Bloated by the overwhelming success of the CPN-UML in the November elections and his own rise to the head of the party, UML Chairman KP Oli is certainly high in spirits, despite his ailing health. For Oli, planetary motions seem to be in his favour, as the leadership of his coalition partner, the Nepali Congress (NC), seems meek and nervous, unlike the stalwart Girija Prasad Koirala. The opposition parties in the Constituent Assembly are miffed with Oli, but also seem to be incapable of restraining Oli’s extravagant proclivities. Considered to be a sharp-witted politician both inside and outside the UML, Oli has recently been putting in all efforts to couch himself as the self-anointed messiah of Nepali politics.

On the brink

As in the first Constituent Assembly (CA), it seems that the spell of political nervousness has arrived. This source of unease emanates from asymmetrical political intonations and broken promises. There is a deep worry among the populace about power politics taking the country to the brink of uncertainty. Though the Interim Constitution has many features central to democratic governance, it seems that current politics is gradually being co-opted by powerful elites who wish to perpetuate the legacy of the past, thus leading the country to a state of oligarchy. Democratic principles, values and norms do not seem to be sufficient in themselves to keep potential oligarchs from concentrating their political powers.

These oligarchs are attempting to safeguard the interests of the economic elite and a number of organised groups representing status quoists, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no voice. Political parties, who in the past claimed to be the true representatives of the people and especially the impoverished, have been tested well in the eyes of the general public and been found wanting. The electoral equation of the second CA is a reflection of that very public sentiment.

But no matter how hard the oligarchs try to overturn the democratisation process, democratic possibilities are undeniable. The Nepali people, through the political change of 2005/2006, helped to catapult undeniable rights into the mainstream, as reflected in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, long before observers had even imagined that the nation was ready for a change into a republic with federalism, inclusion, and secularism. Democratic movements have won major victories in the past decade, spreading civil rights, improving the status of women, and ending the civil war in the country. These have been major breakthroughs, even as attempts to block the extension of equality to all sections of Nepali society continue.

Out in full force

Now, it seems that oligarchs are out in force to attempt to thwart and curtail the rights of Nepali people and make democracy chronically dysfunctional. This tiny group of oligarchs also seems to be winning the battle, as has often been the case after every political movement in Nepal. Motivated and mobilised minorities can seldom win victories in the face of broad opposition from oligarchs and status quoists. The big question, however, remains, how do oligarchs consistently get their way?

The widely held answer is that despite politics limping slowly towards a fully democratic system, the structure of Nepali politics and the Nepali economy is by design oligarchic, rather than democratic. Oligarchy and democracy border each other, but this duality interplays with the accession of material power, as Nepali democracy is by purpose responsive to the power of money.

Nepali politics is currently in a paradoxical state, where there is fusion of both equality and inequality, as a result of the opposing combination of democracy with oligarchy. What had been the case in 2005/2006 of breaking the rule of the power elites is gradually being concentrated on the oligarchs. Nepali democracy, at no time in history, was ever free of inequality. After every political revolution, the chains of power brokers were shattered, but in no time, they managed to reorganise and emerge refreshed.

Rhetoric all round

Coming back to the UML, wealth unites the oligarchs politically, which has been the case with this party. Rather than joining hands with change-makers, the party, under Oli, has aligned with wealthy elites in Nepal, including in the NC. If the UML were true to its Marxist-Leninist philosophy, the NC should not have been its natural ally, as the class character of the two parties should have been diametrically opposed. But at the moment, the NC-UML alliance seems to be working very hard to sideline voices from the UCPN (Maoist) and the Madhesi alliance. The ruling parties keep repeating the rhetoric that if consensus fails, then process is the only option. The UCPN (Maoist) and the Madhesi front are also not free of rhetoric as they never tire in recalling the 12-point agreement and the CPA. Both sides are not true to their claims. In fact, both are attempting to claim a win over the political game. Both are keeping an eye on the broad political spectrum, which is power sharing after January 22. This time around, civil society, including the media, is not pressurising the political parties on the constitution agenda as they did during the end of the first CA. If the UML and NC can free themselves from the ritualisation of politics such as a negation of the changes that they had agreed to in the past, and if UCPN (Maoist) and the Madhesi front can free themselves from the fear of existing as a minority in the CA/House, an agreement should be close. On the issue of federalism, the parties can agree on the formation of a high-level political commission to determine its features and write that in the upcoming constitution. There is always a better way to do it, please find it.

Joshi is a CA member from the UCPN (Maoist)