The matter here is of a leader’s retiring from active politics. Let’s see what figures we have among us with an equal or even better promises for our country and us

– By Bishnu Ghimire

The Nepali Times editorial raises a timely issue that has generally ignored. The topic of ‘death’ is a taboo in Nepali culture—we don’t talk about it up-front. It is even more so when it comes in conjunction with power, like in G. P. Koirala’s case. In addition to this taboo factor, our national political history is abundantly marked by the instances of ad-hoc tendency in its leaders. So far as it is working, nobody seems to care about how it is working, and the prospect of considering an alternative is even further away, if existent at all.

Despite the need of urgency for an alternative provision, jointly caused by the contingent political developments on the one hand and the testimony of history against the trustworthiness of most of the ‘mainstream’ political leaders, Nepalis need to take up a calm and mature approach to the issue. Even a faintest strain of nervousness can be fatal to the newly achieved democratic political system, for the notorious sniff-dogs of the apparently deceased regime are more active in their nocturnal rounds than ever before. Nervousness produces an environment conducive to those degenerate byproducts of multiparty-democracy scavenging the ruins of the past for an opportunity for foul play. These dastardly tendencies that originate and flourish in the slough of political uncertainty are antithetical to a progressive democracy. Nepali people, and especially their representatives, have to be vigilant against these elements.

Narrow party-politics is not a permissible strategy for the present; nor is the arrogant self-proclaimed ‘new generation’ radical approach to the cause of republic a viable alternative.

Extra caution is needed now as the history tells us that even very serious national issues in Nepal have deeply divided the people along the lines of political -isms. We have seen every kind of government in the past; enough of them even after the popular movement of 1990. Major political players in the post-1990 era were not only divided along their –ism lines, but also allowed themselves to be (mis)led by the notorious puppeteers from the regime they had fought against. Democrat/socialist divide should not be a guiding principle in Nepali politics any more; or we will be getting nowhere. There is no doubt about it.

The impossibility of the radical possibility hardly needs any elaboration here. It is a very beautiful dream; but it is intrinsically flawed because of its over-emphasis on the fantasy-element. This attitude is both faulty and incomplete. It is not accommodative enough to accept the current post-April developments in Nepali politics as a step toward a ‘new’ Nepal, and it cannot envision a democratic society which will “have to” take along all Nepalis (even if some of them don’t accept the ‘mainstream’ conviction). Firstly, this attitude belligerently denies the perils of elbowing a volatile wall of reactionary elements. The stockpile of the ‘outcasts’ is keenly watching the current developments with the hope of a yet another come back. It will not be wise to just ignore them and feel oneself secure. There should be a proper and reliable management of all the powerhouses, and a permanent dismantling of the reactionary set ups and annihilation of all viable routes of their return to the active political arena. Secondly, it stands squarely challenging the fundamentals of transitional political practices; like the one represented by the mainstream political parties and the recently restored House of Representatives in Nepal.

All-inclusive participatory democracy is the only solution; and we need a leader who can understand this need genuinely. This moderate voice will succeed in Nepali politics because the Nepalis are aware of their time and they cannot afford any more of the idolatry of the bygone days. Nepal needs a midway path also because it has to negotiate its independent identity without upsetting the geo-political balance it so badly needs.
This discussion, I hope, provides Nepali people by opening up a few important and crucial fronts needing consideration to help them determine future leadership qualities. It can work as a platform to stand on and look around before staking their future at the hands of someone who will represent them as a leader. Nepalis should prepare themselves for the responsibility to bear the burden. This kind of decision might be required of them in near future. Mr. Koirala is in his mid-eighties. He has proven himself by acting with the grain of popular movements—not to mention a few ‘involuntary lapses’, which might be attributed to the prevalent contemporary feudal worldview that he was keenly observing. Otherwise anyone can hardly doubt about his benevolent intentions and unwavering devotion to the cause of democracy.

It is time that Nepalis people think of a leap forward from the narrow party-politics and consider someone who has a clear vision of future Nepal and has a proven ability to leadership and thorough knowledge of the intricate procedures in forging partnership with sometime irreconcilable forces. All-inclusive participatory democracy is the only solution; and we need a leader who can understand this need genuinely. This moderate voice will succeed in Nepali politics because the Nepalis are aware of their time and they cannot afford any more of the idolatry of the bygone days. Nepal needs a midway path also because it has to negotiate its independent identity without upsetting the geo-political balance it so badly needs.

A new sapling emerges from the ruins of an old trunk; past gave birth to the present, which, in turn, readily accepts its end to give way to future. In nature, this all seems to be more obvious and less challenging. But, who knows whether the young plant will ever become a big tree, or whether the future will ever come?

Let’s not make it more difficult for ourselves and for Mr. Koirala by sentimentally contemplating the issue and transform it into an insurmountable national destitution. The matter here is of a leader’s retiring from active politics. Let’s see what figures we have among us with an equal or even better promises for us and our Nepal. However, it is important that the potential candidate should start out asking himself/herself, ‘Can I do it?’ ‘Do I have that in me?’ Most importantly, the element of ‘ad hoc’ must be done away with so that a more natural flow of power and leadership can be guaranteed for future.

(A student at the Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, Ghimire can be reached at [email protected])

(Editor’s Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal around the globe are requested to contribute their views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than 1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the article. Please send your write-ups to [email protected])