Submit your Article

In the bustling political landscape of developing countries like ours, where the journey toward progress and development is often fraught with obstacles, the blame for their misfortunes and under-development is regularly directed at politicians. The media, civil society, intellectuals, and citizens have found it easy to hold politicians responsible for the nation’s woes. However, amidst this blame game, few pause to ponder why the nature of Nepali politicians has evolved into what it is today. 

Historical progression of Nepali consciousness

Following the above proposition, we must wonder why do politicians seem immune to accountability for their actions? As we point fingers at the much-maligned ‘evil game of politics,’ we must introspect and question whether the blame solely lies with politicians or whether we, the citizens, intellectuals, civil society, and democracy-supporting taxpayers, also bear some responsibility.

The roots of this complex dilemma may be found in Nepali society’s long-standing predisposition toward acceptance, notably in the arena of politics. Throughout history, when dynasties changed hands or power shifted between ruling families, the people of Nepal largely accepted these transitions without much resistance. From the reign of Amshuverma in 605 to the complex rule of multiple kings during the Dark Ages, the populace often embraced political changes without questioning their legitimacy. Even when Nepal was divided into three kingdoms by the sons of Yaksha Malla, the citizens accepted this division. From the conquest of Kathmandu by Prithvi Narayan Shah to the tragic assassinations of Prime Minister Ranoddip Singh and the ruling monarch in 2001, the nation’s people have repeatedly surrendered to oppressive forces and violent upheavals. This distressing consciousness of acceptance has hindered their ability to challenge authority and demand accountability. While resilience is commendable, an excessive inclination toward acceptance has stifled progress and perpetuated a cycle of subjugation. Such historical examples of complacency with political events beg the question: does this passive acceptance still hold sway in modern-day Nepal and is it the cause of the lack of political accountability?

Scholars like Dor Bahadur Bista have argued that this seemingly pessimistic tendency to accept the status quo in Nepali society stems from a fatalistic thought pattern. This attitude may have become ingrained in the psyche of the people over the ages, influencing their approach to politics as well. 

Comparing this with a recent event in France, where the introduction of the Social Security Financing Act in 2023 sparked massive revolts, sheds light on the hypocrisy of democracy. While the French people are politically literate and active, the situation in Nepal reveals a different reality, one marked by political inaction and apathy. Three important revolutions stand out in Nepal’s history: the Revolution of 1951, the People’s Movement I, and the People’s Movement II. All of these movements were carried out under the auspices of political parties. Beyond these revolutionary moments, there has been a lack of significant leadership by the people themselves. This begs the question: why have the citizens not taken more initiative in shaping their political landscape? The answer lies in the lack of extremism among Nepali citizens, coupled with the two-faced role played by relevant professionals in the country.

Nepali citizens have often been politically inactive, yet they remain steadfastly critical of politicians. The historical backdrop and socioeconomic elements at work have influenced people’s consciousness. The lack of widespread political literacy, coupled with economic struggles, has contributed to this passive approach to politics. As a result, the blame is consistently placed on the politicians without fully understanding the underlying complexities and systemic issues. In other words, the public or even the national consciousness of Nepal, through historical evolution has failed to materialize into a unified voice. 

Surprisingly, despite widespread dissatisfaction with the political situation, the voter turnout in Nepal has been shockingly high in comparison with other countries. This apparent contradiction is a reflection of the larger problem at hand. Citizens are disillusioned and distrustful of the political process as a result of the distance. As a consequence, many Nepalis feel that their vote may not truly bring about any change, leading to voter apathy.

A modern retrospection of role of Nepalis

In the contemporary context, Nepal has made significant strides toward democracy, embracing the principles of representation and participation. People have the right to vote, to express their views, and to express their concerns. The evolution of democracy has opened avenues for more active political engagement, challenging the notion of fatalism in politics.

Despite these democratic advancements, the accountability of politicians remains elusive. Politicians may indulge in corrupt practices, break promises, and act in their self-interest without fearing the repercussions from the public. This lack of accountability has led to disillusionment and mistrust among citizens.

While democracy is celebrated for empowering citizens, it can be disheartening when elected officials betray the trust bestowed upon them. The blame for this hypocrisy cannot solely rest on politicians; the onus is also on us, the citizens. As democracy-supporting taxpayers and development-wishing individuals, we must recognize our role in the system. Our responsibility doesn't end with casting our votes during elections; it extends to holding elected officials accountable throughout their term. We must actively participate in the political process, staying informed about policies, demanding transparency, and questioning decisions that affect our lives.

