the path of discussion rather than the clamor of numbers. Research on political systems around the world is increasingly moving towards the conclusion that sociologist Jurgen Habermas, while advocating deliberative democracy, said, “Legitimacy comes from the rationality of debate, not from the number of votes.”

What this generally means is that instead of “how many people voted,” it means adopting the method of “how much rational debate took place.” For this, Balen Shah seems to have tried to start the process of selecting and appointing the Council of Ministers, as stated in the manifesto of the Nepali Congress Party. If this can be done, the overwhelming majority of the parliament can be focused on making laws and regulations rather than on playing for power. Only then will it be easier to move forward with political stability and development at a rapid pace. If a system can be established to make experts the executive, there will be no need to “tie someone to a tree,” nor will there be any need to make the mistake of fighting on the street by pretending to fight.

The truth and facts proven by history are that the great achievements of human civilization (science, human rights, constitutionalism) were not made by the crowd, but by the intellectual minority (Socrates, Galileo, the American Founding Fathers). Majoritarian democracy can represent interests, but it cannot represent ‘right/wrong’. Old ideologies like Congress and Communists are no longer sufficient in Nepal.

Now we need to find a new system that not only wins elections but also transforms society. For this, it is imperative to adopt a style of moving forward centered on knowledge, logic, and discussion. If we do not find an alternative in time, while we are receiving warnings that this wave of populism will lead the world to a nuclear crisis, the trend of considering the threat of geopolitical turmoil as a mere intellectual luxury will surely break. It is time for progressive forces to think seriously – let the representation of interests come from the crowd, but the representation of ideas and truth come from expertise and discussion. Only this can open the door to a new era.

Like the slogan used in the election, now it is Ravi's turn - 'Support Balen silently.' If there are any buts in this, Balen-Ravi may not get the same musical chair repetition of the same rejected legacy of 'Bhattrai-Koirala, Koirala-Deuba, Nepal-Oli, Prachanda-Baburam, Oli-Prachanda and Oli-Deuba-Prachanda'. Balen-Ravi may not even get the concessions that the old ones got after the Bhadaurai uprising. We must be careful about this. The opportunity that Prachanda has gained a majority requires the RSVP, especially President Ravi Lamichhane, to constitutionally advance the party's declarations and promises without feeling insecure. Coincidentally, another self-proclaimed revolutionary party that shares the same promise as the RSVP is also present, a small but useful party that will be useful in making the RSVP's majority decisive. The NCP should fully support the RSVP in realizing the strengthening of federalism as per the Janakpur Declaration of a directly elected chief executive, a council of experts, a fully proportional parliament and non-partisan local levels and the Janakpur Declaration of the next Prime Minister Balen Shah. This situation will not only balance the imbalance between the National Assembly and the House of Representatives, but it is also possible to produce results. Although it is ironic that Prachanda has to carry the burden of the misrule legacy of Sher Bahadur Deuba and KP Sharma Oli, the initiative of Balen-Ravi also seems essential to truly test the arithmetic within the parliament and the public declarations of the NCP supremo himself. 

The need for constitutional reforms and amendments and the urgency are many times greater than the hopes, aspirations and expectations of the voters. For this, it is imperative to identify the overall agenda of social and economic reforms. On the other hand, how will Balen-Ravi address the one-sided advocacy of nation-building during the election campaign? What does it mean to build a nation? The largest portion of those who vote should be those who will return to their homeland, their sons, daughters, daughters-in-law, sisters, brothers and nephews. The Balen government must face the daunting challenge of how to implement the promise of returning savings to cooperative victims within 100 days and the oath of providing employment in the country.

For that, it is Ravi Lamichhane's responsibility to create an environment that allows Balen to work 'freehand' with accountability. Like the slogan used in the election, now it is Ravi's turn - 'Quietly support Balen.' If there are any buts in this, the same musical chair repetition of the same rejected legacy of 'Bhattrai-Koirala, Koirala-Deuba, Nepal-Oli, Prachanda-Baburam, Oli-Prachanda and Oli-Deuba-Prachanda' will not even be available to Balen-Ravi, which the old ones got after the Bhadaurai rebellion. We must be careful about this.

