Nepal's national political outcomes are determined by a dozen or so individuals in Kathmandu. A candidate who lost from two constituencies became the PM. A cabinet with most ministers either rejected by the electorate or notorious for their open loot of the exchequer has been at the helm for 20 months. And multiple rounds of voting for a PM have not thrown up a result - primarily because many parties were not allowed to exercise their free will due to extraordinary pressure from forces outside parliament.

A caretaker government prorogued the House and would rather not face parliament again. Policies are formulated to suit different interest groups in the most opaque manner possible. Last year, the government and the speaker ganged up to refuse debate on the presidential action to reinstate the army chief in the House. The main opposition party spent months blocking parliament only to return to it, and recently indulged in some manhandling of senior ministers, violating basic norms of human conduct and parliamentary ethics. Directives by House committees often go unheeded.

If this is how parliamentary supremacy fares in democratic Nepal, the fate of the rule of law cannot be much better.
Girija Prasad Koirala taught a valuable lesson to most of Nepal's present-day politicians. Corruption enables you to build a vast patronage network, which is essential for political survival and power. And once you are in power, or even on its periphery, there is little chance of the law catching up.

From Madhav Nepal, who took charge of UML's institutional finances, to KP Oli, who began investing in private businesses, to PK Dahal, who can smell a business opportunity from a distance - all have internalised this lesson well. Each Nepali politician is way richer than he was in 2006. Some are generous like Koirala was; others are stingy. But none have to end up accounting for the sources of their wealth, or face any legal liability. This extends to big businesses that have defaulted on loans; the scores of bureaucrats who pay millions to get lucrative postings because they are sure of the dividends; and media owners who have multiple business interests but never reveal conflicts of interests.

In the districts, there are clever mechanisms to bypass any procedures that pose an obstacle to siphoning off public funds. Indeed, expect a surge in violence in the next few months as politicians rush to spend funds before the fiscal year ends and battle it out. The authorities will remain silent witnesses or be a part of the nexus. It is not merely in cases of corruption, but in enforcing order and implementing welfare schemes that the law is most conspicuous in its absence.

Democracy as it exists in Nepal suits the politicians and businessmen, enmeshed with one another, perfectly. As scholar Dipak Gyawali pointed out recently, it is the trading comprador bourgeoisie class, which thrives on shortages, that calls the shots in Nepal's new political economy. A weak, discredited state is an asset. The International Crisis Group makes a similar argument, showing how different private interests benefit from the mess in Nepal's education, health, public security, and employment situation. It goes so far as to say, "Large sections of Nepal's economic and political system rest on the solid foundation of state non-delivery."

When the Maoists expose the infirmities of the 'so-called democratic system', they do have a case. But even if their diagnosis is partially correct, they do have quite a prescription â€" and the one offered by Kiran and company is infinitely worse than the problem itself. Indeed, the abrupt end of the parliamentary session brought home the value for many, especially the Maoists, of how formal institutions are a check against the government. Paras Shah may get away but the state's action has sent a symbolic message about equality before law, a case about which Maoists have been ambivalent given their partnership with the 'royalist nationalists'. The success of Nitish Kumar in neigbouring Bihar, on the other hand, is all about how building up a democratic and functioning state is essential to preserving law and order and to creating multiple opportunties for livelihood and growth.

So in its present avatar, do not blame the people if loktantra breeds more contempt than hope.

Who's bad?, EDITORIAL

Alone in the echo chamber, INDU NEPAL

Aiding impunity, DAMAKANT JAYSHI