Name: Shiva Prasad Tiwari Word Count; 1156

Challenges to Democracy in Nepal

Introduction
Path of democracy and democratic process in Nepal has never been so easy. Nepal for the first time experienced democracy in 1950 (Thapa, 2008), immediately after India got independence. From that time democratic practices have been alternated by dictatorship of Kings. Therefore democracy has not been able to make its root in society. This essay will be mainly about contemporary challenges to democracy in Nepal. History of democratic practices, factors hindering progress of democracy, and future implications will also be discussed in short.

History
For a decade after 1950, because of power struggle between king and political parties, democracy could not be stable. King Mahendra dissolved democracy and banned major political parties and imposed partyless panchayat rule in 1960. It took another thirty years for reestablishment of democracy in 1990 (Thapa, 2008). But even after that democracy could not take a smooth path because royal family and the Nepali Army were not happy with the democratic set up and political parties because of their self interest. Major Political parties such as Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist and Leninist)/CPN(UML) could not work as per the aspirations of common people. Democratic Elections in 1994 led to Nepali Congress majority government. But during this time too democracy could not spread roots in the society because of power struggles between these parties. In February 1996 Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)/CPN (Maoist), started armed struggle with an aim of establishing radical communist state in Nepal. This armed struggle which lasted for about a decade and claimed lives of about 14000 people proved to be major setback for democracy (Thapa, 2008). In 2002 king Gyanendra tried systematically to corner political parties and weaken democracy and consolidate power on the pretext of restoring peace and order. So mainstream democratic political parties such as Nepali Congress, CPN (UML) and

CPN (Maoist) which was waging civil war established an alliance. Popular mass revolt was launched in April 2006 which rendered the king powerless. All state power was transferred to the government formed by these parties. This government conducted the election of constituent assembly (CA) in April 2008 where CPN (Maoist) emerged as the biggest political party and Nepali Congress and CPN (UML) had to face humiliating defeat. Madhesi parties of southern plain of Terai also emerged as a powerful player from this election. The election results also changed the power equation in Nepal and this has also partly contributed to unstable political situation. Constituent Assembly which was initially mandated for two years could not deliver constitution to the country in the stipulated time because of failure of political parties to reach to a consensus.

Contemporary Challenges
Mainstream democratic political parties are suspicious about Maoists motives. They feel that Maoists are heading towards establishment of totalitarian communist state. CAs tenure has already been extended for three times in 28 May 2010, 28 May 2011 and 28 August 2011, but again because of lack of faith among each other they have not been able to come up with the constitution. In the words of Ganga Bahadur Thapa no political system can achieve stability and legitimacy without working for people because a democracy must grow from people. But all political forces in Nepal including Nepali Congress, CPN (UML), CPN (Maoist) and Madhesi parties seem to be thinking tactically rather than strategically and their sole motive seems to be grabbing power. (Thapa, 2008) According to Saurabh Prasad there are several major challenges to democracy in Nepal. First, legitimizing the democratic process in the multiethnic and multicultural state where fundamental institutions of democracy are almost nonexistent and law and order situation is going worse from bad. Second, declaration of absolute Hindu Kingdom as secular is itself a problem. This move has bred new conflict within the country. Hindu majority which still retains strong influence throughout the country is not happy with it. Third, ending of monarchy and replacing it with a republic has not also been accepted totally in Nepal because there is still strong popular support for the King. Forth, incidents of killings, extortions, and other crimes have become regular phenomenon in a country once known for its peacefulness .Moreover separatists movements are raising their heads in southern Nepal (Prasad, 2007). Sachita Mathur in Spotlight writes Madhesis who make up one third of Nepals population have cultural and linguistic links to people of Northern India that distinguish from Nepals

majority and as result have endured economic and social discrimination want more right and better representation in states activities. Some groups there have formed several armed groups in Terai, most with secessionist goals. (Mathur, 2007) According to Krishna Pokharel(4) the April movement of 2006 has generated much awakening and synergy in the social fabric of Nepal. Different ethnic and disadvantaged group have emerged in the social setting and they are demanding right based share and meaningful role in the making of the constitution. Many new regional groups based on castes such as Limbuwan (of Limbus) ,Tharuhat (of Tharus) and they are anxiously waiting for the space in the political process. Females too are demanding their rights. Radical feminists have started asking how long 48% males will rule over 52% females. (Pokharel, 2007) .Dr S. Chandrashekharan (Chandrasekharan, 2011)believes that integration of Maoists fighters called PLA (Peoples Liberation Army) is not getting to be easy because its pace is very slow. It is also a major hurdle in democratization of Nepal.

Conclusion.
Constitution making is clearly at the core of consolidation of democracy in Nepal. Failing to do so can lead to anarchy and its consequences can be disastrous leading to emergence of conflicts and confrontations in many sectors. If there is no constitution, subsequent takeover by army (though this chance is slim) may also be possible. Armed outfit may intensify their activities. Major political parties therefore need to reach to consensus and promulgate the constitution in time. Maoists need to prove their commitment to democracy and democratic process in spite of some hard-liners demand for revolt. Maoists cadres need to be integrated in security forces or rehabilitated as previously agreed. Demands of marginalized and backwards people must be heard and commitment to solving their problems should be made in constitution. Political parties need to sort out the differences for the bright future of country. External forces such as India, UN, USA and European Union also push forward political parties of Nepal in this direction in order to save Nepal from being a failed state. But these utopian desires are very difficult to be fulfilled because of deep division among political parties, corruption in almost all sectors in Nepali society and bad governance. Election of Dr. Baburam Bhattarai as the Prime minister of Nepal has brought a lot of hope and enthusiasm in Nepal. In Dr. S.Chandrashekharans opinion new fragile coalition of Maoists and Madhesi Morcha may work if both of them are sincere. (Chandrasekharan, 2011)

Present government can and has to do a lot for the strengthening democracy but analysts are not very hopeful about it.

Bibliography Chandrasekharan, Dr. S. (2011, September 13). Nepal ; The New Dispension with Baburam Bhattarai as Primeminister, will it work ? Retrieved 09 15, 2011, from South Asian Analysis Group: www.southasiananalysis.org,New Delhi, India. Mathur, S. (2007, 08 20). Nepal's Stumbling Peace Process, the Challenge of Democracy. Spotlight . New Delhi, India. Pokharel, K. P. (2007). challenges of institutionalizing Democracy in Nepal. Retrieved 09 15, 2011, from Assosition of political science students: www.appssnepal.org Prasad, S. (2007, June 29). Nepal: Fresh challenges to Democracy in Nepal. Retrieved 09 15, 2011, from institute of peace and conflict studies: www.ipcs.org Thapa, G. B. (2008). International Relations in South Asia. New Delhi: Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd.