The definition of power is highly contested. Power is defined to be an abstract entity that enables a person to make others do what one wants them to do. Power is gained through many ways that include wealth, religion, knowledge and politics. Economic power is exercised by rich people upon poor. Religious power is exercised by religious leaders upon disciples and followers. Academic power is shared by academicians with their colleagues and pupils. Political power is imposed by governors over the governed. In many forms of power, the exerciser of power is virtually free from the one whom he or she exercises the power upon because the power holder does not hold any bond from the ones upon which their power is exercised. To be the power holders, there are specific criteria and qualifications but it is not equally applicable to political power holders in at least two counts: first, political power holders do not generally hold any particular qualifications except that they are the member of a particular party and there are no qualifications to be a member of party except that one is the citizen of the country where the party is formed and functioning; second, the exercisers of political power hold a crystal clear contract with the governed that they govern in the interest of the governed therefore it is transitory.
The contract is between the rulers and the ruled. Generally, the rulers go to the people, present their job-list or policies that they want to implement if they are elected and mandated by the people but if they fail, people hold right to oust such rulers. This principle vest sovereignty in the hand of the people and has been widely practised in modern representative democracy. Nepal is also conjectured by the political parties and particularly whoever is on the power to be such a representative democracy. But in the context of Nepal, it is limited in virtual understanding because an analysis of post 1990 political scenarios of Nepal does not provide convincing evidence to be so. Even the whole history ever since Kathmandu became the capital of modern Nepal in 1769 lacks the evidence of people friendly rule. For example, the pre-Rana regime rulers were mostly involved in war for the greater extension of Nepal which could be the reflections of then existing trends of building empire across the world. Indeed, Nepal was united during this period and we are proud of being Nepali today even if the rulers were busy at calculating the influence of their power.
Nepal fought Anglo-Nepal war in 1814 and had been forced to sign the treaty of Sugauli in 1816. We must be proud of our ancestors for their sacrifice to maintain the existence of Nepal. Yet, Sugaili treaty was a way to distract British by then Nepalese rulers in the favour of clinging to power. Later Jung Bahadur became the Prime Minister of Nepal in 1846 and the Kot Scandal was also another example of attempts to reach to political power that freely allowed Ranarchy to continue until 1950. Ranas did everything to prevent dissent. During this period, people were deprived of educational, social and political rights. For example, the literacy rate of 1951 was 2 per cent in Nepal. The Peace and Friendship treaty of 1950 signed by Mohan Shamsher along with a secret letter with India was the telling evident of then rulers to maintain the rein of power in their hand. Post 1990 politics also include many examples such as the attempts of late GP Koirala to remain in the power forever by capturing chairman position of Nepali Congress and chair of the Prime Minister of Nepal; the decision of Sher Bahadur Deuba to dissolve the parliament and go for fresh election in 2002 which gave a chance to ex-king Gyanendra consolidate his power for direct rule in 2005.
Maoists people’s war for 10 years that had begun in 1996 and ended in 2006 at Jana Andolan II is also a power seeking agenda. Seven Party Alliance plus Maoists had collectively revolted against absolute monarchy for the transfer of power from monarch to the people. These alliance were also seeking power though in different way because the movement had widespread participation of general public and civil society organizations such as associations of lawyers, teachers, doctors, nurses, university teachers, journalists, students and many others. Public and civil society had high expectations for peace, security, harmonious society, economic growth and development therefore the participation was so huge. Yet the expectations of the people have not yet materialized due to the power game of the political parties. Many complain that only characters have changed in politics not system. This is evidently true.
People gave a clear mandate to the Constituent Assembly to complete peace process, constitution writing process and take the decision on the fate of monarchy within two years timeframe from April 2008 to May 2010. The power game of forming and toppling governments remained pervasive during this period which put the main issues of CA agenda aside. Several extensions had been made along with blatant public spending from taxpayers’ money or from international loan/aid. Every time the political parties acted as if the CA was the parliament: government and opposition. In these last four years, each of these political parties always used the term ‘consensus and national coalition government’ but in practise that never took place. Some parties joined the government and other became opponents as if they were debating policies. They even forgot the actual purpose of the CA.
Only in the last four year time, we had five different governments. Five Prime Ministers, many deputy prime ministers and the floods of ministers and state ministers. Indeed, no one can remember their names and respective ministries except the data. The four different prime minister candidates, two from UML and two from UCPN (M), always barked that they would take the peace process and constitution writing to the logical end but these things never happened. It does not mean nothing happened in these last four year time. Some grave transformations have occurred such as republic from monarchy, secular from Hindu, inclusive and proportional representation, 33 per cent representation of women in state’s mechanisms and nearing conclusion of peace process. However, these achievements have not well been institutionalized yet. And there are many more challenges ahead such as completing lasting peace process, drafting constitution, minimizing the threats of potential communal disintegrity, equal right of every citizen irrespective of any caste, race, gender, ethnic or non-ethnic groups are a few among many others.
These are uphill challenges before political leaders. Time has been crucial and it has demanded actions but the power-prone nature of political leaders is dilapidating the favourable environment. Leaders, if there is any, should understand that political power and legitimacy is gained through the consent of people and if people withdraw their consent, both power and legitimacy becomes fraught. The current government of Nepal does not hold any legitimacy in this sense because the legitimacy Baburam Bhattarai had had at the time of becoming PM is entirely lost now. The two major and many small parties do not support his leadership. His own party has been split. The fight between Dahal and Baburam factions during the plenum of UCPN (Maoist) sends signal that the ruling party is in pitiable minority. Therefore, Baburam should not consider that time has come for him to step down in order to form a new national consensus government to complete the remaining tasks either through fresh elections or referendum. His clinging onto power might make sense to him but history has evidently shown that power unsupported by people crumbles like a sand castle when some drops of water fall on it.