That wasn't the first time I was asked such a question though. For umpteenth times, Nepal's self-righteous rightists and western expats ignorant of Nepal's checkered political past have raised that question. Actually, more than a question, it is often presented as an argument? as if it makes an indefensible case against democracy.
This 'democracy-instability' myth has been built upon the democratic years ?1990 through 2002? to provide a murky view of that period. One way to debunk the myth is to stretch this truncated history to a longer time frame and objectively assess the "instability" question throughout the rule of the Shah Dynasty.
As a matter of fact, since Prithivi Narayan Shah unified Nepal in 1768, no prime minister has completed a full term (except during the Rana Oligarchy when the kings had virtually no or very limited power). None of the five Mulkajis (prime ministers) who preceded the Rana rule ? Damodar Pandey, Rana Jung Pandey, Bhimsen Thapa, Mathawar Singh Thapa and Ranga Nath Poudel ? had a natural exit from power.
In between 1952 and 1960, after the end of Rana Oligarchy, we had 10 governments in just eight years. In between 1960 and 1990? the Panchyat era, under the leadership of absolute monarchy ? government heads were changed 22 times. Similarly, in between 1990 and 2002, during the parliamentary rule, 10 governments were changed in 12 years. And, finally, after 2002 October, since the king assumed executive power, we have seen four governments in just three years.
In this panoramic view of history, who deserve more blame for the political instability in Nepal ? political parties or the monarchy? In a parliamentary system, especially during a political transition, the impatience of lawmakers to change the government is understandable. But what prompts successive kings to have new prime minister almost every year even during their absolute rule?
During the Panchyat era, Prime Ministers were appointed and dismissed at the whims of the king. Not a single prime minister (except Marich Man Singh) lasted for three years?most of them were dismissed in less than a year. In a fashion for tragic comedy, many of them were again picked to serve the king. Surya Bahadur Thapa, for instance, was appointed and dismissed as prime minister for five times. In 1966, King Mahendra dismissed Thapa on the charge of embezzling foreign currency and nepotism in civil administration.
However, King Birendra picked Thapa again in 1979 to oversee national referendum, only to be sacked unceremoniously through impeachment in Rastriya Panchyat four years later.
Even during the 12 years of parliamentary exercise, the people most responsible for the frequent change of government were the lawmakers of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP). They were the people who had learned the ropes of politics under the active leadership of monarchy and were groomed by it in many cases. During the time of hung parliament -- between 1994 to 1999-- when RPP had emerged as the kingmaker, there were five governments in just four years. Almost in every six months, RPP lawmakers voted out the government that they had chosen to install a few months ago. RPP also has earned a dubious distinction of the most unstable party in the post 1990 period, with a record number of splits and unifications.
The political instability of post-1990 period is, therefore, not an invention of the political parties or the multiparty democracy for that matter. It, instead, is a continuation of the 237-year old legacy of the Shah Dynasty. Thus, if the political parties deserve blame for the instability, it should be for their inability to break that brutal legacy of the history.
Had parliamentary exercise gone uninterrupted, it would have taken care of the instability by itself. Granted, the leaders would be reluctant to learn the lessons quickly, but the voters would have forced them to do so anyway.
The Nepali electorates have already proven wrong the patronizing urban elite and many westerners who thought the poor and illiterate Nepalis would not make a sensible choice in the ballots. In the first parliamentary election in 1991, voters gave the Nepali Congress 114 seats, UML 69 and RPP only 3. Voters rewarded NC and UML for their role in Janandolan and punished RPP for Panchayat connections.
In the second general election in 1994, voters punished NC for intra-party bickering and gave only 83 seats, while they rewarded the main opposition UML with 88 seats, making it the largest party in the parliament. They also gave 20 seats to RPP, a reward for expressing their commitment and standing for multiparty democracy.
In the third general elections, voters punished UML for intra-party bickering and gave them only 68 seats but glorified NC once again with 113 seats for going to the people with a united voice and promising stability. They also punished RPP for its destabilizing role in the hung parliament and gave them only 12 seats. Hardly in any transition democracies, have the electorates voted with such a wisdom and maturity.
International experience also shows that wherever the heads of states and others wielded military power and meddled with democracy, stability has only eluded them. Four Central American countries?Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua? present an unhappy and unending saga of instability and misery. Just in next forty years since 1948, they have had more than 48 governments, thirty-two of them through military coup d'?tat.
Whereas their next door neighbor, Costa Rica, presents a different picture altogether?it's a happy story of stability, peace and prosperity. In a daring move, the democratically elected president in Costa Rica in 1950 abolished the army eliminating the threat that continues to destabilize its neighbors till the date. Thus, only people? not the king or the army? are the source of stability in the long run.
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=45146
.png)
