Democracy’s mangled guardrails

Kathmandu:

“How did you go bankrupt?”
“Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”

— Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises

While seemingly unimportant, issues tend to accumulate over time and can lead to significant, unforeseen consequences. The witty conversation penned by Hemingway is timeless, resonating in many situations, especially when considering the current state of Nepal’s democracy.

Why Nepal’s democracy is teetering and failing to deliver is one of the most pressing questions everyone seems to be asking. There have been periodic elections and successive governments, with not a single vacuum since the promulgation of the constitution.

Yet, concerns abound. While the public has its worries, political parties and their leaders—who claim to be the vanguard of democracy—have been suggesting that democracy itself is under threat. If so, from whom? Is democracy truly in crisis in Nepal?

One might hear complaints of chaos. Chaos is an inherent part of democracy, as long as it does not spiral into anarchy. The real danger at present is that the guardrails of democracy are being eroded.

The hollowing of institutions

Post-1990, when the multi-party system was restored, political parties had a crucial task—building strong institutions. However, the process was slow. Six years later, the Maoist “people’s war” began, lasting for a decade. [The good, bad, and ugly of the “people’s war” can be left for debate another time.]

Nepal saw a second people’s movement that eventually transformed the country into a republic. Hopes sprang. A completely new political order was in place. The 2015 constitution transitioned Nepal from a unitary system of governance to a republican system.

But the revolving-door politics, already a bane in Nepali society, further intensified. While the formation of governments one after another was problematic in itself—stymieing development and delivery—cronyism began to take root.

Politicians developed an uncanny penchant for money and power. Corruption became the norm, not the exception. Politicians relied on cronies to carry out their corruption, and the latter eagerly complied. Bending rules, twisting regulations, and circumventing laws became the modus operandi.

Party men and their cronies joined forces to cultivate a fertile ground for brown-envelope politics, allowing kleptocracy to take hold. In the process, the rot set in. Institutions meant to provide stability and security—the guardrails of democracy—began to weaken gradually. There are concerns that one day, people will wake up to realize that they have been completely hollowed out—suddenly.

Bankruptcy of compassion

The major parties and their leaders, who have governed the country since the restoration of democracy, have their history of struggles. The political movements they spearheaded were meant to ensure equal rights for every citizen and create an equitable society.

They fought for a system that would be humane and responsive to the well-being of all citizens. The founding leaders laid compassion as the cornerstone of their parties, championing the cause of peasants, the poor, the marginalized, socially excluded groups, and the most vulnerable in society. They understood that compassion is central to democratic values and that democracy thrives on the belief that all voices matter.

But now, it appears that Nepal’s political parties and their leaders have forgotten the ethos of their founding fathers. As corruption became the norm and the prevailing trend, today’s parties and politicians have become extremely transactional.

The way policies are formed and the way they seem self-serving and indifferent to the needs of the people, especially marginalized groups, show that compassion has no place in Nepali political parties and politics. Citizens are treated as a mere vote bank.

Politics with compassion prevents decisions from being purely about power and self-interest and keeps the focus on people’s needs, rights, and dignity. A democratic system also means empathy, fairness, and concern for public welfare.

Compassion is a guardrail of democracy, but Nepali political parties are gradually losing it. There is concern that one day, society will realize the complete bankruptcy of compassion in political parties—suddenly.

Erosion of trust

“Things are okay, but politics,” seems to be the common refrain among many Nepalis. What it means is that, although things have improved over the past years, politics does not inspire hope.

Why the general public is losing trust in Nepal’s politicians, who deserve credit for their struggles to establish democracy, is something that needs serious consideration.

A functioning democracy requires trust—between the people and politicians. Trust is what keeps citizens and leaders tied together. Failure on the delivery front, broken promises, involvement in scandals and corruption, and lack of transparency—commonplace in Nepal—are reasons that lead to the gradual decline in the public’s trust in politicians.

In contemporary Nepali society, political parties and their leaders are perceived as immoral, corrupt, and tainted. Despite this, parties do not seem to be doing much to mend their ways and stop the erosion of public trust in them. Instead, they are bent on hollowing out institutions while going bankrupt in empathy.

Trust forms the foundation that holds society together and ensures democratic stability. It is, therefore, a guardrail of democracy. But there has been a gradual decline in trust, with widespread concern that one day, it will be shattered—suddenly.

Saving the guardrails of democracy

One might wonder how much longer the already strained guardrails of democracy can withstand the pressure. But, simultaneously, what keeps one inspired is the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression.

When the guardrails face grave dangers, freedom of speech serves as the bulwark of democracy. Nepal has always taken pride in freedom of expression and the free press—both of which help build an aware and informed society, ensuring that democracy functions by holding those in power accountable.

Sadly, Nepali politicians, who once fought for the people’s right to speak and express themselves, have lately become increasingly intolerant of criticism. This is why, regardless of who is in power, attempts have been made to curtail free speech, one of democracy’s fundamental pillars, under various pretexts. The recently introduced Social Media Bill is just one example of Nepali leaders’ aversion to the public’s right to free speech.

The display of authoritarian traits by Nepali politicians signals a growing need for the citizenry to be watchful and vigilant. Given the past attempts, one must not forget: that authoritarianism also happens in two ways—gradually, and then suddenly.

(Sanjeev Satgainya is the former editor of The Kathmandu Post)