Nepal: Democracy or autocracy?

Nepal Democracy

Nepal, a federal, democratic republic state. Whenever these political phrases are added to a country, no matter how small the area is or how literate the people be, the stands of the country come out strong and sturdy. It seems as if it overcame a dreadful past and it landed within protected hands. Summing it up, it creates an extremist sight which is wonderful to see. However when these aren’t optimistically retaliated through implementation, the meaningful first sight ends up being a bunch of lies and that are very likely to be paved with political excuses.

The term democracy is defined purely by the Greeks. It has a precise and an accurate definition which says it in a phrase ‘rule by the people’. It is said so because when the term democracy pops up, there is a common understanding of people coming together to rule the country. A scenario of people raising their voices out loud against autocratic fists is presumed. But even after all of this being said, for me, this idea of democracy is just found theoretically correct as relating to practicality, all I end up watching is a bunch of people being arrested for speaking against the political bias and bureaucracy of the country and that is therefore frustrating.

The constitution of Nepal 2072 has provided with 31 fundamental rights. It’s widely and in explanatory form mentioned in our constitution, initiating from Article 16-46. Among them Article 16 provides the right for people to live their life with dignity and that the Article 17 provides for the freedom with respect to speech and expression.

The above reflect a democratic culture and after recollecting all of this, just the very moment where we tend to alter our perception regarding the government and hence consider ourselves protected among wise and safe leaders, the Nepalese media discloses a number of arrests that is made under section 47 of ETA to people who spoke against the autocratic acts of our representatives through their words in their social media. To be a bit more precise, Section 47 speaks about the ‘publication of illegal materials using electronic form’. So as a whole to understand, criticizing through social media using a little bit of sarcasm for them to improve, is considered illegal in our country. The acts of our country are so rigid that they seem to put in stake all of the fundamental rights including privacy, equality and so on. So as my topic loudly voices, is this the era of democracy or autocracy for Nepal?

Nepal is a developing state who is striving very hard to be inclusive in the principles of separation of powers, rule of law, independence of judiciary and so on. This is indeed a wonderful step only if the laws support the idea of these principles and hence are precisely included in the constitution. Autocracy is defined as a rigid power concentrated in a single centre. By making contradictory laws, the rights enlisted are likely to be in stake which isn’t favourable at all. Many might suggest judiciary to swoop in, but a land where the courts and their decisions are disrespected and ignored is unlikely to bring any change.

So what’s the future like? For me it’s an autocratic environment similar to that of the arrogant and supreme leaders who infringe their citizen’s freedom. The only distinguishable character is that there they do it openly announcing their arrogance and in here they do it silently hiding behind restrictive laws. Hence maybe a call of people’s movement 3 is most likely and possibly to occur if the situation doesn’t differ. However shedding blood streams to protect our inherent rights is something we don’t wish for. So it’s better that all of the three tiers come together and try to protect people’s rights as after all that’ what good leaders are supposed to do.


You may also like