Spread the love

By Narayan Prasad Mishra

We all know that when winter arrives, everyone in a place feels the cold, and when summer comes, everyone feels the heat. In the same place, it is impossible for someone to feel warm in winter or cold in summer. This is a law of nature. The effects of sunlight, rain, or storms are felt equally by all.

Similarly, the impact of governance and administration—progress or decline, development or destruction, corruption, nepotism, and favoritism—falls upon everyone in the nation. Of course, a small group of people holding power may reap unjust benefits, but that is a separate matter. From this perspective, the political condition of the country—its progress or deterioration—should be visible to all in the same way. Even if not everyone sees it alike, the majority should be able to see it clearly.

Yet, when we look at our country—yesterday or today—and see crowds following one party or another, it seems that people see even the same color differently. In our country, very few people have the courage and conscience to call right “right” and wrong “wrong.” Such is the situation of our nation.

Early Experiences and Historical Reflections

When I was born, Nepal was under the Rana regime. That system ended when I was still a child, so I did not experience it personally. When Nepal held elections under the 1959 Constitution (2015 B.S.), I was sixteen years old, and I witnessed the government of Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala. I still vividly remember Dr. K.I. Singh, the leader of the United Democratic Party, filed a case in the Supreme Court claiming that the Nepali Congress had rigged the elections. After losing the case, he remarked that the defeat was due to Congress-affiliated judges.

Although Koirala was an intelligent, capable, admirable, popular, and influential prime minister, his party’s government—intoxicated by power and position—was not free from nepotism, favoritism, and irregularities. The condition of our country today is nearly identical to that of those days. For that very reason, the event of December 15, 1960 (Poush 1, 2017 B.S.), occurred under King Mahendra—what his opponents call a coup, and his supporters regard as a historic step.

Instead of working for the nation’s development and the people’s welfare, as today, political parties at that time were entangled in conflicts both among themselves and within their own ranks. Based on bitter experience, King Mahendra introduced the Panchayat system with the intention of putting the nation on the right path and accelerating development and progress. This is not entirely untrue. Undoubtedly, there was also an intent to preserve the dignity and prestige of the monarchy.
Whatever people may say—whoever may have formulated or implemented it—the Panchayat system, if appropriately understood and implemented sincerely, could have been a proper political mechanism to keep the country away from party conflicts and focus on nation-building. However, I clearly recall that its implementation was not effective from the very beginning.

The Panchayat Era and Its Consequences
The system began mainly with the involvement of rebellious Nepali Congress leaders such as Dr. Tulsi Giri and Bishwabandhu Thapa. Since it emerged in opposition to the party system, most members of the banned parties opposed it and refused to participate. Young, immature, and politically naive people like us viewed the King as a reactionary and the party leaders as progressive and democratic. Consequently, we did not take an interest in the system.

As a result, many idle individuals, unable to continue their studies and wandering in towns or villages, entered the system—many of them with mischievous or criminal tendencies. There was even a saying at the time that “every thief and rogue has joined the Panchayat.”

Another fact is that, because the Panchayat replaced a Congress government, it regarded Congress members with hostility, and the Congressmen, in turn, saw it as their enemy. Because of this, the system sought support from the communists. Communist leaders such as Kamal Raj Regmi, D.P. Adhikari, and Keshar Jung Rayamajhi became involved. Gradually, even some Congressmen, like Rudra Prasad Giri, Parshu Narayan Chaudhary, and Sribhadra Sharma, also joined.

Yet instead of becoming a system for systemic order and good governance, it became one serving the self-interest of various opportunistic groups. Since Congressmen were sidelined, the Panchayat system provided the communists with a major opportunity to expand their organization and increase their followers. I believe this is one of the reasons that communists, who could be counted on one hand in Parliament in 1960 (2017 B.S.), now hold the reins of power in the country.

Nevertheless, under the direct leadership and supervision of the King, the system did make noteworthy contributions to the development of the country’s physical infrastructure.

