Partyless Panchayat System Research Articles

Performing for Social Justice: Efficacy of Political Theatre in Nepal and the Philippines

Theatre plays a vital role in the struggle for democracy, functioning as an alternative medium for presenting social problems “of and to” the people and proving its efficacy as a powerful creative force in unravelling the hidden truths of repressive regimes. This article examines and compares the role of theatre in a Nepali and Filipino context, in particular its deployment in response to repressive regimes, and argues that theatre is both adaptable and efficacious as a tool for social and political justice. Although never colonised, Nepal was under the control of the Rana Oligarchy for over one hundred years (1846-1951). This period of oligarchical rule was followed by three decades of totalitarianism under King Mahendra’s party-less Panchayat system (1960-1990). Despite and because of this climate of political brutality and oppression, theatre and performance traditions endured. These traditions made “the invisible visible,” serving to awaken the population to their democratic rights. In the Philippines, theatre and performance traditions have been used to push back against centuries of foreign influence. More recently, these traditions have been deployed in response to the authoritarian rule of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, in particular his aggressive war on drugs. As this study shows, theatre has been a powerful means to fight against autocratic polity and restoration of democracy in Nepal and colonial forces as well as dictatorship in the Philippines.

Exercise of Multiparty System through the Major Electoral Practices in Nepal

Nepal has entered into multiparty democracy in 1951. From begging to till dates of these seven decades, three decades were practiced party-less Panchayat system where political parties were outlawed. Within the remaining four decades Nepal has conducted seven national elections held in accordance to democratic norms and values. Many political parties fielded their candidates in these elections. They got various positions as per the cast of votes by Nepalese citizens. Results of elections show that Nepal has implemented the multiparty system. That was not the single or bi-party system. This article tries to analyze the participation of political parties in the elections and their position after the elections. It is based on reports published by the election commission after each election of Nepal. It analyzes only data of national elections. Nepali Congress (NC) a rightist party is a popular party of Nepal; results of elections proved it. Similarly, communists are also popular among Nepalese voters. They obtained higher votes in some national elections of Nepal. Other some rightist and leftist parties have also appeared in a significant position in the scenario of national politics of Nepal.

Position of Nepali Congress in the Electoral Politics of Nepal

Nepali Congress (NC) is one of the oldest political party of Nepal. It played a vital role to abolish the century long autocratic Rana rule in 1951. It fought against the party-less Panchayat system and the regressive step of the king. It opposes active kingship and communism. It believes in a representative democracy. It has participated in every election of Nepal that was conducted democratically. It won more than two-thirds majority seats in the first general election held in 1959. In every election, it stayed in the first or second position. This article tries to analyze the status of NC in the elections of Nepal. Data of seven general elections were examined in this article. Data were extracted basically from the reports of the Election Commission.

Politics and the economy during Nepal's partyless panchayat system (1961-1990): a study in retrospect

(1994). Politics and the economy during Nepal's partyless panchayat system (1961-1990): a study in retrospect. Asian Affairs: Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 47-59.

Nepal in 1991: A Consolidation of Democratic Pluralism

The decade of the 1990s started dramatically for Nepal, with a popular uprising against the 30-year old partyless panchayat system and a change, welcomed by the people, to a multiparty parliamentary democracy with the king as a constitutional monarch. A new Constitution was adopted late in 1990 and, in conformity with it, a general election held in May 1991. The Nepali Congress (NC), the party elected to power in 1959, was once again given a mandate to form the government. The year 1991 will perhaps go into the annals of Nepalese history as a period of consolidation of democratic government. Beginning on a note of optimism that political change might usher in a new era of social advance and economic progress, the year seemed to end on a note of caution, if not pessimism that radical political change notwithstanding, the social and economic progress of a poverty-ridden country might be very slow to come. While Nepal's political gains allowed it to join the ranks of world democracies, its struggles to break away from the ranks of least developed countries will continue for the rest of the century and beyond.

Nepal in 1987: Politics without Power

Politically, the year 1987 in Nepal remained as inconsequential as the preceding year, except in one important respect: apathy and disappointment overwhelmed the various opposition groups and the panchas. The policy of national reconciliation, which had been pursued by the outlawed Nepali Congress Party (NC) ever since the return in 1976 of B.P. Koirala, Ganesh Man Singh, and other NC members from their self-imposed exile in India, had not evoked an adequate response from the Palace. Nor were the occasional overtures or gestures by the government up to expectations. The NC's claim that it was the only alternative to the partyless Panchayat System patronized by an active royal leadership for over two decades was forfeited by its poor showing in the 1987 local panchayat elections. This was not attributed to an erosion of ideological appeal of a democratic organization or to lack of support, but to the strategic dilemma facing the NC leadership. Its reluctant decision to participate in the local panchayat elections-considering them nonpolitical developmental units-obviously was taken under pressure from workers who were impatient with the party's inaction. But this proved costly for the party. Its decision to boycott the 1986 elections for the National Panchayat (NP) and its volte-face on the local elections was criticized as lacking vision and strategy. Though elated at their electoral victories in some areas, the leftist groups, as before, were in total disarray. Their oppositional activities were confined to statements, interviews, and other forms of propaganda, and they could not achieve organizational backing or unity for any action. Some members of the National Panchayat (parliament) who are branded as leftist reaffirmed their faith in a multiparty system. Most left groups