Apart from the citizens, the responsibility of checking politicians also lies with relevant professionals and organizations in Nepal. These individuals and groups are often found to play a dual role, pledging to support the common people but also maintaining close ties with the political elite. This collusion not only perpetuates the status quo but also erodes public faith in the possibility of positive change. Hence, in an atmosphere where the populace are cultivating skepticism toward its political establishment, the civil society and other professions, to prevent their reputation from getting tarnished, applied a path of neutrality and inaction. In a paradoxical manner, the citizens increasingly turn to civil society organizations, hoping to find a voice that echoes their concerns and aspirations in politics. While some civil society groups indeed work tirelessly to address public grievances, the broader landscape reveals that they are equally intertwined with political parties.  

To comprehend the situation better, it is essential to consider Nepal’s unique historical context. Nepal was ruled by monarchs until 2008, with limited political space for ordinary citizens. The transition to democracy brought hope, but it also introduced its share of challenges. 

A complex web of political interests and power struggles emerged, hindering the progress of the nation. So, democracy, while celebrated for its principles of equality and representation, can sometimes become a bitter pill to swallow for developing countries like ours. The demands of democracy require political parties to appease different groups and garner support, leading to compromises that may not always align with the broader interests of the nation. 

The recent incidents such as the passing of MCC has added yet another layer of doubt in the minds of the public toward their political leaders, further intensifying their distrust in the political system. This raises concerns about Nepal’s progress toward becoming a fully democratic nation. Evidently, the Nepalis seem to be unaware of the potential power they possess in shaping the government’s decisions. Centuries of living under monarchy and autocratic rule have seemingly ingrained a sense of suppression, preventing the realization and utilization of their inherent influence.

Nepal’s struggle with political apathy can be mitigated through increased political literacy. To be able to make wise judgments, citizens must be equally informed on the complexities of governance, policy-making, and the duties of elected officials. This will enable them to close the gap between expectations and reality and make politicians responsible for their actions. Similarly, civil society, intellectuals and other concerned professionals must proactively distance themselves from political affiliations to regain the trust of the people they aim to represent. Hence, Nepal’s path to genuine democracy and effective governance is heavily reliant on striking a harmonious balance between political leaders and civil society. 

Conclusion

Politicians are a product of our society, despite the fact that we often blame them for the problems our country is facing. Nepali politicians are woven into the very fabric of our culture, values, and aspirations; they do not exist in a vacuum. Therefore, we must rise above the blame culture and collectively work toward building a more accountable political system. The blame placed solely on politicians for the challenges faced by developing countries like Nepal reveals the hypocrisy of democracy. While politicians undoubtedly hold a share of responsibility, the citizens, relevant professionals, and organizations also have vital roles to play in shaping the nation’s destiny.

A thriving democracy requires political literacy, improved civic engagement, and increased responsibility. If Nepal can recognize these factors, we can move past its current state of political indifference and toward a more affluent and egalitarian future. The trip may be difficult, but with teamwork and accountability, we can create the way for genuine progress and development.

