E-Kantipur

Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai admitted some time ago that he was unable to control the actions of his cabinet colleagues belonging to other parties and the corruption and malgovernance in their ministries. He also asked that his performance as prime minister be judged, not on the performance of the ministries, but on his success in driving the peace and constitution drafting processes forward. The opposition parties and the media have ridiculed Bhattarai’s comment. But judging by political events, a degree of laxity on matters related to governance does appear to contribute to forging consensus among coalition partners on matters related to the ongoing political transition.

A coalition government in a country like Nepal is very difficult to control by the prime minister. In order to ensure that he receives support for broader political decisions, the head of government has to ensure that a sufficiently broad range of actors on the political spectrum are able to share in the spoils of power. It also makes political sense to overlook their misdeeds. Although never articulated as such, this is the reason why all parties insist that a national consensus government is a prerequisite for the drafting of the constitution. While significant differences over the content of this document persist, it is acknowledged that by granting all of the major players a share in power, they will have more of an incentive to reach an agreement with other political parties. Participation in government and access to the resources of the state has a tendency to make parties better disposed towards each other and may even inculcate in them a sense of responsibility towards undertaking larger political tasks such as the drafting of the constitution.

In fact, the current government offers a clear example of this. The tremendous representation of Madhesi parties in the current cabinet is unprecedented. Since the period when negotiations over the formation of this government were ongoing, the prime minister has made major efforts to include them in all political decisions, including the recent one on the integration and rehabilitation of Maoist combatants. As a result, there is very little discontent among the Madhesi leadership at the moment and they have muted the demands they used to make with such vehemence. Instead, they have become more cooperative in the attempt to reach an agreement on federalism. They easily agreed to the formation of a State Restructuring Commission, even though their previous agreement with the Maoists explicitly stated that an “expert panel” would be formed instead of a commission. Madhesi leaders have also finally started acknowledging in public

that their demand for a single Madhesi state encompassing the entire Tarai is unfeasible.

There is some disillusionment among the Madhesi people towards their leaders. But the overwhelming feeling towards the current government in the Eastern Tarai appears to be positive. The very fact that so many political leaders who look like them and speak their language are in government is seen as a matter of some pride. This is so even though representation has not translated into tangible benefits for the majority of the Madhesi population.

At the same time, however, the attempt to ensure wide participation in government should not be ignored. It is first blatantly clear that very few of the Madhesi leaders currently in government are much concerned about

actually running their ministries in an effective manner. Most of them have invested much in coming to power. They have expended much effort in trying to gain power at the expense of other leaders in the Madhesi community. They have spent a lot of money in forming parties or in gaining the support of various constituencies. They thus perceive their current position as the fruit of their efforts. And so they view their ministerial roles as primarily meant to recover the costs they have incurred in their rise to power.

The Kathmandu classes may be vocal in their criticism of what is perceived to be the uncontrolled corruption engaged in by Madhesi leaders, but the capital is not the constituency of these leaders and these criticisms do not play a large part in shaping their actions. In fact, in the Madhes, which is where their constituency lies, there is not much of a demand for the clean and effective functioning of ministries. It is enough that people from that region are in power. Many in the Madhes will take satisfaction in being able to acquire a contract or a job for one of their children through their contacts who have access to power in Kathmandu. Others, with less access, will simply be happy to see someone like themselves in power.

Of course, this is not something that is particular to Madhesis. Experience from other South Asian countries, particularly India, demonstrates that when members of a group that has hitherto been underrepresented gain power, the demands their community make upon them do not include good governance. Rather, the community looks on approvingly when their leader engages in what others perceive to be corrupt self-aggrandisement. In its view, the leader is only doing what the traditionally powerful people in the past. The pace of self-aggrandisement and self-enrichment may have become accelerated, but this is perceived as the necessary restitution of a historical wrong. The history of Mayawati’s political career in Uttar Pradesh offers ample evidence of this fact.

Of course, such a phase cannot continue indefinitely. Again as various Indian examples show, voters get tired of leaders who do not deliver even after being in power for long stretches of time. The thrill of having someone from one’s own community in power also does not last forever.

Nepal, however, is only just entering a period where identity is of supreme political importance. With new groups coming into power, election results are likely to be increasingly more fragmented. This is somewhat desirable, as it will lead to deeper democratisation. But this will also mean that competition for ministerial portfolios will become even more intense, they will be treated as resources to be consumed and distributed, and it will be very difficult to ensure good governance and discipline.

aditya.adhikari@gmail.com

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.