Dr. Hemant R Ojha
In developed countries, political party candidates contesting the elections make road, school, health care and social security as the main election agenda. In Nepal, politicians talk much about democracy, sovereignty, transformation, and federalism. When will Nepalis politicians start talking about people’s everyday problems?
Nepalis have been waiting to see just when politics will happen consequential in their lives. The first Constituent Assembly (CA) failed to deliver a new constitution. Nepalis had to reluctantly accept the unwanted extension of the political transitional, which involved the holding of yet next CA elections. People wanted to see an end to the protracted political transition so that more substantive issues of development and transformation could be dealt with. Now a new CA has been elected and the people’s verdict is clear—end the transition soon and pave a way for actual transformation. A huge turnout in the elections despite threats of violence holds a special meaning to this end. It is now already six months over, and the progress in constitution writing is awfully low. The question now is whether the new CA will deliver a constitution on time and open the path for a ‘politics of substance’- one that engages with the everyday issues of the people.
Why politics of substance?
Columnist Anil Bhattarai raised the need for a ‘politics of substance’in his The Kathmandu Post op-ed piece on January 5, 2010. He argued that Nepal’s political parties, including the radical Maoists, have failed to attend to substantive issues of society and the environment—famine, floods, healthcare and similar issues that concern people in everyday life. This question has become even more important as transitional politics continues without any change in the behaviour of the political parties. I elaborated this concept in an op-ed in the same paper a year ago, and yet, the debate seems to be dead.
A number of transformational changes need serious political attention. In an era of globalisation, the rise of our two neighbours—China and India—in the global scene, the migration of millions of Nepalis abroad for work and the revelation of Nepal’s Himalayas as climate change hotspots, it is even more urgent that Nepali politics and the ways in which political parties organise their business become more engaged with substantive issues. This is not to suggest that we do not invest time in discussing important issues about the new constitution but to emphasise the need to recognise the contextual limits of politics and the urgency of linking politics to substantive issues. Nepal’s future relies on how fast and sincerely the political parties can change themselves to better recognise and respond to substantive political issues.
As politics has focused unduly on process at the expense of substance, we are losing on many substantive fronts, even when we are gaining on the ‘politics of process’—establishing a republic, electing a new CA, etc. The point is quite clear. Politicians are debating big issues but millions of ‘grassroots people are losing out on many substantive aspects that affect their lives—health, education, environment, transport, agriculture, water and so on. This is reminiscent of a Nepali proverb where seven Majhis kept on discussing without acting as their boat capsised. Nepal’s politicians are like those Majhis, not taking actions but spending precious time talking.
Politics of position as the driving factor
It is even more troubling to note that the politics of process—such as writing a new constitution—is more about a strategic ‘politics of position’among the top leaders to capture key positions such as the President, Prime Minister and federal chief minister. The ostensibly radical politics of state- restructuring is actually framed more by the hidden interests of individual leaders than by the larger interests of society. Even the radical leaders who made many sacrifices at one time have now entered into a different stage where they indulge in the selfish politics of position.
Such politics of position is everywhere—in intra-party struggles and inter-party competitions. All major political parties have experienced serious divisions and have groupism and non-transparent competition. It is unfortunate that political parties have failed to organise themselves by formulating transparent, fair and workable rules of the game to maintain integrity, effectiveness and accountability. The emergence of the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML as the powerful political forces in the second CA elections does not evade their many internal fault lines and vulnerability to divisions and fatal conflicts. Intra-party debates are inevitable but what is critical here is that parties have not demonstrated a capacity to manage the differences and diversity.
Moving politics to substance quickly
We cannot afford to prolong the transition for too long. It is now time to end transitional politics and this is only possible if parties embrace the people’s mandate. Parties need not prolong their job by engaging in the endless ‘politics of process’around hundreds of contentious issues related to the new constitution but focus on a few key agendas including the forms of governance and federalism.
First, agree on three key elements of state restructuring—the number and boundaries of the federal states and the system of national government. It is clear that Nepal cannot sustain more than seven federal states so concentrate the debate on five-seven states. Second, agree on how power is shared between the President and Prime Minister.
Third, decide on the form and boundaries of local governments. Remember that democracy is strong when we have strong local governments—so prioritise this agenda as a constitutional issue. Do not leave this for the state assembly to decide as the latter are likely to give little power to the local level. Once we move to the federal model, we may not need the two-tiered local governments we currently have (we can define local governments as intermediates between the districts and VDCs). That way every state can have roughly about 100 local governments, so altogether we can have between 500-700 local governments.
Brief constitution
Keeping the politics of process focused and targeted on the three issues mentioned above can help reduce the duration of the transition, with the possibility of promulgating the new constitution within a year. A brief constitution is thus the best way to go; we can add complexities as we move ahead by defining different tiers of governments and holding their elections. But, this is possible only when politicians seriously rethink the way they do politics.
Dr Ojha is a Political Scientist specialising in environmental governance and can be reached at ojhahemant1@gmail.com
A previous version of this article was also published at Kathmandu Post.