Marxism has a lengthy and intricate history in Nepal, dating back to the formation of the first communist party in 1949. Over time, Nepal has witnessed various manifestations of Marxist movements, including the People’s War led by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) from 1996 to 2006, which ultimately resulted in the establishment of a republic and the elimination of the monarchy. Marxism has played a significant role in Nepal’s political landscape, particularly during the Maoist insurgency that ravaged the country for a decade. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2006 marked a pivotal moment, ending the armed conflict and paving the way for a democratic republic. Subsequently, the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN), a Marxist-Leninist party, rose to prominence and became a dominant force in Nepali politics. In the present day, as Nepal undergoes a period of political transition, the challenge for Marxist movements is to uphold democracy amidst a changing environment. This entails grappling with complex issues such as economic development, social inequality, and political power, while also ensuring the protection of democratic principles and civil liberties. One of the main challenges Marxism faces in Nepal is the tension between revolutionary ideals and democratic institutions. While Marxism has traditionally been associated with revolutionary change and the overthrow of existing power structures, Nepal’s reality is that democratic institutions have taken root and are perceived as legitimate by a majority of the population. This means that any Marxist movement must engage with these institutions and operate within the framework of the democratic system, rather than seeking to overthrow it. Another challenge lies in reconciling economic development with social justice. Nepal is one of the poorest countries in Asia, with a GDP per capita of just over $1,000. While economic growth is a top priority for the Nepali government, concerns arise that this growth may come at the expense of social justice and environmental sustainability. Marxist movements must confront these issues and find ways to promote economic development while ensuring that the benefits are distributed equitably and sustainably. Simultaneously, Marxist movements in Nepal must confront the legacy of the People’s War. While the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic were significant achievements, the conflict also led to significant human rights abuses and a breakdown of democratic institutions. Any Marxist movement seeking power in Nepal must address these issues and demonstrate a commitment to upholding civil liberties and democratic norms. Professor Chaitanya Mishra’s book ‘Loktantra Ra Aajako Marxbad’ explores the challenges faced by Marxism in Nepal and the need to address them. Mishra argues that Nepal’s current political landscape is characterized by a complex interplay of various factors, including democracy, capitalism, globalization, and regionalism. One of the primary challenges for Marxism in Nepal is to reconcile its ideological roots with the changing political and economic realities of the country. Marxism has traditionally been associated with the struggle against capitalism, but Nepal’s current political landscape is increasingly shaped by capitalist forces. To uphold democracy, Marxism needs to find ways to engage with these forces without compromising its core values. Another challenge is addressing the growing influence of regionalism in Nepal’s politics. The country’s diverse ethnic groups possess distinct identities and aspirations, and Marxism needs to find ways to address these aspirations while maintaining its commitment to a unified Nepal. However, the transition from armed struggle to democratic governance has not been without difficulties. Today, the challenge lies in maintaining a harmonious relationship between Marxist ideals and democratic principles. According to experts like Mishra, the crux of this challenge lies in striking a delicate balance between the collective aspirations advocated by Marxism and the protection of individual rights inherent in democracy. Marxism emphasizes collective ownership and equitable distribution of resources to foster social justice, while democracy focuses on individual rights, freedom of expression, and competitive elections. The challenge arises when these two ideologies clash, demanding a nuanced approach to preserve democracy while addressing the concerns of marginalized communities. One of the primary concerns in Nepal’s current political climate is the consolidation of power within the Communist Party of Nepal. Initially, the CPN played a crucial role in the democratic process, advocating for the rights of marginalized communities and pushing for socio-economic reforms. However, concerns have emerged regarding the party’s commitment to democratic principles as time has progressed. Mishra highlights the importance of respecting fundamental rights, such as freedom of the press, an independent judiciary, and a pluralistic political landscape, in maintaining a thriving democracy. Unfortunately, instances have been observed where these principles have been undermined, raising questions about the CPN’s dedication to upholding democratic values. The concentration of power within a single party also raises concerns about the erosion of checks and balances in Nepal’s democracy. As power becomes increasingly centralized, the space for dissenting voices and opposition parties diminishes, creating an environment that stifles democratic progress. The absence of robust checks and balances presents a significant challenge, necessitating the establishment of an inclusive and accountable democratic framework. To overcome these challenges, Mishra suggests fostering a culture of constructive dialogue and democratic debate within the country. He emphasizes the need to safeguard democratic institutions and ensure that power remains decentralized and accountable to the people. A pluralistic political landscape that respects the diversity of ideas and promotes healthy competition between parties is crucial for a vibrant democracy. Democracy, in its essence, is not merely an end in itself but a means to achieve a just society. Professor Mishra asserts that Nepal must strike a balance between Marxism’s emphasis on social justice and democracy’s commitment to individual freedoms. This delicate equilibrium can be achieved through a comprehensive and inclusive approach that acknowledges the rights of all citizens while addressing the socio-economic disparities prevalent in the country. Overall, the challenge facing Marxism in Nepal today is to navigate the complex political landscape while upholding its core values of democracy and equality. Mishra’s book provides valuable insight into these challenges and offers a way forward for Marxism in Nepal. Finally, Marxist movements in Nepal must also contend with geopolitical forces that seek to shape the country’s political future. Nepal is situated between two of the world’s largest powers, India and China, both of which have significant economic and strategic interests in the region. This means that any Marxist movement must navigate a complex geopolitical landscape and find ways to promote Nepal’s interests while maintaining its independence and sovereignty. In conclusion, the challenge facing Marxism in Nepal today is to uphold democracy in a changing landscape. This involves engaging with democratic institutions, promoting economic development while ensuring social justice and environmental sustainability, addressing the legacy of the People’s War, and navigating a complex geopolitical landscape. While these challenges are significant, they also present opportunities for Marxist movements to demonstrate their commitment to democratic values and to promote a more just and equitable society in Nepal. The author is pursuing BA LLB at Kathmandu School of Law

