Spread the love

By Shanker Man Singh

Nepali voters vote for politicians in elections for better economic performance. In reality, this should be a new and encouraging sign, but it does not seem to be meaningful in Nepal.

It seems it will take a long time for democracy to mature in Nepal. If there is bad governance, no matter how good the political system is, the economy will be bad. Since that is the case, is the country’s financial and monetary policy a matter of being guided by politics?

Nepal Rastra Bank is a more independent advisory body, but it seems that everyone’s attention is focused on monetary policy. This is due to the majority of banks and financial institutions in the stock market and the large investment of the Nepali public in loans, interest rates, cooperatives, microfinance, etc

It is a matter of concern and interest talking about development in Nepal, 99 percent is implementation and only 1 percent is policy and planning, and in the documents of the government or business partners, “lack of coordination”, “lack of capital expenditure”, “independent development”, “payment to construction business”, EIA should not come again and printed.

Or the reasons related to communication and delay in land acquisition etc are also the issues people don’t want to listen to.

Although there has been some growth in the economy in the past and now, there seems little hope for growth and satisfaction.

In our neighboring country, India, when Narendra Modi, Prime Minister won his third mandate as the Chief Minister of Gujarat in 2012, he announced the end of that traditional narrative.

In Gujarat, he said, “people show [they support] good economics and good governance.” In most democracies, the proposal is considered a given by politicians on how the economy has performed under their watch.

The famous phrase that grew out of the 1992 US presidential campaign, “It’s the economy, stupid,” was copied around the world. But in neighboring India, years of scholarship and popular commentary have argued that voters there prioritize factors other than good economic performance when evaluating incumbent governments.

As the saying goes, voters in neighboring India don’t vote by caste. The result is that governments that observers generally perform well also get votes at the ballot box. However, based on thirty years of state election results and the financial records of current governments, there seems to be a significant change in the voting patterns of Indians who are far from conventional wisdom.

Electoral returns tend to increase in governments that deliver higher economic growth. This new dynamic, though still nascent and uneven, is an encouraging sign of the maturing of democracy.

Nepal should learn from this ideal democracy and good economy. An ideal democracy and, a good economy is always good politics, but this is rarely the case, otherwise, how could one explain loan waivers and subsidies instead of investing resources in infrastructure for quality of life?

Citizenship and education come from resources or economic decisions and levels of different classes of society. There is always a conflict between competing demands.

It is also related to the management of resources for production. The Constitution of Nepal envisages a socialist economic system Distributional economics can tell you the methodology or even the means of allocation of resources for growth. Efficiency consumption in distribution and equality, but ultimately politics plays a decisive role.

Different stakeholders generate different demands and there is a political cost to each decision, as is said in political economy.

Politics is the distribution of political power for decision-making, while politics is about winning elections; and ignoring minority interests (not only religious but all stakeholders like caste, religion, creed and region) this is bad politics; On the other hand – good economics means making decisions with minority interests in mind, of course, with good intentions.

Political parties can reduce this cost through better communication skills; successful leaders are usually good speakers, and cost reductions can also be achieved, with increased educational access and higher levels of awareness among voters, time will also determine the relationship for economic impact assessment.

There is a positive correlation between good economics and good politics. Sometimes, high stakes are played with powerful interest groups to maintain the status quo.

Good economics is always good politics. But rarely do such situations exist. Otherwise, how can you explain agricultural credit instead of investing in resources that are concessions and subsidies in infrastructure for a better quality of life?

The pillars of good governance must be strong to maintain a balance between interests and power. Nations spend on education transparency, information sharing, and disparity. Clean and fair elections establish healthy and a vibrant political system — then a positive relationship between good economics and good relations. By political system, we mean a system. A political system is a complex system that includes the question of who should do what categories have rights and ownership of resources and what influence should the government have on the people and the economy.

Political democracy has no meaning until we get the Constitution specifically, economic democracy.        Economic democracy means that the benefits of economic development reach the people, all sections of the society. This equity can only be achieved by sound economics in a mature and just nation.

Economic democracy and political democracy coexist with inefficient governance.

Despite the lack of a multiparty democracy in some countries, the economy has progressed and the indicators of prosperity are also good. A prime example of this is neighboring China.

Nepal is a country with a history of martyrdom for democracy. That is why we have given importance to democracy and freedom here. Politics is a bifurcated product of Plato and Greek philosophy.

Plato expected every political elite to demonstrate virtue. He is regulated by the moral values ​​of existence and the actions he believes in. Economics is a science that comes under moral philosophy and as you said, good economics means good politics.

Our economic results are a direct and planned result of our economic policy. Whoever designs economic policy is clearly the primary beneficiary of that policy.

In America, economic policy is designed by the rich and corporations. So only the rich and corporations benefit from America’s economic policies. And because these economic policies are implemented solely to benefit the rich and corporations, the politicians we elect to office owe their allegiance to the rich and powerful, not the voters who elect them.

If we elect “good” politicians, in particular, politicians who don’t completely favor the wealthy corporate class, we can get better economic results.

If our elected officials owed their allegiance to the electorate and not to the privileged class, clearly, they would implement an economic policy designed to improve economic outcomes for poor strata of citizens. Good politics and bad economics.

The government waives some taxes for farmers in Nepal and has done so many times. This leads to a fiscal deficit because the government is spending more than it collects through taxes. This is good politics because they will get votes in the next election, but it is bad economics because it increases the deficit. This is the situation when the government sets a minimum price for goods mainly agricultural products in order to make farmers better off.

A price rise is a case when the government sets a maximum price for a product. When the government places a rent cap, the supply of good houses decreases but the demand increases.

This will lead to a black market and poor-quality apartments. This is good politics because people can afford the rent but bad economics. After all, it creates a black market.

In India, everyone standing in the queue was fascinated by demonetisation as they thought it would curb the black economy and bring back black money. The process is still going on and we will see if it succeeds. But it is definitely good politics because it helped the BJP government in India to win elections in many states. This is very bad economics because it reduced GDP growth, led to recession in many sectors and cost tens of millions of jobs.

Good politics and good economics here let’s go global.