Election Key To Democratic Politics

The by-election that is going to be held in Ilam next week indicates that actual democratic politics is a fierce, no-holds-barred competition for political space. Political parties are battling tooth and nail to secure victory in Ilam constituency. It is yet too early to hazard a guess about the final winner in the theatrics of political game played out in this electoral contest. But the positive aspect of democratic competition is that it lets and allows the new actors to enter into the contest and win the mandate of the people to secure the space. This time in Ilam by-election  Rastriya Swatantra Party and  the independent candidate claiming as an advocate of ethnic identity (Pahichanbadi) have also stole the limelight in the electoral contest. 

Electoral contest is such an uncertain game that the established veterans of the political game may lose out to their rivals. For example in Malaysia, veteran politician who has the credit of building Malaysia as a prosperous society, Mohammed Mahathir, had lost the elections, forfeiting his security deposit. In Nepal too, political veterans have lost the elections time and again. It shows that those who are not in step with changes of the society may have to face defeat no matter how glorious their past may be.  The spectacular part of the Nepali democracy is that youths have made an assertive rise and sought their role in the political realm. The electoral contest in Ilam constituency constitutes an illustration to it too.  

Development and delivery

The last electoral battle hosted in Nepal in 2022 was fought along a kind of bipartisan frame such as democracy vs authoritarianism, young faces vs old faces, corrupt vs clean and so on. The then ruling  coalition of the parties (Gathabandan) led by Nepali  Congress had accused UML of practicing authoritarianism referring to the dissolution of the parliament twice in succession in disrespect to the letter and spirit of the constitution.  Likewise, UML, which has been the largest party in the incumbent Gathabandan, had blamed the rivals for destroying all the vitals and ground norms of the democratic system and compromising on the national interest of the country. However, the much-touted Ilam by-election this time has been contested on local development and service delivery issues. 

It shows that democracy itself is not just an unruly contest for power, but also the site of debate and discussion about development and service delivery. But in the current global context democracy is mostly defined along the liberal and illiberal spectrum. In fact, illiberal, populist visions have defined democracy as majority rule backing up a strong leader, while liberal definitions have long insisted that majority rule must be balanced by minority rights and democratic values, culture and institutions. This type of argument has started to play a central role in partisan competition in the polls, whether it be in Europe, the US or the South Asia. 

In the heat of partisan battles, it is a standard battle cry for one side to accuse the other of endangering democracy and norms of freedom. In the on-going elections in India incumbent Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been accused of being authoritarian and trampling the values of democracy under feet. This was intensely played out in the last presidential polls in the US where Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Joe Biden had been pitted in an intense electoral battle. Trump was portrayed as an illiberal and autocratic leader whereas Joe Biden was portrayed as a weak liberal who will not be able to defend the national interest of the US.  Trump had trumpeted a slogan 'make American great again' though he failed to beat Joe Biden in the presidential race. The US has several such examples to be drawn from the past as well.  For the conservative Republicans during 1930s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was not democracy’s savior, but a court-packing autocrat. 

Electoral battles

Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Turkey’s Edrogan are also dubbed as authoritarian leaders. In India too, Prime Minister Narenadra Modi has been portrayed as an authoritarian leader who is accused of weaponising Hindu religion to rule the secular India. However, it is to be recognised that framing partisanship in the elections is not an abnormal rupture in democratic practice. But in fact partisanship is the driver of all democratic competition and contest for democratic power. The electoral battles - periodic general election and by election - have made the Nepali voters educated and aware of the substance of the political socialisation.

It is not always true to theorise civility as the norm and competitive partisanship as an offensive posturing against democracy. This gap between what democracy is and what we wish it to be occurs, in part, because the democratic theory we understand, and the civics lessons we imbibe  elevates democracy into an abstract realm of ideal types that is indifferent to the realpolitik and historical context. There is no such thing as democracy in a pure state. All actual democracies bear the contours of the historic struggles that gave them shape. A US political scientist writes “democracy is not a neutral procedural mechanism, whose meaning is ferociously contested by both sides. In Nepal too, the electoral battles that we organise time and again may help us to define the contours of democracy we really practice in our social and political economic ambience.

((The author is presently associated with Policy Research Institute (PRI) as a senior research fellow. rijalmukti@gmail.com)