Corruption has long been a persistent challenge for Nepal, hindering progress, undermining development, and eroding public trust in the government. The scourge of corruption hampers good governance, weakens institutions, and perpetuates social and economic inequalities. However, amidst this grim reality, there have been favorable examples of individuals and initiatives working tirelessly to expose and combat corruption in Nepal. Corruption has infested various sectors of Nepali society, hindering good governance and impeding the nation’s advancement. In order to address this issue effectively, it is crucial to unmask corruption in Nepal and understand its profound impact on the country’s development trajectory. Transparency International Nepal: A beacon of integrity Transparency International Nepal (TIN) has been instrumental in exposing corruption and advocating for transparency and accountability in Nepal. TIN conducts research, monitors public institutions, and raises awareness about corruption-related issues. The organization’s relentless efforts have led to several high-profile investigations, resulting in the prosecution of corrupt individuals. TIN’s advocacy work and its initiatives to empower citizens have been crucial in unmasking corruption and promoting good governance at various levels. Rise of digital governance: Promoting transparency Nepal has embraced digital governance as a means to enhance transparency and reduce corruption. The use of online platforms for government services and public procurement has streamlined processes, minimized human interference, and reduced opportunities for corruption. The introduction of e-governance platforms, such as the Integrated Financial Management Information System (IFMIS) and the Public Procurement Monitoring Office (PPMO), has created a more transparent and accountable system. These digital initiatives have significantly contributed to unmasking corruption and promoting good governance in Nepal. Social media activism: Citizen-led movements The rise of social media in Nepal has empowered citizens to voice their concerns and expose corruption. Numerous citizen-led movements, such as the ‘Enough is Enough’ campaign, have utilized social media platforms to raise awareness, share evidence of corruption, and demand accountability from the authorities. These grassroots movements have played a crucial role in unmasking corruption, mobilizing public support, and putting pressure on the government to take action against corrupt practices. Scope of corruption Corruption in Nepal is a multi-faceted problem, permeating both the public and private sectors. It manifests itself in various forms, such as bribery, embezzlement, nepotism, fraud, and abuse of power. From low-level bureaucratic corruption to high-level political corruption, the tentacles of this malpractice have deeply entrenched themselves in the fabric of Nepalese society. The lack of transparent processes, weak accountability mechanisms, and a culture of impunity contributes to the perpetuation of corruption in the country. Corruption poses a significant threat to good governance, a fundamental pillar of a functional democracy. It undermines the rule of law, distorts decision-making processes, and perpetuates social and economic inequalities. When public officials prioritize personal gain over the public interest, it erodes the trust between citizens and the government, leading to disillusionment and cynicism among the population.  Political corruption has also been a persistent problem in Nepal. The nexus between politicians and business interests, vote-buying, and the misuse of public funds are common manifestations of this malaise. Nepali politics, marred by factionalism and a lack of ethical standards, have allowed corruption to flourish. The capture of state institutions by powerful individuals or groups exacerbates the problem, preventing effective checks and balances.  Bureaucratic corruption, characterized by bribery and extortion, continues to undermine service delivery in Nepal. Citizens often encounter demands for illicit payments to access basic services, including healthcare, education, and justice. The lack of transparent procedures and accountability mechanisms within government offices perpetuates this culture of corruption.  Addressing corruption requires a comprehensive approach that includes legal reforms, institutional strengthening, and a cultural shift towards ethical conduct. Nepal has taken some steps to combat corruption, such as enacting laws and establishing anti-corruption bodies. However, more needs to be done to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of these measures.  Engaging citizens in the fight against corruption is vital. Promoting civic education and awareness campaigns can empower individuals to demand accountability from their elected representatives. The media also plays a crucial role in exposing corruption and holding the corrupt accountable.  Unmasking corruption in Nepal is a critical step toward achieving good governance and sustainable development. The fight against corruption requires a collective effort from all stakeholders, including citizens, government institutions, civil society organizations, and the international community.  The author is a student of law

