The restoration of multiparty democracy in 1990 was a welcome factor which would have directed spontaneous socio-economic-politico development in the desired direction, correcting the three-decade-long Panchayati retardation of liberal democracy. But Nepal has been deprived of that opportunity because of an intrinsic flaw in the understanding of the socio-economic-politico dynamics in the thinking of the political leaders. 

That flaw was reflected in the understanding that civil servants are not national servants but are subservient to the political leadership. So, the politicians started by dividing the civil servants along party lines. Those supporting the Nepali Congress were organised as Nepal Civil Servants Association (Nepal Karmachari Sangh) and those favouring the UML were called the Nepal Civil Servants’ Organisation (Nepal Karmachari Sangathan). That was how it began, but it has triggered such a vicious process that by now there are as many brands of civil servants’ organisation as there are political parties.

Systemic problems

The division of civil servants along party lines has created two main systemic problems. The first is the subordination of civil servants to political leaders, who are the creators of competitive politics where only political victory counts. Whether a policy is good or bad is judged not by its intrinsic merit but by the gains a political party can derive from it. When the ruling party adopts such a policy, it results in political unrest, leading ultimately to political instability.

The second problem is the weakening of the civil service. In a vibrant democracy, there is a tacit understanding that political authorities make policies, but the civil servants are the ones who implement them. Civil servants also influence policy-making by using their long experiences. This is more likely in a new democracy because of political leaders’ relative lack of exposure to statecraft. 

But in Nepal, the political leaders who came to power without much experience in statecraft tried their hand not only at policy formulation but also its execution. This became possible because the civil service had virtually been subjugated to political authority. The division of the civil servants along party lines not only made them subjugated but also created a deep chasm among them, making them—whenever they happened to be in power—take revenge against the civil servants of the opposite ideology. 

Victims of division

The first victim of this division among the civil servants was the unity of the country. It grieves me that our political parties never placed national unity as their top priority. The civil servants were made to toe the line adopted by their respective party bosses. While they took pride in siding with their bosses in the beginning, they could not resist it later. So the political culture muddied the administrative culture, which the civil servants failed to contain. 

The second victim was the rule of law. The leaders were able to violate the law whenever it was in their interest to do so. It resulted in both the criminalisation of politics and the politicisation of crime. Party leaders reared and protected dons who indulged in myriad crimes like looting, abducting for exorbitant ransom, and the like. 

The story does not end here. The process of divisiveness was so severe that parties began to split in endless ways not on ideological basis but mainly on the basis of personality, caste, ethnicity, etc. Established democracies in the world are mainly bi- or tri-party systems, but in Nepal the number of parties exceeded triple digits. Although most of the so-called parties are written off for failing to send a single representative to Parliament, the system erodes the fabric of social harmony. The provision of a threshold of three percent at the national legislature to be declared a national party had some effect, but it has been resented and stopped. So there are one-member parties that have the potential to derail parliamentary deliberations. This is a horrible political picture.

The worst form of erosion of national unity is the call for ethnicity and regionalism in Nepal’s politics. The Maoists, during their decade-long insurgency, raised the slogan of ethnicity and demanded ethnic autonomy. This almost revived tribalism in Nepali politics, disturbing the age-long social harmony.

The call for regionalism had an even more damaging impact on Nepal’s national unity. The so-called Madhesi movement took a criminal form, and carried slogans of separatism. It has culminated in the present Madhesi agitation which, together with the Indian embargo, has caused huge economic losses. It has resulted not only in regional unrest but also in spoiled bilateral relations with India.

There is more

The main cause behind the failure of the first Constutient Assembly (CA) to bring out a constitution was the disunity among the major political parties. A temporary unity among the major parties after the second CA was responsible for the promulgation of a new constitution. But with the Nepali Congress having left the alliance and the Maoists dilly-dallying, the full implementation of the constitution is at great risk. The country’s federalisation will remain incomplete until the agitating forces agree on a model. 

The story is still incomplete. The political disunity has taken a heavy toll on several other fronts. A large number of important posts such as chiefs of Commissions, Ambassadors, University VCs and other high ranking officers take not only months but years to fill, because of a tacit quota system among the major parties. This not only hampers regular work inside the nation, but also tarnishes our image internationally. The donors have complained of slow or no progress in the implementation of various donor-aided programmes, and threatened to withdraw aid. The funds for most of the local development programmes are abused. 

The recently presented budget is claimed to be the best budget ever. But the prospect of its implementation is grim. The main opposition party, the NC, has criticised it as mere fantasy. 

The prospect of reshuffling the Cabinet in the name of a national Cabinet is hotly debated. But no party or leader seems to be aware of the danger of a constitutional crisis if federal restructuring is not completed in less than two years from now.

A ray of hope of unity has appeared in the recently held election of the union of civil servants. But whether the politicians will tolerate unity among the civil servants remains a big question.

Sharma is a political analyst. He can be contacted at [email protected]