Anomalies Plague Nepali Politics

Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver's Travels (1726) tells a biting tale in which a traveler encounters diverse people in different places, each with distinct perspectives. In Lilliput, he finds six-inch-tall people; in Brobdingnag, he finds people sixty feet tall, a race of giants. On his third voyage, he is set adrift by pirates and eventually ends up on the flying island of Laputa. Although they are highly concerned with mathematics and music, their learning has no practical applications. In the fourth part of the book, Gulliver visits the land of the Houyhnhnms, a race of intelligent horses who are cleaner and more rational, communal, and benevolent, so they have no words for deception or evil than the brutish, filthy, greedy, and degenerate human race called Yahoos, some of whom they have tamed for their service. 

This book is widely regarded as one of the greatest political satires ever written. Considered as Swift’s masterpiece, Gulliver’s Travels is the most brilliant, bitter, and controversial of his satires.  The essentially trivial Lilliputians are described as warlike, disputants in the first section, and the deranged, impractical intellectuals and pedants in the third segment are portrayed as imbalanced beings lacking common sense and decency. The Houyhnhnms, by contrast, are the epitome of reason and virtuous simplicity. However, Gulliver’s own proud identification with Houyhnhnms, the horses, and his subsequent disdain for his fellow humans, Yahoos, indicate that he, too, has become imbalanced and that human beings are simply incapable of aspiring to the virtuous rationality that Gulliver has glimpsed in his travels.

Mainstream politics

Contemporary Nepali politics can be likened to Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels, in which several incidents resemble the political events in terms of people’s perspectives and the behaviour of political actors. It undergoes several contradictions and anomalies in principles. While some contradictions involve confusion over party names and agendas, other anomalies involve a double standard in their practices. Numerous parties have been registered in the Election Commission for election purposes without a clear vision, mission, or goal. Not to mention the mushrooming of new parties; even decades-long-standing parties such as the Nepali Congress (NC) and communist parties operate without a fixed agenda, despite their claims. 

NC claims that its central political agenda is democratic socialism, but it does not appear to articulate this clearly, except in a few documents provided by its pioneering leader, the late BP Koirala. It does not satisfactorily explain how two contradictory principles of democracy and socialism can coexist. The explanation given is no more than a juxtaposition of two dissimilar political concepts. Most cadres and supporters of democratic socialism may not understand that, in essence, the two concepts are mutually exclusive: if democracy exists, socialism does not, and if socialism is to establish itself, it requires curbing individual freedom. No one can readily implement both principles simultaneously. This is the bone of contention that has led to contradictions in principles, let alone in real-life practices.

Communist parties of Nepal fare no better. They can be categorised into two schools: those that do not participate in elections and proclaim scientific socialism, an ideal state of the Marxist political system that once existed in the Soviet Union, and those that take part in the election process and form the government if they win.  The first school of communist parties has experienced contradictions in principle and practice. Whereas their principle is the forcible overthrow of the conventional political system and the establishment of scientific socialism in its place, their practice is like that of other political parties, not visibly distinct from them. 

The second school has exhibited contradictions, primarily in its principles and, consequently, in its practices. Specifically, CPN-UML and the Nepali Communist Party (NCP) are the most controversial communist parties in contemporary Nepali politics. The contradictions and anomalies lie in their party's manifesto and election manifesto. While they claim to advance scientific socialism and, eventually, communism through the proletarian revolution, they nevertheless participate in conventional elections to form the government and effect partial reform. As even a layperson can readily understand, revolution and reformation are mutually exclusive. 

If a party is entirely engaged in the reformation process, revolution is impossible. Herein lies the essential contradiction between these two communist parties. Another anomaly within CPN-UML concerns the name of the system they intend to establish and implement. What they call People’s Multiparty Democracy is a new concept propounded by the late Madan Bhandari in the 1990s. The very name is anomalous: the term “democracy” is already in everyday use, so it is tautological to include “people” in the programme's title, let alone “multiparty,” which the other communist parties argue is that of bourgeois parties.

Cross-current politics  

The other newly formed political parties include the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, the Janata Samajbadi Party, the Rastriya Swatantra Party, and others. However, all of these parties are also rife with contradictions in their principles and practices. As a matter of argument, they have no substantive political agenda per se, despite their relatively fair practices. If a party does not establish a fixed programme guideline, it may get lost in the fog. The greatest irony is that the so-called bourgeois and proletarian parties are not forging an alliance based on principle, but instead, they are at war over contingent phenomena. This has happened several times since the restoration of democracy in 1990. 

Due to the hung parliament, which yields no majority for any single party, alliances based on party interests, group interests, and even individual interests have been forged and reshaped to form the coalition government, often in the Nepali political arena. This has marred the beauty of democracy. In this context, the interim government must create a conducive environment for the upcoming election by demonstrating neutrality, impartiality, and fairness. This is undoubtedly a difficult task, if not impossible. We expect this to happen under the wise leadership of the interim Prime Minister Sushila Karki. 

(The author is the chairman of Molung Foundation. bhupadhamala@gmail.com)