पार्टीको सभापतिले पार्टीको वैचारिक, संगठनात्मक र जनसमर्थनलाई प्राथमिकता दिने र प्रधानमन्त्रीले राज्यको संवैधानिक जिम्मेवारी, प्रशासनिक स्थिरता र अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय दबाब र आवश्यकतालाई सम्बोधन गर्ने शैली र अभ्यासलाई भयरहित बनाउने विषयमा मतदाताको आकांक्षा प्रतिबिम्बित हुने निश्चित छ । यसखाले द्वन्द्वलाई ‘प्रिन्सिपल–पार्टी, एजेन्ट–प्रधानमन्त्री’ का रूपमा हेर्ने गरिन्छ । निकट विगत हेर्दा बेलायतमा टोनी ब्लेयरले पार्टी अध्यक्षको भूमिकालाई कमजोर बनाएर राष्ट्रपतीय शैली अपनाएको विवादले पार्टीभित्र ‘न्युलेबर’ बनाम पुराना कार्यकर्ताबीच विद्रोह निम्त्याएको घटना उल्लखेनीय छ ।

भारतमा सोनिया गान्धी र मनमोहन सिंह सम्बन्ध र जिम्मेवारीबारेको ‘एक्सिडेन्टल प्रधानमन्त्री’ नामक फिल्म र पुस्तकले धेरै सन्दर्भ देखाएको छ । व्यवहारतः नेपालको ताजा निर्वाचनले अप्रत्यक्ष रूपमा प्रत्यक्ष कार्यकारी शैलीलाई अनुमोदन गरेको छ । अब रास्वपा र विशेषगरी सभापति रविले प्रधानमन्त्री बालेनलाई पार्टीबाट स्वतन्त्र निर्णय गर्ने अधिकार दिएमा मात्र प्राप्त प्रचण्ड बहुमतको भविष्य निर्धारण गर्ने निश्चित छ । यदि यस्तो तनाव नियन्त्रण नभएमा पार्टीमा फुट, सरकारमा अस्थिरता र जनमत गुम्ने दुर्घटना बारम्बार दोहोरिएको बद्नामीको डरलाग्दो विस्फोट हुनेतर्फ हमेशा सजग हुन जरुरी छ ।

पार्टी सभापति र प्रधानमन्त्रीको द्वैध भूमिका संसदीय प्रणालीको आन्तरिक कमजोरी हो । यसलाई अलग गर्ने वा स्पष्ट नियम बनाउने देशहरूमा स्थिरता भएको देखिन्छ । नेपालले भारत र जर्मनीको मोडलबाट सिक्न सक्छ, अन्यथा यो तनावले पार्टी र सरकार दुवैलाई कमजोर बनाइरहनेछ । फ्रान्सेली राजनीतिशास्त्री तथा राजनीतिक दलसम्बन्धी विषयका पितासमेत मानिने मौरिस डुभर्जेले राजनीतिक दलहरूको आधुनिक जग, निर्वाचन प्रणालीले दलको संख्यालाई कसरी प्रभाव पार्छ भन्ने नियमदेखि पार्टी र सरकारबीचको द्वन्द्वलाई वैज्ञानिक रूपमा व्याख्या गरेका छन् ।

डुभर्जर्र्को अनुसार ‘पार्टी भनेको सबैभन्दा पहिले जनताको बीचमा रहेको संगठन हो, जसले विचार र विश्वासलाई एकताबद्ध गर्छ । पार्टीले जब सत्ता प्राप्त गर्छ, तब यो ‘पार्टी इन पब्लिक अफिस’ बन्छ, जसको मुख्य काम राज्य सञ्चालन गर्नु र नीति कार्यान्वयन गर्नु हो ।’ तर पार्टीको ‘जमिनमा रहेको तह’ ले सरकारलाई नियन्त्रण गर्न खोज्छ, भने ‘सार्वजनिक पदमा रहेको तह’ ले पार्टीबाट स्वतन्त्र भएर निर्णय गर्न चाहन्छ । यसखाले द्वन्द्वले पार्टी फुट्ने, सरकार अस्थिर हुने वा नेतृत्वको संकट निम्त्याउँछ ।’ यही अवस्था दुनियाँभरका राजनीतिक प्रणालीहरू विशेषगरी संसदीय प्रणालीहरूले व्यहोरिरहेका छन् । अब यसबारेमा सबैभन्दा सचेत र गम्भीर हुने दायित्व रास्वपा र विशेषगरी रवि र बालेनको काँधमा आइपुगेको छ । आशा गरौं, त्यो दुर्भाग्य आउने छैन, नेपाल बन्नेछ ।