The first big political event I have any memory of is the first People’s Movement of 1990. I was just six years old. I remember reading slogans against the king scrawled on the wall of the Panchayat Bhavan building adjacent to our house in Waling of Syangja district.
The situation was tense. Trucks full of policemen descended at the town, as groups of local youth pelted stones at them. Some of us children made fliers with black cloth and shouted slogans, mimicking the political activists.
Elections followed, and there was a sense of euphoria. People were made to feel that they had won. The sense of achievement was passed down to the common people, and we children also felt it. Prajatantra, as the limited democracy under the king was known, became a household term, even for us.
As I grew up, Nepal travelled a turbulent, but interesting, political journey. We lived through a limited democracy, and a limited armed struggle that ended in an unfinished communist revolution at a time when communism was failing the world over. Finally we attained Loktantra: democracy without the monarchy.
Nepal spent 30 years under the direct rule of the king in the name of the Panchayat system. Another decade and a half has already been invested in formalising an inclusive democracy without the monarchy. Through struggles, debates and conflicts, a clear political path seems to be finally emerging for Nepal.
Elections say a lot about a society. In Nepal’s case, elections clearly display the imperfections of the political system. It makes sense to study the making of the elections in order to identify what our leaders and activists should be focusing on.
If we consider the agenda, the two elections for the Constituent Assembly were remarkable. Issues of identity, social inclusion and representation dominated campaigning in the first CA election, but the major driving force was the need for peace. Nepalis had experienced the pain of conflict for a decade, and they wanted an end to it at any cost. The Maoists were most suitably placed to cash in on that desire.
The second CA elections were a little different: issues of identity were already sidelined, and most the candidates focussed on local development. The first CA had failed, and the country had been operating under an interim Constitution for more than six years. Although the priority should have been constitutional issues, people were jaded, so the parties promised development instead.