Thirty-Five Years of Multiparty Democracy
After the end of that system, thirty-five years have now passed under multiparty democracy, introduced by the 1990 Constitution (2047 B.S.). During this period, we have even discarded the 1990 Constitution and brought the 2015 (2072 B.S.) Constitution. We have written several constitutions—so, in terms of the number of constitutions, we have indeed made “progress.” But in reality, we remain stuck in the same situation that King Mahendra had bitterly experienced in 1960 (2017 B.S.)—not only conflicts among political parties but also internal disputes within each party: accusations, blame, insults, and infighting between leaders and cadres. For this reason, we have repeatedly witnessed the dissolution of both majority and minority governments throughout our history.

The accusations and counter-accusations among leaders and parties today clearly reveal the present condition of our nation. The country is on a downward path. Prices have soared beyond people’s reach; incomes are insufficient. Health, education, and justice have become the privileges of the rich, beyond the capacity of the poor. Visiting any government office fills people with dread; the face of corruption appears before them, and fear grips their hearts. Regardless of which party is in power, misgovernance remains the same. The hope for good governance is like reaching for fruit in the sky—visible but unattainable.
No substantial work is being done to lay the foundation of systemic order or to raise the living standards of the people. Instead of establishing the value and relevance of multiparty democracy through public service and good governance, today’s leaders and cadres have defiled the very system—they have turned it into a stinking mess. Although the leaders and cadres who defiled the system may not smell the stench, the people are finding it unbearable. For this very reason, it is not wrong to say that the current JEN-G movements in the country have arisen.
The Need for Serious Review and Reform

The experience of the past thirty-five years shows that the systemic order, good governance, and development we seek cannot be achieved under the present constitution, current system, or existing political figures. Without a thorough review and revision, the demands of these movements and the aspirations of the people cannot be fulfilled. Therefore, dissolving the House of Representatives, holding elections, and forming another House cannot be the cure. It is like treating a brain disease by operating on the leg. The people of the entire nation must raise a united and powerful voice to conduct the correct diagnosis and provide proper treatment for this ailment.

Just as effective and quality education requires a good curriculum, competent and dedicated teachers, a sound library, and a proper laboratory, similarly, good governance and systemic order require that those running the government be capable, intelligent, selfless, and of strong moral character. Without good teachers, no matter how well-designed an education system is, education will not improve. Likewise, no matter how good the constitution is, unless leaders and workers are selfless and honest, good governance cannot be established. This truth must be realized by all, and an environment must be created to discourage selfish leaders and encourage honest and dedicated ones.
The Present Condition and the Hope Ahead

This is no longer the Nepal of 1960 (2017 B.S.). The number of educated and aware citizens has greatly increased. Yet, the absence of a society that uses conscience and reason to represent truth in national matters is still evident. Many newspapers and media outlets, whose professional duty is to convey truth and facts, have instead prioritized partisan interests and failed to guide the public toward the right path.

Similarly, many university professors, who should be intellectuals, have become party loyalists rather than scholars. Even more astonishing is the sight of thousands of educated youths following corrupt leaders in their rallies like sheep behind a shepherd. Still more surprising is that leaders and cadres of the same parties, at times, appear as civil society activists or human rights defenders, coming to the streets to insult one another, while genuine, independent civil society is nowhere to be found.
How can we explain cold to those who feel heat in winter, or day to those who call night day? Looking at the present state of our country, it is hard to imagine how many more years this condition will continue.
Nevertheless, I sincerely hope that the number of people who can call right “right” and wrong “wrong” will grow; that citizens and leaders will have the courage to oppose the wrongdoings and condemnable acts of their own leaders and parties, and that they will be open-minded enough to welcome the good deeds of leaders from opposing parties.
May our country also find leaders capable of removing the harmful elements that have knowingly or unknowingly entered our system—namely, republicanism, secularism, and federalism—and of cleaning the stinking mess we ourselves have made.
narayanshanti70@gmail.com