Spread the love

By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel

In recent decades, there has been an immense debate about wealth inequality and its impact on democracy in Nepal and elsewhere. Be it national dailies, conferences, or any public gathering, this issue is discussed comprehensively. In the wake of the situation, questions are being raised asking if something be done about it and if so, what.

Wealth inequality has now become a key problem in countries like Nepal, which is transitioning to democracy. Towering figures in the social sciences, from de Tocqueville to Robert Dahl and Seymour Martin Lipset, have theorised that inequality produced by economic activity has the potential to threaten the very foundation of the democratic system. The findings by many institutions working in the areas of democracy have reaffirmed this conclusion.

Nepal’s trajectory towards democracy unfolds a narrative of achievements and setbacks. The 1950-51 revolution overthrew the Rana regime and established Nepal’s first democratically elected government. However, this was short-lived as then King Gyanendra dissolved the parliament and imposed a partyless Panchayat system that lasted for over three decades. However, the first people’s uprising of 1990 restored democracy in Nepal. Soon after, it experienced a decade-long armed conflict, killing over 17,000 innocent Nepalese and displacing many more. With the signing of the comprehensive peace accord in 2006, the conflict finally came to an end, paving the avenues for lasting peace and sustainable development. Two years later, the election to the constituent assembly was held in which the former rebels—the Maoists—emerged victorious. The first meeting of the constituent assembly voted against the monarchy, and thus it was abolished, declaring Nepal a democratic republic of Nepal.

It was a huge achievement as people were able to chart their own future by electing leaders who could truly represent them and meet their aspirations. The people believed that democratically elected leaders would work in defending and strengthening democratic norms, values, and institutions. But this was too much to ask for, as leaders have manipulated the democratic norms and values and redefined them for their personal advantage, putting the hard-earned democracy at risk. But how? I will try to give a close-to-perfect answer in the following paragraph.

Periodic elections give fresh oxygen to democracy. It allows us to retain the one we like and oust the one we dislike. This is the essence of democracy. But this very foundation of democracy has been assaulted at its core by the politicians in Nepal and perhaps everywhere. In plain words, the candidates having the capability to blow the money during the election tend to swing the voters’ minds, compelling them to vote in their favor. On the other hand, the candidates with low-income backgrounds have slim chances of winning the election despite having integrity. To conclude, the wealth inequality among politicians is posing a grave threat to the sustenance of democracy in Nepal and elsewhere.

If the media reports are anything to go by, the election has become an extravagant affair in Nepal. It says the election expenditure has increased multifold in the recent past. The Election Commission in Nepal has fixed NRs 2.5 million as an election expenditure limit per candidate contesting the parliamentary election under the First Past the Post electoral system. However, a candidate contesting the provincial election can spend up to Rs 1.5 million. But many politicians during the last parliamentary election in 2022 breached this limit and won the election because they blew the money to influence the voters.

After the 2017 elections, Shanshanka Koirala—a senior leader of the Nepali Congress—made an honest statement. He said that he spent NRs 60 million in the 2017 election. The senior leader of the Nepali Congress also said that he had spent NRs 80,000 in the first election to the Constituent Assembly, which increased to NRs 30 million in the second election to the Constituent Assembly. This amount reached 60 million in the last election. If such trends continue unabated, the amount is very likely to reach Rs 70 million in the next general election.

Political observers say that what Koirala claimed is just the tip of the iceberg. Most of the candidates have breached the ceiling set by the Election Commission. But sadly, no one is booked for not abiding by the election code of conduct. Why the politicians breaching the election code of conduct are booked and sent to jail is a big issue of concern. This issue is seldom discussed and accounted for.

Those who studied election financing in the country say mostly businesses and corporate houses and contractors pour money for the candidates during the election. They fund the politicians with the hope that after winning the election, the leaders will formulate policies and laws that will enable them to carry out illegal activities without fear of being caught. They also expect that leaders will facilitate giving them big contracts in construction works. This creates a space for crony capitalism.

Now, it is evident that that costly election has laid the foundation for institutionalising and consolidating the corruption in Nepal and perhaps everywhere. Politicians with strong economic backgrounds blow the money and easily influence the voters to come to power. When such politicians come to power, they abuse their authority and indulge in corruption. Not only this, they intend to remain in power indefinitely by manipulating democratic norms, values, and institutions. As things stand now, democracy in Nepal is at stake as wealth inequality continues to influence the outcome of the election—be it local, provincial, or federal.