By Narayan Prasad Mishra
Nepal is an ancient country with a history spanning many centuries. Like many other old nations, we had an absolute monarchical system, where benevolent monarchs also ruled during the Malla Period and the Shah Period. With changing times, Nepal adopted a democratic system after the fall of the Rana regime in 1951. The first general election under the constitutional monarchy and multiparty parliamentary system was held in 1959. Since then, political leaders have played a significant role as prime ministers of the democratic country, either appointed by the King or elected by the people. Currently, Nepal is a republic without a monarchy, with an elected president and prime minister. Thus, it can be said that our leaders have been involved in governing the country since 1951.
Leaders elected by the people are supposed to serve the best interests of their constituents, ensuring prosperity, justice, and overall societal well-being. However, in some countries, including ours, to some extent, leaders prioritize power over public welfare. They consolidate their own interests, influence, privilege, and power, neglecting to uplift their citizens. In such situations, decision-making often serves the narrow interests of leaders and their parties rather than the broader welfare of the people. Unfortunately, we have observed this trend since the introduction of democracy in our country. Regrettably, we have not been fortunate to have appreciable leaders for the development of our nation. People feel that our leaders rule but do not serve, although leaders may perceive otherwise.
Consequently, the lives of the majority are not in good condition; many face poverty and economic hardship concerning food, education, and healthcare. Conversely, those connected to bureaucracy, politics, business, and industry enjoy comfortable lives. Corruption issues and scandals are rampant and widely discussed. We can list dozens of corruption cases about which people talk every day. In general, people feel that the government does not show due concern to punish the corrupt as if the accused involved in the corruption are their agents. These grievances are frequently reported in newspapers and YouTube and discussed on various media platforms, sparking protests against corruption, irregularities, mismanagement, and poor governance. However, the government often appears indifferent to addressing these issues, eroding public trust in governance.
There is a visible disconnect between rulers and the ruled. Elected officials in power seem detached from the realities faced by ordinary citizens, resulting in policies and laws that may contradict public sentiment. Recent disputes, such as the conflict between the Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) and industrialists over unpaid bills and the Prime Minister’s apparent favoritism towards industrial interests over governmental profits, highlight this disconnect. Additionally, controversies surrounding a recent amendment bill submitted to parliament on corruption laws, which include provisions shielding the corrupt from scrutiny after five years, further exacerbate public discontent.
Hence, there is a prevailing sentiment that our leadership emphasizes rule over service, undermining democratic institutions and norms. Elections are increasingly seen as mere formalities lacking substantive choices. Manipulation of electoral processes, suppression of dissent, and coercion to consolidate power have eroded the foundational principles of democracy. In this context, honesty, integrity, dedication, and a service-oriented attitude are often discouraged rather than supported and appreciated. For instance, people point to the challenges faced by Balen Shah, the Mayor of Kathmandu Municipality, who has set extraordinary examples of good governance and development. Consequently, the legitimacy of governance institutions has been compromised, leading to a loss of faith in democratic efficacy. The gap between the ruling elite and the marginalized majority widens as leaders exploit their positions for personal gain, damaging the nation and neglecting their duty to serve.
This situation fosters an atmosphere of social unrest and political instability, diminishing the nation’s global standing and hindering international cooperation. It also impedes economic development. Those in power must recognize these risks and not be blinded by their authority. The prioritization of personal power and privilege over the welfare of citizens jeopardizes both the nation and their own safety. The volatile situation could erupt at any moment, as seen in other countries, most recently in Bangladesh. Leaders must swiftly realize that true leadership inherently entails service, not mere rule. Failing to heed this wisdom will inevitably lead to regret and further suffering for the country and its people.
Comments:
Leave a Reply