Nepal in 1986: Problem of Political Management

For Nepal, the year 1986 was significant in four respects. First, the partyless Panchayat System celebrated its 25th anniversary with various state-managed activities. The Silver Jubilee committee was formed in late 1985 under the chairmanship of Tulsi Giri, the senior pancha and former Prime Minister. But Giri resigned from the committee on grounds of health and preferred to stay away from the country. King Birendra, who has been providing active leadership to the system, initiated the celebration year in December 1985 by highlighting the contributions of the system and by calling for a dispassionate analysis of these achievements without losing sight of contemporary events in the world., Second, on the domestic political front, the same old dilemma seemed to force the power elites to pursue the carrot and stick policy toward their adversaries, including panchas. Nevertheless, the systemic opposition was more crystallized with some National Panchayat (NP) (parliament) members openly demanding the revival of a multiparty system in the country. Third, the foreign policy domain was a matter of satisfaction to the people at large because of various positive decisions that had been made. Nepal's friendship with most of the countries of the world was characterized by cordiality. Finally, King Birendra's pledge to raise the economic standard of Nepalis to the Asian level was the focus of much attention and doubts by serious observers, thus confusing the issue and problems facing Nepal. Stories of smuggling and corruption also dominated the national headlines.

Crisis in Nepal's Partyless Panchayat System: The Case for More Democracy

XTEPAL IS A SMALL HINDU KINGDOM, situated between two giant I neighbouring countries, India and China. It borders India on the west, south and east, and on the north is adjacent to the Tibetan region of China. This location has placed it in a landlocked position. It is also dwarfed the two neighbouring countries in respect of both physical size and population. Nepal has a total geographical area of 141,111 square kilometers, and had an estimated, multiethnic, population of 16.6 million on the first day of its new year (April 13) in 1985.1 After Nepal emerged as a nation state in 1769 (previously it was divided into sixty principalities)2 it had to confront two major problems. The first, and most immediate, was the preservation of its national independence, which twice tempted it to declare war-once on Tibet in 1790, and once on the British East India Company in 1814. The second major problem was internal political disorder, which took the form mainly of palace politics. Nepal's relations with its neighbouring countries were managed in accordance with its strategic interests during that period. But the internal political disorder caused confusion, massacres and intrigues among socio-politically powerful groups in the palace led to the most unfortunate event in Nepal's history in 1846, when power was transferred from the Shah family to the Rana family. The latter ruled Nepal autocratically on a hereditary prime ministership basis by eclipsing royal authority,3 and enjoyed a veritable monopoly of political power for a period of 105 years from 1846 to 1951. It ruled Nepal tyrannically, and also put it into a shell of isolation from the rest

The Political Economy of the Food Crisis in Nepal

The National Panchayat of Nepal spent hardly any time discussing or debating national economic problems during the years 1961-79. The reasons are obvious. There was no direct election to the national assembly and hence no obligation to go to the people. The Cabinet members were all nominated by the king and were jointly accountable to him. The National Panchayat could neither elect its members to the government nor pass a motion of no confidence. Its sessions were held strictly in camera and the media were fully censored and controlled by the government. More important, the ideological and institutional base of the panchayat system was geared to denouncing the activities of the opposition forces, mainly of the Nepali Congress, which had been in power in the parliamentary days in the late fifties and had vowed to restore a fullfledged multiparty system of government in Nepal. The whole government machinery and resources of the panchayat system were used to check the activities of the opposition forces, hence development issues were given little political priority. The announcement of a national referendum on May 24, 1979, and the introduction of three democratic elements in the constitution made it difficult for the panchas (political workers) to ignore national economic problems. It also brought about internal conflict and functional contradictions within the partyless panchayat system. Political chicanery, sophistry, and group conflict between those in the government and those outside produced a serious dilemma regarding the functioning of the panchayat system, particularly in the post-referendum period. One of the very first issues to be hotly debated was the food crisis that had hit the country seriously in the early 1980s. This article examines the political and economic aspects of this food crisis, which was one of the major instruments

