IS DEMOCRACY UNSUITABLE FOR NEPAL?

Former Prime Minister of Nepal Krishna Prasad Bhattarai is reported to have said that Nepal is not ripe for federalism and republicanism. He has also reportedly called for a revival of constitutional monarchy which he claims to be the best form of government for Nepal.

According to Bhattarai, one of the founding leaders of the Nepali Congress no form of government can be imposed on a society. He is reported to have said “Federalism, secularism and republican system are imported from outside and are not suitable for Nepal. They have been brought in a hurry and are against Nepal’s genuine identity and need”.

However, Bimalendra Nidhi, the general secretary of the party has disassociating from the comment said that it is not the official view of the party. Saying that “We don’t buy his ideas”, Nidhi said that Bhattarai was not active in politics.

The 1990 Constitution had guaranteed Constitutional Monarchy. The Maoists wanted a new constitution for Nepal. It was removed in 2008 to enable the Maoists to join the political mainstream and contest election. However, the government headed by the Maoist leader Prachanda could not rule Nepal for long as it was on a collision course with the president since its inception. Many of Prachanda’s action as the Prime Minister of Nepal had irked India. Especially his visit to China after assuming office annoyed the Indian policy makers. Traditionally the Nepali Prime Minister used to visit India after being sworn in. There were no takers for his argument that he visited China first to take part in the opening g ceremony of the Olympics.

The question can democracy or any other form of government be transplanted to a country is a much debated one. The Americans have been striving to democratize the world. Earlier the USSR since the time of Lenin and Stalin sought to make all countries in the world Communist. Lenin even believed that three fourths of the world would have been converted to Communism by the end of the 20th century. The break up of the USSR and the collapse of the Berlin Wall in Germany proved it to have been a delusion.

To my mind the argument that democracy does not suit Nepal or any other country for that matter does not make any sense at all. A closer examination revels that all the democratic countries have defects of various kinds. None is perfect. It cannot be. The American, the British and the Indian versions of democracies can be faulted on many counts. Democracy took roots in these countries slowly and gradually. The most important point to be kept in mind is that these countries had great leaders and statesmen with the conviction that democracy was the best option around. All of them knew well that democratic principles could be distorted easily. And it could even ruin a country if the institutions failed to function well.

As I see it, building institutions and ensuring that they function well are very important. Only leaders with vision and conviction can guarantee it. Unfortunately Nepal lacks leaders with vision and conviction. Though the Koiralas, in their fight against the British and the Ranas, were inspired by the Indian struggle for freedom and the leadership of Gandhiji and Nehru, they failed to build and mould democratic institutions in Nepal. The monarchy, the brief spells of democracy and the Maoist rule have made the Nepalese cynical.

Bhattarai says that democracy cannot be imposed on Nepal. True. The very word ‘impose’ itself is against the spirit of democracy. The seeds of democracy are to be sowed first. And the young plants, the democratic institutions, are to be guarded against the attacks of pests of various kinds.

I do not subscribe to his view that democracy does not suit Nepal or any other country for that matter. At present democracy seems to be the best form of government around for us despite its many defects.