Opinion
Out with the old
The Westminster model is not appropriate for Nepal; it needs a new governance system
Mukunda Prasad Neupane
The Westminster system of parliamentary democracy is generally termed a majority model. In Great Britain, the system evolved over many centuries and where currently, election is mostly contested between two parties. However, in less homogeneous societies, this system of governance is inappropriate.
Faulty system
In a democratic set-up, the judiciary, legislature, and executive are clearly separate. But in the Westminster model, the same person becomes a Member of Parliament and a member of the Cabinet. This can result in a conflict of interest.
In this system, if a single party secures a majority, there will be no hurdles. But if a coalition government has to be formed, then horse-trading becomes a key feature. Furthermore, small coalition partners have regional, district, or personal petty interests at heart rather than larger national interests. Maintaining numbers in Parliament becomes the primary concern, rather than delivering on promises. If the numbers fail, then mid-term elections are held.
In non-homogeneous societies, the Westminster model can promote conflict along ethnic, caste, religious, cultural, regional, and linguistic lines. We adopted the system in 1990 and these issues have not only surfaced but as a result, we have been unable to draft a new constitution. It is worth remembering that even in the Panchayat system, these elements were non-issues. That is why in 1990, the constitution was promulgated without any complications.
The Westminster model focuses on a constituency or a group of constituencies where communal propaganda or activities can help during elections. In this system, the party becomes supreme. Long-term sustainable development and societies will be prosperous only if there is a stable government, decentralisation of authority, lack of corruption, human rights, rule of law, and transparency.
Biased tendencies
In poor countries, this system can create an unjust society as it serves only one section of the population. Until 1990, the gap between the rich and the poor was relatively small in Nepal but in the last 20 years, it has increased tremendously without any significant expansion of the economy. Nepal, together with Afghanistan, is the poorest country in Asia. Yet, the government is unable to acquire land for development works such as roads and transmission lines (due to democracy) and the poor population is not decreasing substantially in spite of democracy. To understand why this has happened, let us look at India.
Despite high economic growth in the last decade, the poor population in India has not reduced substantially. Even now, 67 percent of its population requires food security. In the last decade or so, both China and Indonesia reduced poverty dramatically. In Indonesia, 56 percent of people were below the poverty line in 1970; now, it is about 8 percent. China has lifted nearly 670 million people out of poverty. In 1947, the total population of India was 320 million and nearly half the population was poor. Now, about 400 million people are below the poverty line. This raises questions about India’s development approach. Whatever India has achieved is due to its giant economy. It is now the tenth largest economy of the world. Its development approach includes expanding the economy, its defence, space programmes, nuclear weapons, bullet trains, manufacturing, and so forth. Should our approach be similar to that?
This question is very relevant from a Nepali perspective. We cannot become rich, powerful, and play a significant role in the international sphere. But we can have a just society where people are happy, are a hundred percent literate and there are better highways and more airports. Why do we have to copy a system that can lead to inequality, communal violence and frequent strikes?
Undemocractic system
Both India and Pakistan adopted (not evolved) the Westminster parliamentary democracy in 1947. Because of its giant economy, India has been able to prosper but Pakistan is almost like a failed nation where the gap between the rich and the poor is among the highest in the world. For these reasons, a majority model such as the Westminster system is not appropriate in Nepal. One argument is, if a party wins and all other parties have to be in opposition, it is not a win-win situation. This situation is contrary to democratic values. The coalition government is an ad-hoc arrangement and principally formed to defer another election. Similarly, declaring a prime ministerial candidate before election would not solve the problem. We all know what happened in the first general election after 1947. One thing is certain, we have so many resources like tourism, agriculture, forestry and hydropower, so Nepal will fare better if it adopts a system of governance more carefully.
Neupane is a Reader at the Institute of Engineering, Tribhuvan University