Nepal in 1983: Another Year of Confusion and Lack of Direction

Confusion and a lack of direction in different spheres of national activity were the dominant characteristics of developments in Nepal during 1983. The political scene was dominated by a growing rift among the Panchas amidst emerging signs of unworkability of the partyless Panchayat System in its present form. While the disenchantment of the people with the Panchayat System continued to grow rapidly, there were few outward signs of much political activity outside the Panchayat polity. The banned Nepali Congress's continued adherence to the policy of reconciliation initiated by the late B. P. Koirala led its leaders to concentrate on the consolidation of their organization. The banned Communist party remained fragmented in spite of calls of unity from different groups, with as many as nine separate entities operating independently of each other. In the meantime the economy deteriorated further. Implementation of development plans continued to falter with demoralization within the bureaucracy at its highest peak. The economic program of the new government failed to inspire people, since it seemed like yet another promise to improve performance without saying how. Nepal's international relations continued to be stable during the year.

The Sociology of Elections in Nepal, 1959 to 1981

NEPAL EXPERIENCED two significant political events in 1980 and 1981. Following the royal proclamation of May 24, 1979, a national referendum was held on May 2, 1980 to choose between the present partyless panchayat system with suitable reforms and a return to the multiparty system. Nearly 67% of the eligible voters participated in the referendum and chose the panchayat system by a narrow margin of 54.7%.' A year later, on May 8, 1981, a general election by adult franchise for the national legislature was held. The national referendum and the general election were tumultuous events that for the first time involved the general populace in national politics after two decades of panchayat democracy. Nepal's first general election was held in February 1959, and there are numerous contrasts between it and the 1981 election. The announcement of the last return took nearly eleven weeks in 19592 but only ten days in 1981 (in spite of repolling in numerous places), an indication of the much-improved communication system developed over the last two decades. In 1959, eligible voters numbered 4,246,468; by 1981, this figure had grown by 83% to 7,793,119. Voter turnout also increased between the two elections, from 42% to 52%. There were 768 candidates for 109 seats in the 1959 parliament; 22 years later, 1096 candidates contested for 112 seats in the Rastriya Panchayat (National Assembly). And between 1959 and 1981 the candidacy security deposit increased from Rs. 250 to Rs. 1,500, and the expenditure ceiling from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 30,000. But the greatest difference between the two elections was political: the earlier election was based on the political party affiliations of the candidates while the latter was guided by the partyless principle of the panchayat system under which candidates contested on an individual basis.

Nepal in 1980: The Year of the Referendum

Research Article| February 01 1981 Nepal in 1980: The Year of the Referendum Douglas Heck Douglas Heck Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Far Eastern Survey (1952) 21 (2): 181–187. https://doi.org/10.2307/2643763 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Douglas Heck; Nepal in 1980: The Year of the Referendum. Far Eastern Survey 30 January 1952; 21 (2): 181–187. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2643763 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAsian Survey Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1981 The Regents of the University of California Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Nepal 1979: Political System in Crisis

IT APPEARS NOW that Nepal was well set for staging a drama in 1979. Events overtook the 19-year-old partyless Panchayat System, which had been defended as a necessary structural basis for Nepal's development. The Panchayat System is either going to disintegrate or be modified drastically as a result of the referendum in 1980 that was ordered by King Birendra on May 24, 1979 on whether the Nepali public prefers to continue the existing system with gradual reforms or to opt for a multi-party system. The proclamation came in the wake of a movement started by students of Tribhuvan University in April. Since then the entire political atmosphere has been transformed, throwing respective political groupings into competition. Domestic political developments were also linked to the country's foreign policy as the King-in order to reassure Nepal's neighbors, China and Indiapromised to continue the traditional nonaligned foreign policy even after the proposed referendum. Similarly, the economy and educational institutions were not unaffected, since the New Education System introduced in 1972 revealed cracks of its own along with those in the political system. It could, therefore, be said that the year 1979 was one of ferment in the real sense of the term.

Nepal 1978: Year of Hopes and Confusions

IN NEPAL THE year 1978 failed to witness any dramatic development. The national reconciliation and national unity proposed by B. P. Koirala, the leader of the illegal Nepali Congress Party (NC) and the Prime Minister in the deposed parliamentary government in 1959-1960, did not make any progress, despite his meeting with King Birendra. Politics within the partyless Panchayat system were also normal, but the sudden acceptance of resignations by three ministers following adverse observations by the Commission for the Prevention of Abuse of Authority-a constitutional body-in a muchpublicized carpet over-invoicing scandal was significant. Turning to the diplomatic front, the increased bilateral relations between Nepal and its neighbors paid dividends as several issues that had long perplexed relations with India were amicably settled. It was surprising, however, that despite the improved relations between the two countries, India continued to be reluctant to accept King Birendra's proposal that Nepal be declared a zone of peace.