Spread the love

By Shashi P.B.B. Malla

The so-called leaders of the established big parties are faced with innumerable problems. Whether in or outside of government, they have been at the helm of affairs for a long time and are unable or unwilling to establish a viable path of succession for the next generation.

Consequently, it can be said that the political system established under the auspices of the new Constitution has evolved into a gerontocracy [the rule of the very old] combined with oligarchy [the rule of the few].

Their political parties do not practice internal democracy, so that the rank and file are pretty frustrated.

Then there is the morass of endemic corruption which hampers sustainable development.

There were hopes that the monarchists/royalists were gaining momentum, and that there was the possibility of re-establishing the Himalayan Kingdom.

Unfortunately, they also succumbed to the same problem of gerontocracy!

In this connection, it is interesting to examine the process by which Nepali political parties produce their leaders.

In the run-up to the Revolution of 1950-51 which toppled the Rana regime, the Nepali National Congress and the Nepali Democratic Congress merged to form the Nepali Congress per se.

The undisputed leaders were the troika: Bisheshwar Prasad Koirala, General Subarna Shumsher and Ganesh Man Singh, who had created the Congress parties as vehicles for their own political views.

Other political parties, like the various Communists, established their leaderships by a small elite party group, either by formal vote or apparent consensus.

With time, Nepali political parties chose to elect their leaders by party conference.

Unfortunately, these have not taken place on a regular basis, increasing the frustration of the regular members.

Leadership in Theory & Practice

Leadership can be defined as the exercise of influence or power in social collectivities (as in political parties or government institutions).

According to the eminent German sociologist Max Weber, three types of leadership can be identified, corresponding to the different forms of authority and legitimacy:

  • Charismatic leaders lead by virtue of the extraordinary powers attributed to them by their followers.

With the exception of the original Nepali Congress troika, none of the Nepali politicians after 1951 can be considered charismatic.

  • Traditional leaders lead by virtue of custom and practice, because a certain family or class has always lead.

The Shah monarchs were traditional leaders per se. However, some also rose to be charismatic leaders like Prithvi Narayan Shah the Great, King Tribhuwan and King Mahendra.

  • Legal leadership based on expertise and implemented according to formal rules (as in the constitution of the land).

Unfortunately, in the Himalayan Republic today, many of the commands and orders cannot be held as legitimate and authoritative because they have not been issued from the correct office, under the appropriate regulations and according to appropriate procedures [this is also the case in Trump’s America].

There is also no consensus as to the validity of rules of procedure perceived as rational, fair and impartial.

Like the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Himalayan Republic is also ripe for regime change, but where is the leadership?

The writer can be reached at: shashimalla125@gmail.com