True Democracy is yet to be born in Nepal

Democracy is not giving little to people and giving more to the rulers elected by the people. Instead, it is giving more to the people and little to the rulers. Prima facie, it may seem to be a discriminatory behavior towards the rulers. But in democracy there are not permanent rulers. Rulers are temporary.

Democracy cannot be considered to be democracy if it does not keep those who reach the ruling position through an election and those who elect the rulers at the same level. It is ironic that the rulers elected by the ordinary people put themselves at a higher level and look down to the people without whom they would not have been rulers. Though the rulers in theory reiterate that they are below the people, in practice or reality, the people are below the rulers.

It is true that some positive changes have occurred under their rules. Here a question arises: do they deserve to be praised for these positive changes? If we are to be emotional rather than cerebral, the answer to this question will depend upon who answers this question. The emotional person who belongs to the class of rulers or their close supports will definitely say “yes”. And, the emotional person who belongs to the class of people who have no connection with the rulers and whose lack of connection with the rulers has made them poor will not answer this question in the affirmative. Though the answer to be given by the second emotional person is correct, it will not be supported by logical evidence because his/her answer is a product of an emotion rather than a reason.

If we are to answer this question without being guided by emotion, we must consider two other questions before running headlong into the act of answering that question: Was it possible to bring about more positive changes than these? What is the amount of the state fund peculated by them?

People in general have got very little and the rulers and their sources of political and economic power more from democracy -as opposed to democracy proper-. This is the poignant fact.

All of our rulers-pre-panchayat era rulers, panchayat era rulers and post-panchyat era rulers-have defended themselves by presenting their insignificant contribution to the country as if they were significant. Here what is interesting is that though they have made little or no contribution to the majority of people, they have made a very big contribution to their personal aggrandizement and the aggrandizement of their close supporters. They conceal their significant contribution to themselves and their close friends/relatives made through the embezzlement of the state’s coffer by presenting their insignificant social contribution as if it were very significant. They are clever enough to realize in advance that their being silent about their insignificant social contribution, which is an infinitesimal part of what they could have done if they had been a real ruler of the poor people, and presenting it as what it is not, that is, as significant make their significant personal or party contribution more noticeable. Therefore, their having presented their insignificant social contribution as being significant must be construed as their clever effort to distract our attention away from their significant contribution to their personal aggrandizement, which is indicative of their embezzlement of the state’s coffer.