The present government came into existence in a political context in which both the power composition and power hierarchy were different from those in today’s political context. Portfolio distribution, while forming the present coalition government, was based on the then power composition and power hierarchy. With the end of the old political context, there has also been an end to the basis for the present coalition government. The next government must be based on the present power composition and power hierarchy. The political composition of the next government must be determined by the power hierarchy that has emerged in the ensuing post-CA poll context. It is at least this fact that necessitates the formation of a new government.
What is the next government for? One answer would be that it is for facilitating the process involved in drafting and endorsing a constitution by the newly created Constituent Assembly. However, it is wrong to think that the facilitation of the process in question is its only responsibility. To the contrary, some argue that because the CA election, as the term itself would suggest, was intended for drafting a new constitution, there would be no reason to expect development in its broadest sense from the post-CA poll government.
There would be two counterarguments against this view. Let me put the first one thus: why did a huge number of voters participate in the recently held election to the Constituent Assembly? Those who subscribe to the argument in question would definitely say that they cast their vote without expecting more than the drafting of a new constitution. Though this assumption is yet to be empirically substantiated, on account of the difficulty in undertaking the relevant research, it is safe from criticism thus far because its counterassumption (the assumption that people voted with a view to achieving two things- development and a people-oriented constitution) is yet to be empirically proved.
It is true that both the assumption in question and its counter assumption, despite the fact that one of them is certainly correct, are not derived from a logical-empirical process. They are no more than a corollary that followed from their own assumption independent of the fact. Second, it is wrong to think that the next government and the Constituent Assembly are meant to serve the same function. The argument in question would suggest that there will not be any government until a new constitution is drafted and endorsed by the Constituent Assembly. This may also suggest that, though there will be a government, its job is not to govern the country or to address the social and economic problems. This argument stems from a lack of apprehension of the fact that, though the post-CA poll government has an indirect relation with the drafting of a new constitution, it must primarily concern itself with the solution to the socio-economic problems facing the country.
What is the government for? The answer to this question in the Nepalese context would be that it is for addressing the socioeconomic problems facing the country. What is the post-CA poll government for? Of course, it is also intended to ensure that a new constitution is drafted through the Constituent Assembly. But, at the same time, it must be borne in mind that it should not be confined to the facilitation of the drafting of a new constitution.
If it is true that the post-CA poll government will be extremely busy facilitating the formation of a new constitution, one may claim that the only thing it should do is the facilitation of a new constitution on the grounds that it will not have time to pay heed to other things. But, the truth is opposite. If the government pays attention to the drafting (going beyond the facilitation of the formation) of a new constitution, what is the Constituent Assembly for? It is not the government but the Constituent Assembly that should be more obsessed with the drafting of a new constitution than with any other things. The post-CA election government will have enough time to address the socio-economic problems to the extent possible.
The developmental situation of the country has deteriorated to such an extent that it is absolutely impossible to bring about the kind of development that completely addresses the economic problems facing the country overnight. But, the next government will definitely be able to make the country move in the right direction towards development if it is committed to people.
People, especially those people who are poor and who have lagged behind socially, expect the next government to enable them to off-load the socioeconomic problems that beset them. There are, of course, certain things they can make positive changes to overnight. These things are not in the economic domain. We must accept that there is no alternative to suffering from the economic problems for some years until we find ourselves at a point where the economic problems are almost addressed. These things are in the social domain.
Such social problems as corruption in its all forms, social exclusion, ethnic, religious, gender and regional discrimination can be solved immediately. What is needed is that those who run the next government should be ready to solve them. They should not equate these problems with economic problems. The equation of the former with the latter would fool them into thinking that the former cannot be addressed immediately. This false thinking will at least delay its solution. It seems that their understanding of all of these problems except corruption is adequate enough that they are likely to solve these problems completely. I do not think they will abolish corruption in its all forms because I doubt they are aware of corruption in all these forms.
I add a new form of corruption to the already known forms of corruption. I call this “intellectual corruption”, by which I mean a set of irresponsible behaviors shown by the educational administration and even the so-called intellectuals themselves, that are an impediment to the production of knowledge and scholars in the true sense. I think talk of social and economic progress has overshadowed talk of intellectual progress. They seem to be unaware of the fact that intellectual progress is one of the preconditions for rapidly developing the society we live in. They must pay attention to this form of corruption not figured in our common understanding of corruption.
« return.