Nepal’s wavering and paradoxical destiny with a parliamentary system and a ruling communist party
Course: POLSCI 264S-01 Democratic Erosion, Duke University
Instructor: Jason D. Todd
With the coalition of the two major communist parties and the communists’ subsequent total victory in the nation’s legislative and provincial elections in October 2017, the good old “communist-ruled countries family” embraced its brand new sixth member: the Himalayan state of Nepal. Nevertheless, distinctive from its other communist friends, Nepal stands as a parliamentary democracy that operates free and fair elections, in which the newly unified Nepal Communist Party won absolute majority in every branch of Nepal’s national government and almost every provincial assembly (except for that of Province No. 2 where NCP still controlled 1/3 seats).
Despite the NCP’s fanfare of its unprecedented “democratic” victory through nationwide elections as a communist party and the dreadful silence of the international society towards this political anomaly, many scholars and critics voiced their queries: Can communism and democracy coexist?
Both theoretical presumptions and observation of trends of the elimination of competitions and the seizures of civil liberties and political rights reveal the endangerment of Nepali democratic institutions and exercises.
Elimination of Competitions
Based on a relatively thinner definition of democracy advanced by Joseph Schumpeter in the 1940s, the authentic implementation of democracy requires competitions. And that’s exactly something the ruling communists fear most. Both Marxism-Leninism and Maoism insist on the solid and unwavering political control by the proletariat and, if necessary, acquiring or maintaining power through violent revolutions and the “dictatorship of the proletariat” – political controls and persecutions over the dissidents by the ruling communist party in the name of the “fundamental interests” of the proletariat. In other words, communists believe in the doctrine that “enemies” (hostile competitors and, sometimes, all competitors) shall be eliminated by all means.
A less brutal but much more interesting case of decreasing competition witnessed in Nepal was the mergence of its two major communist parties – the Maoist communists and the Unified Marxist-Leninist communists. Prior to their progressive cooperation and ultimate combination, ideological and policymaking conflicts, such as the distinctive perspectives on Nepal’s relations with the U.S., India, China and the contrasting attitudes towards private capitals and capitalists, had long existed and prevented the unification of communist forces within the contemporary democratic electoral framework. Without any surprise, this unification assisted merging the one-third seat controls of each communist party to a collective two-thirds control, replacing the relatively firm leadership of Nepali Congress (a social-democratic political party) during the Nepali democratic movement.
As the NCP attempts to keep its leadership and stable control over the government, many measures that we covered in Nancy Bermeo’s On Democratic Backsliding could be taken place, i.e. the executive aggrandizement and strategically manipulating elections. It is fairly easy for a majority party in the parliament and a communist party with massive populist support to carry out these backslidings in both parliamentary and public life levels to wipe out any potential competitors thus consolidate its power continuance. The NCP can simply adjust the constituency configurations and even the electoral procedures – some tiny manipulations that attract no substantial international attention would be well enough – with its absolute majority in the parliament and enormous support from the constituents.
Also, the lack of international attention on the Nepali democratic processes and the aggravating dysfunctionality of the civil society contribute to the NCP’s elimination of competitions from all levels throughout the nation.
Seizures of Civil Liberties and Political Rights
The communism is no fan of liberties throughout its history.
“None of the supposed rights of man go beyond the egoistic man, man as he is, as a member of civil society … withdrawn into himself, wholly preoccupied with his private interest and acting in accordance with his private caprice.” Similar to this criticism of the internationally recognized human rights standards by Karl Marx in his 1843 article “On the Jewish Question”, communist-ruled states have long despised the recognition of civil liberties and political rights, especially freedom of expressions, freedom of associations, and freedom of the press, instead arguing the “people’s sense of happiness and development” as a fundamental human right, like China did.
The NCP has the ability to easily manipulate the legal framework and practices of domestic human rights protections by both its absolute legislative influence as well as its procedural and practical control over the law enforcements and judicial branch. Currently, the civil liberty practices in Nepal remains normal, as the nominally independent medias and political associations actively functions. But some test cases demonstrate a trend of the NCP authorities’ ignorance of and the decreasing effectiveness of such “fourth powers”. As an example, the Nepali government’s proposed construction of a new mega-airport in the nation’s capital will be advanced with full determination despite tremendous criticisms and objections by the civil society. “I know I will face criticism for executing the project,” said the Nepali Minister of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation Yogesh Bhattarai, “but I cannot please everyone.”
As nationalism and populism play a crucial role in Nepali politics, it is easier for the NCP to limit the rights and liberties of certain anti-government and anti-NCP groups and individuals, but maintaining the basic rights to election and political association (as pro-communist organizations) for the massive pro-NCP population. Mimicking China’s approach, the NCP-controlled state mechanism and the party’s own propaganda machines could describe the objecting groups and individuals as satisfying “elite interests” and even acting for “foreign conspiracies”, thus justifying the NCP’s potential regression on dissidents and consolidating the populist support among middle to low socioeconomic status populations – killing two birds with one stone.
Moreover, the Nepali supervisory and independent investigative frameworks are imperiled. In the Human Rights Watch’s latest 2018 human rights report on Nepal, the transitional justice mechanism and its accountability was questioned. The two nominally independent commissions investigating the communist-government conflicts in the past were considered short of authentic independence and impartiality since the NCP is capable of readily influencing the two commissions by controlling their membership appointment process and funding.
And that’s why, based on Robert A. Dahl’s categorization and definition of democracy, Nepal is backsliding towards a non-democracy despite its efforts of maintaining democratic elections.
Generally speaking, the institutional advantage that NCP has within the Nepali democratic mechanisms and the populations’ populist, nationwide loyalty to communist rule in combination grant the Nepali communists with gigantic and unshakable leverages and capabilities to carry out any policy or enforcement in the way it desires.
