Seira Tamang - Nepal: Discarding darkness
During the last two years of the first Constituent Assembly’s (CA) tenure, it became clear that the political party leaders had decided to follow the mushroom strategy with citizens—mushrooms are kept in the dark and fed manure. After an extended constitutional vacuum, the second CA elections were held. Citizens voted to put the peace process, via the writing of the constitution, back on track and to have an elected government actually function as a government—ie, provide goods and services to citizens. Unfortunately, the process has once again been hijacked by the needs of the political parties and their leaders. Analysts have already pointed out that the extension of deadlines for parties to put in the names for the proportional representation (PR) candidates will have consequences for the constitution writing timeline. But there are, of course, other problems.
Popularity polls
It is quite clear the elections have been seen as a popularity contest—which it is, in one manner. But winning votes is not the same as being popular in the sense of being liked, let alone loved. This should be made clear to currently crowing politicians. Polls in Nepal had shown a slight rise in the popularity of politicians before the second CA elections. But the polls were of a staid and boring nature. A more innovative and colourful poll would perhaps better reflect the people’s real opinions of elected officials, especially leaders. For example, during the 16-day US Congress shutdown in October 2013, an organisation called Public Policy Polling had conducted a poll that revealed an eight percent approval rating for Congress. Most interesting was that more popular than Congress were the following: dog poop, hemorrhoids, toenail fungus and zombies. There is a certain utility to having such clarity.
This is especially given the handling of PR candidates by leaders of all political parties, widely criticised in the public sphere. Analysts have pointed out that the PR system in itself is not the problem and is, in fact, needed to ensure representation of the marginalised. The problem lies in the manner in which high-caste, male political leaders have contoured it in Nepal to ensure that power remains in their hands. The ‘closed list’ the PR system used in the 2008 and 2013 CA elections allows voters to only cast a vote for the party but not influence the selection of candidates on that list. It is up to the political party leaders themselves to fill the seats after the election from the list. This is at variance from common practice in closed list systems where seats are filled from the top of the candidate list so voters can influence selection.
Voter disdain
Much has been made in the media about the lack of democracy within the parties as a key element to the malfunctioning of the PR. For this and many other reasons, support for the internal democratisation of political parties is key. However, this form of critique misses the larger issue. There is evidence in the contouring of the PR system a disdain for, and a distrust of, the vote of citizens. Real democracy—ie, the exercise by citizens of their democratic rights—not only has to be limited to periodic elections (in and of itself problematic) but ultimately controlled by those who later seek to legitimise their every move by ‘the people’s mandate’.
The Supreme Court verdict on giving voters the ‘right to reject’ candidates in all forthcoming elections provides some relief. But the transition period has set dangerous precedents. ‘Consensus’ permitted the bypassing of the peoples’ will, thus paving the way for politicians rejected at the polls to become CA members and ministers. Pre second CA elections, Madhav Kumar Nepal symbolised the ability and willingness of the political party elite to make a mockery of people’s democratic rights—rejected by voters from two constituencies, he not only became a member of the CA but also Prime Minister.
The willingness to hijack the democratic process is particularly important. In the run-up to the second CA elections, the media widely reported on mutual intra-party agreements on ‘seat adjustments’ to ensure the election of senior leaders by fielding weaker candidates. Thus, political leaders in Nepal need not have citizens as ‘followers’; they only need to be acknowledged by other self-labelling ‘leaders’ as ‘leaders’. Mutual recognition among the political elite, and not the ability to inspire, guide or rule, appears key to the definition of being a ‘leader’.
In all, during the transition, the threat of being punished by the people in elections has lost its value. And like attempting to keep your bike, car and clothes clean on the streets of Kathmandu, voting during this political moment appears to be an exercise in futility.
No more dark deals
Seeing through the dark dust of the political sphere requires attention to, and planning for, transparency, accountability and meaningful democracy... read more:
