Wednesday, February 1, 2006

Looking at how the country's politics moved in the recent days and weeks or was forced to follow the course it charted spontaneously what becomes clear is that Nepal is not only a land of extremes but also a fertile ground where even the universally accepted established definitions of a democratic system could be twisted at one's will that suited to one most albeit politically.

To participate in the elections or the conduct of elections is an important constituent of a democratic system then equally true, or has been made true, is that non-participation or even disturbing the elections also composed a very powerful element of a democratic system. What has also been further established here in Nepal that forcing the candidates to offer their candidacy by one interested quarter in the elections is the championing the cause for a democracy then concurrently sending threat loaded signals to the candidates is also a democracy.

Had Abraham Lincoln been alive and witnessed how Nepali leaders behaved both in favor of the elections and those against it he surely would have exclaimed, Jesus Christ!

So what has been established here in Nepal that either you favor or go against it both constituted an important factor of a democratic system? Fortunately both the opposing views have found backers here and there. This is intriguing indeed.

One is at his or her will, as much as was made clear, to define the norms and the values of a democratic system according to the set of idea(s) one adhered to. Now the definitions of a democratic system have been changed. What one does is a democracy. What one does not too is a democracy. Providing hidden support, good or bad, too is a democracy now. Let's live with this fact that soon will take the form of precedence and at a later stage assume the force of a law.

That the first part of the municipal elections have already been completed and a good number of candidates stand now unopposed and that the legitimate election commission will soon handover legal certificates to the winners thereby legitimizing their stay in their offices is a fact. The certificates thus provided to the candidates who have bagged victory by default will not only provide legitimacy to their being in the office but would also slowly but steadily distance the now established leaders housed at the moment in the opposition camps from their own voters. Slowly but steadily today's established leaders at the municipal levels will be forgotten by their people. As per the customs that are common and general in third world countries is that who so ever is in power is respected and honored. Today's unknown leaders, let's admit this hard fact, will soon become known and recognized leaders of the areas. This will happen for sure if traditions are maintained indeed.

Without passing any comments on whether the opposing parties did good or bad what we would wish to convey to the leaders of the big-7 is that they should have managed some how or the other to defer the elections through the use of various channels available to them prior to the date of the nominations. However, this did not unfortunately materialize. Whose fault? We see no body's fault except the ego factor on both the informed sides that apparently worked in full steam and thus this scenario.

By and by we wish to tell the leaders of the big-7 that the aspirants candidates who did not go in for nominations or for that matter those who have been withdrawing their nominations or even canceling their awarded seats have been doing so that they were overwhelmed by the expressions of their fiery speeches against the election or, let's say against the monarch, but they did so for fear of their lives. It is not that those who withdrew from the elections did so for fear of a societal boycott but they did so to remain unscathed from being the wrath of the Maoists brothers who have when made an avowal have accomplished their job. After all no one would wish to sacrifice his or her precious lives for petty gains at the elections.

There should be no illusion to the leaders of the big-7 that they have won the game. In effect they have failed miserably. But even if they conclude that they have won then it is through the kind courtesy of the Maoists.

Finally, we consider that the time is still left for some sort of reconciliation in between the King and the agitating seven. We understand the spirit of the message of the European Commission and highly value the inner intent of the EU that things should improve for the better in Nepal which implies that the EU would still love a sort of understanding in between the King and the seven parties.

What is the harm in looking at this positive side of the EU message that was released last week.