Democracy is often defined as the least bad form of governance. Are we still stuck with this ‘lesser evil’ definition of democracy and thus, supposed to expect not much good from democracy? Are all democracies destined to fail? Is democracy all about the messy, zigzag road? The Economist has sought to unravel and answer questions like these. Given Nepal’s political situation—prolonged transition, drafting a new constitution and, moreover, a resurgence of some ultra-left and ultra-right political parties—the questions raised and the answers found by The Economist are worth pondering.

Democracy under assault

First, a synopsis of what The Economist had to say about current setbacks in democracy. Two factors are pointed out to be responsible for democracy losing favour—one, the financial crisis of 2007-08 and two, the rise of China. If the financial crisis caused many to lose faith in the political system in the West, the rise of China, which is pointedly not a democracy, helped to instil the idea that economic progress does not need democracy. The China factor has been bolstered by setbacks in Russia, Iraq and Egypt. The idea that democracy is the least bad form of governance was supported by the fact that other forms of governance were basically tyrannical in nature. However, the environment within which democracy is expected to nurture and grow has dramatically changed.

There are primarily three forces assaulting democracy. The first is the forces of globalisation (top-down forces). Democracy is no longer exercised within the boundaries of a nation or a parliament. National politicians have to increasingly surrender their decision-making capacity to international forces and institutions. Second, pressure is exerted by would-be breakaway nations (bottom-up forces), NGOs and lobbyists. Third, pressure is exerted by the voters themselves (forces within). In the West, with the rise in the aging population, a clash is brewing between the past—old people demanding their inherited entitlements—and the future—the younger generation demanding future investments.

In its survey, The Economist is not all pessimistic. Quoting Alexis de Tocqueville, the newsmagazine writes, “Democracy might look weaker and confused at the surface but has lots of hidden strengths.” The strengths of democracy come from its ability to offer alternative leaders with alternative solutions to existing problems and challenges. However, democracy, to be sustainable, must be built on a strong foundation. “In order to harness human creativity but also to check human perversity, and then kept in good working order, democracy must be constantly oiled, adjusted and worked upon,” suggests the magazine.

A faltering democracy

This brief survey of democracy has many lessons for Nepal’s fledgling—some would say failing—democracy. When it comes to democracy, we are still driven by regular elections and majoritarian rule. We have ignored all other ingredients for a sustainable democracy, like a competent civil

service, guaranteed constitutional rights, checks and balances, rule of law and an independent judiciary. There is an inherent limit to majoritarian rule in a multi-ethnic country like Nepal, where, approximately, Bahun-Chhetris, Janajatis and Madhesis each constitute one-third of the populace. This underlying demographic feature makes majoritarian rule non-operative in Nepal. We harp on about decision by consensus but when situation suits our needs, we prefer majoritarian rule.

In all countries where democracy is in crisis, Nepal being no exception, the failure to address corruption is identified as a primary underlying factor. There is a kind of absurd relationship between democracy and corruption. In the long-run, democracy is expected to control corruption by installing checks and balances, by empowering people and requiring politicians to deliver what they have promised. The available empirical results put the time factor at around two decades.

However, in the short run, democracy, with its power play mechanisms, could very easily breed corruption. Nepal’s anti-graft agencies are currently busy fighting corruption only at the bureaucratic level. When it comes to fighting political corruption, they not only look timid but actually have nothing in their arsenal. Issues like campaign financing, political party finance, conflict of interests, state capture by elites, nepotism and patronage systems and corruption acting as ‘a revolving door’ between business and politics have never been a matter of concern for us. It is sickening to see a government secretary who retires and joins a political party preach anti-corruption lessons to the public. To add insult to injury, Nepal’s media keeps busy presenting these figures as national heroes.

Top-down, bottom-up

There are sea changes happening in the anti-corruption drive in both our northern and southern neighbours and we are virtually blind. In China, President Xi Jinping, with a five year anti-corruption plan to wipe out meat eating ‘tigers’ and low flying ‘flies’, is determined to fight corruption with a top-down approach (for example, party purges). Compared to this, India, with its Anna Hazare anti-corruption mass movement and the consequential Aam Aadmi Party, is determined to fight corruption through a bottom-up approach.

In the days to come, Nepal will be squeezed between these two bewildering approaches. With a Spartan figure like Sushil Koirala at the helm of the state, it is time for a now-or-never fight against corruption. There is a kind of paradox that operates in Nepal: capable persons are not honest and honest persons are not capable. It is time for Sushil Koirala to be both.

Manandhar is a freelance consultant with an interest in corruption and governance issues