Nepal is a small, landlocked country situated between two of the world’s most populous countries, India and China. Nepal had been ruled by a monarchy for centuries, but in 2008, it was declared a federal democratic republic after a decade-long civil war. Since then, Nepal’s relationship with its two powerful neighbors has been a subject of much analysis and discussion. Also the country has been trying to find its place in the regional geopolitical scheme. Nepal’s international relations are largely based on its neighboring countries. India is Nepal’s main trading partner, with most of its exports and imports coming through Indian ports. Despite close ties between Nepal and its bigger neighbors, the country has sought to maintain a foreign policy of equidistance from both India and China. This policy has gained more traction in recent years. This strong economic bond has been further strengthened by centuries-old cultural ties and shared religion. Moreover, New Delhi provides Kathmandu with generous financial assistance for economic development projects.  Historically, Nepal maintained close associations with India and China due to geographical proximity, which meant that they were both key trading partners. But during the monarchy period, China and India both sought to gain geopolitical influence over Nepal. This rivalry between the two nations was a source of tension for the Nepali government, as both countries influenced Nepal’s economy, foreign policies, and overall development.  India and Nepal share a long border of over 1,850 km, and the two countries have a long history of cultural and economic ties. India is Nepal’s largest trading partner, and Nepal relies heavily on India for its supply of essential goods such as fuel and medicine. Nevertheless, since becoming a republic, Nepal’s ties with both India and China have rapidly improved. Nepal and India share an open border, allowing for the free passage of goods and people, while Nepal and China signed an agreement in 2016 to cooperate on a range of issues, including infrastructure and trade. Nepal also participates in major regional organizations like the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation.  However, the relationship between the two countries has been strained in recent years due to various issues, including border disputes, the alleged interference of India in Nepal's internal affairs, and the construction of dams on shared rivers. In 2015, Nepal adopted a new constitution that was seen as discriminatory towards the Madhesis, a community with close ties to India. India responded by imposing an unofficial blockade on goods entering Nepal, causing severe shortages of essential goods and leading to a deterioration of the relationship between the two countries. India and Nepal have strong historical and cultural ties, as they share similar languages, religions and traditional customs. At present, India is Nepal's largest trading partner and donor. India has been involved in various large infrastructure projects in Nepal, such as the construction of the Nepal-India Friendship Bridge, which connects Kathmandu to the Indian states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Apart from economic assistance, India has also given military aid to Nepal in times of need. On the other hand, China has increased its influence in Nepal since 2014, when there was a change of government in favor of the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN). China has provided financial assistance and has invested in many infrastructure projects like the Kathmandu-Pokhara railway. It is also building the China-Nepal cross-border economic cooperation zone, which will increase trade between the two countries. Nepal’s relationship with China has been growing stronger in recent years. China has been investing heavily in Nepal’s infrastructure, including roads, bridges, and hydropower projects. In 2017, China and Nepal signed a memorandum of understanding to build a trans-Himalayan railway, which would connect Nepal with China's Tibet Autonomous Region. China sees Nepal as an important partner in its Belt and Road Initiative, which aims to connect Asia with Europe and Africa through a network of highways, railways, and ports. However, Nepal’s growing relationship with China has also raised concerns in India. India sees China’s growing presence in Nepal as a threat to its own strategic interests in the region. India has been wary of China's increasing influence in South Asia and has been trying to counter China’s presence by strengthening its own relationship with other countries in the region, including Nepal. Nepal, meanwhile, has been trying to balance its relationships with India and China, both of which are important partners for its economic development. Nepal has maintained that it will not allow its territory to be used against the interests of either of its neighbors. However, Nepal’s delicate position between the two powerful countries has also made it vulnerable to their geopolitical rivalries. In conclusion, Nepal’s relationship with its two neighbors, India and China, is complex and multifaceted. While India remains Nepal’s largest trading partner, China’s growing influence in Nepal’s infrastructure development has been seen as an opportunity for economic growth. Nepal’s challenge is to maintain a delicate balance between the two countries while safeguarding its own interests and sovereignty. As South Asia continues to be a region of geopolitical contestations, Nepal's position between two of the world's most populous countries will remain a subject of much interest and analysis. The author is a student of law