Institutionalising Democracy: A Study of Parliamentary Institution in Nepal, 1990-2002

Abstract

In the modern governance system, democracy gets wider applause for the reason itfunctions and grows on the choice of the most.Similarly, democratization provides abasis of availing wider opportunities to all. And, its lasting momentum depends on thesupport of general public that provides it required legitimacy as the political order tofunction effectively. Growth of such an order as the form of a political system helps itto institutionalize the practices and institutions evolved for its continued functioning.Such a process of institutionalized growth helps the democratic system to take a deeproot to function in a sustainablemanner. While reviewing the theoretical aspects of institutionalization we need to ponder on the ideasof political scholars. Various connotations but of almost the same theme have been referredand used by the scholars to put the term institutionalization into a broader conceptualperspective. It is, to Huntington, a “process” that helps “organisation or procedure acquirevalueand stability”. Likewise, Hurton & Hunt referred it to the entrenchment of certain normsof behaviour to attain "common values" with the "common procedures" by pursuing the"standardized behavioural patterns". To Degnabol-Martinussen it encompasses the meaningof "institutional patterns or arrangements" that includes "formal arrangements and informalnorms, customs, conventions and standardoperating practices" for the "broader institutionalarrangements". Uphoff refers institution building as a process that is basically related with the"introduction and establishment of organisations" that on its part "induce changes" with the"belief and action within a society". Goodin & Klingemann specifies it with “rule of thegame” that determines the behaviour directly related with the organisation and its members’.Theoretically, it does not allow to any to behave in a "taken for granted" manner and alwaysexpects the concerned to follow the set of "standard operating procedures", which are "…agreed upon and hitherto followed by the agents involved". Maurice Duverger deals it with“internal and external practices’ of any system to function. Moreover,Panebianco stressfullyput forth the idea of “systemness” of any process which solidifies the system and provides the“source of legitimacy” that deals with “limited freedom of autonomy’ but evidently discardsthe “higher degree of maneuverability”. Nepal’s struggle for the multi-party parliamentary democracy has always been facing acrunch for stability and permanence from the day it has been introduced,so, its sustainabilityis always in question. If Nepal’s challenge of threat to democratic sustainability is to be addressed the political parties, leaders and other concerned have to pursue for itsinstitutionalisation. The political elites of Nepal often connotes democracy to parliamentary form of governancewith multi-party in nature but the challenges it faced since its inception made them feelimperative to institutionlise it by pursuing required gravity and practices of parliamentarynature. In this connection, Copeland and Patterson’s concept about democracy withparliamentary nature seems pertinent in Nepalese context which mentions “… a group ofindividuals operating on behalf of other in a binding and legitimate manner”. In the givensituation, no matter the future of Nepal’s political system will be identified by what, andwhich system may be adopted in whatever form (presidential or parliamentary or hi-breed) itneeds to adopt parliamentary nature of decision making–decision by debate-executive to beanswerable to elected legislature. The experience had so far been shown that the politicalmilieu of Nepal persistently possesses a notion built by the familiarity of its practices ascarried out democratic movements, which was followed by practices to correct the aberrationscommitted so far. Whatever may be Nepal’s future political system but its governance systemneeds to create an environment within which people live a life with human dignity havingindividual freedom as well as enjoys personal liberties in determining the structure of a wellordered regime.Nepal’s march towards democracy couldbe seen with the resemblance of thephases of country’s nation building process as initiated for governance by gaining publicmandate. Upon this reality the multi party parliamentary democracy is reinstalled in 1990. Butthe political situation was marredwith political instability. However, the accession of themore than a dozen of governments within the similar number of years (1990-2002, firsttakeover of King Gyanendra), reflects it. The frequent changes of governments were all donethrough applying parliamentary practices and within the constitutional norms but only to leadits institutionalisation process to held-up. The inter and intra party rifts seen among the partieslead to prove mockery of democracy to the dismay of the people in favour of liberal values ofthe polity that gives them a sense of power-sharing. Nepal since the beginning of its history as nation is facing the unresolved issue of powersharing among the political actors; king, ruling aristocracies, people represented by thepolitical parties, dissident rebels/ insurgents, etc. In Nepal, Parliament–the symbol of modernpolitical institution representing the people and creating an impression of power-sharing tothem is marred by the petty interests of the political institutions and its leaders. Nepal has theexperience of expediting political institutionlisation of parliamentary institutions directlythrough the revolution but not by evolution. To make this goal attained, the political leaderalso needs to be proactive instead of onlybeing reactive to the causes of the people. It has been seen during the second experiment (post-1990) of parliamentary system that the politicalleaders in most of the cases rarely take any preemptive decision/ action before the public riseup. On the other, people of Nepal also to be made of responding in a behaviour of followingvigilant citizenry and make them able to behave in the pattern of “participant culture”. Contrary to the British experience of institutionalizing its political process (institutions), it isexperienced that the evolution of Nepal’s experiment to democratic order is very much basedin revolutionary type of politics of movement. In both the cases the situation is founddifferent in the matters of stability, growth and progress of the political institutions. A changethrough evolution is found to be sustaining to have progressive outlook and remaineddevelopment oriented but the changes brought through revolution are different and difficult toretain in the society like ours, where unpredictable political dynamics create situations to cropup neutralizing the former. In order to check such adverse effect on democracyinstitutioanlisation of parliamentary system will prove only the real vanguard in Nepal,because it replaces a tendency of "spontaneous or experimental behaviours” being oftenpracticed “with behaviour which is expected, patterned, regular, and predictable". The process of institutionalization could be achieved through following measures(Suggestions): - Adherence to the concept of Pluralism and Rule of Law. - Pursue Participant Culture for evolving effective Civility. - Develop a tendency of habitual following of peaceful means for theresolution of problems being encountered. - Parliament should be taken as the Apex national Organ for PolicyFormulation and Lawmaking acts. - Need of looking forward to Progressive Measures both at Political andEconomic Fronts. - Need of Democratic education to masses as the part of political training thatdeals with the process & spirit of democracy. - Need to comply with the spirit of rule of the game and institutionalize cultureof participation. - Political Parties required to remain United and pursue Coherent Strategy tolead the people.