Integrity Produces Better Results

Back in 400 BC, Greek philosopher Diogenes would walk around the market place of Athens with a lantern in hands in broad daylight in the search of an honest man. Finding an honest man in politics has been a difficult task right from the ancient period across the world. This has been more in the present context as the politics is guided more by personal and partisan interests rather than the interest of the larger masses. 

Gone are the days as Socrates once said ‘politics is a quest for justice for which rulers should be virtuous’. Now Chanakya dictum seems to be guiding the present day politics all over the world. Chanakya, back in 300 BC, was of the view that ‘a person should not be too honest as straight trees are cut first and honest people are screwed first’.  Given the state of the present day politics all over the world, parties appear to be enterprises, while leaders are like bosses, workers salespersons and people consumers or voters. Politics has thus turned out to be a lucrative entrepreneurship. Parties and leaders talk of people only in elections and simply forget soon after the elections. 

Common phenomenon

This is not the case of any particular party or individual/leader but has been a common phenomenon across the world including Nepal. Be it the old and established parties or the new ones that claim to be the alternative force, the nature and styles are identical. Only faces, individual’s and party’s names and election symbols are different, style and behaviour are similar. People are left with no choice other than to select from among the exiting forces. It is perhaps this reason why Winston Churchill once said, ‘democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time’. Liberal democracy, thus, may have its faults but no other alternative political systems and regimes have proved to be better than this. 

System itself does not make difference what makes difference is individual leaders’ behaviours and style. If those who are in the helms of affairs are not honest, competent and efficient, the system does not deliver however good it might be. If the system itself is flawed, we cannot expect better results however competent, honest and efficient people might be. First thing, system has to be democratic, transparent, open and responsive and at the same time, people who run the system should be responsible, transparent and efficient. Then only system can produce better results. 

Democracy first dawned in Nepal in 1951 toppling a century old family oligarchy. Even though we had systemic change, a little change was observed in the political and governance culture. Those who rose to the helms of power after the systemic change borrowed the style and culture of the same old regime. Similar tendencies were seen in all regimes that came since then. Panchayat borrowed the culture of Rana regime, while leaders who triggered the democratic change in 1990 too followed the working style of the older regime with the same bureaucracy and other state machineries. Similar trend was visible after 2005 change that transformed Nepal from monarchical system to the republican set up. 

Nepali Congress was the principal change maker in the political regime of Nepal. It led two democratic revolutions — one in 1951 against the Rana family rule and second in 1990 against King’s absolute system or Panchayat regime. In 1990 movement, different communist parties formed a loose front called the United Left Front (ULF) and joined hands with the Nepali Congress to overthrow the Panchayat authoritarian system, in which they succeeded.  Nepali political parties come together to fight against authoritarianism and succeed in their broad common objective. But soon after the political change, they move far apart and fight among themselves so bitterly in a way they are the principal enemies. 

It happened in the aftermath of 1951 political change and King Mahendra took its advantage in 1961 and ruled with iron fist applying the ‘divide and rule’ policy between the Nepali Congress and the leftist forces. Parties did not learn lesson from the history. Once the political change that was brought about by the joint movement of parties in 1990, the fierce power struggle again started between the two key political forces of the country — Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML.  In fact, the enemy was something else which was looking for opportune moment to rear ugly head taking advantage of the fight between the change makers. While inter-party conflict took ugly shape, the intra-party struggle, too, intensified so badly that both the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML got divided. 

The inter-party and intra-party conflict followed by parties’ inability to deliver gave rise to the emergence of Maoist insurgency in the country. The Maoist insurgency grew in a lightning speed not merely because they had weapons at their hands but because people were fed up with other established parties and saw the insurgent Maoists as better alternative.  When the then king Gyanendra tried to reap benefit out of the situation and imposed his direct rule side-lining the political parties, it again brought the parties including the Maoists in one place against the king. 

Momentous day

The joint movement of seven parties and Maoist insurgency together not only restored democracy but also abolished monarchy in 2008. It was indeed a momentous day when Nepal was declared a democratic republic. Nepal has arrived at the present state through a lot of trials, turbulences and triumphs. We experimented family oligarchy, king’s dynastic and absolute regime, monarchical democracy and now republican democracy. The present political arrangement is based on the constitution written by the democratically elected Constituent Assembly, which is the most democratic and participatory system. 

No political system is perfect in itself but it moves to perfection only when political parties and leaders are honest and they handle it wisely and prudently rising above personal and partisan interest. Political integrity is the paramount necessity in politics, which seems to be largely absent, be it in the leadership of the established parties or the newly emerged ones that claim to be the alternative political force. Let us hope this wisdom dawns in the leadership of all political forces to develop a genuine political and democratic culture that alone could make the political system more responsive.  

(The author is former editor of this daily and former ambassador to Denmark). lamsalyubanath@gmail.com)