 ROBIN SAYAMI |
The delay in forming the cabinet due to the bargaining between and within parties has drawn derision and ridicule. It has reminded people of the worst of the 1990s political culture.Apathy and disillusionment have soared: among the middle class in Kathmandu's restaurants, villagers near the Dhanusha border, rickshaw pullers in Biratnagar. They will all tell you: "All these netas are chor-daaka, thieves and dacoits."
Thirst for power, desire to make money by hook or crook, enhanced status and reputation are the conventional explanations offered for this shameless ambition. All of this is undoubtedly true. But they offer only a partial picture.
Politicians want to be ministers because they are already eyeing the next elections. A powerful assumption is that they have a higher chance of winning if they have access to the state machinery. This gives them a huge advantage over rivals, makes the local bureaucracy compliant and meek, and provides them with patronage opportunities. Here is how MPs and MP-aspirants present their side of the story.
Leaders need to cultivate key individuals from each village in their constituency by catering to private needs: jobs, assistance during a police case, recommendation for a promotion. They need musclemen in the smaller bajars. They have to keep the municipality officials and VDC secretaries in good humour so that they can get work done. They have to take local journalists out for drinks and sekuwa, if not pay them directly, to ensure good press coverage.
They have to engage with the wider constituency: give money for someone's daughter's wedding, attend cremations, give gifts when a constituent's child is born. With rising aspirations, they also have to show they are committed to 'bikas' and get a school or road to his area.
To do all this, this leader needs a good working relationship with government departments and money. And the best way to ensure that is by becoming a minister. To show this works, a favourite example in political circles is that of Bijay Gachhedar who must rank among the most discredited politicians in Kathmandu.
And he is among the most successful mass politicians. A Biratnagar youth leader told us that when he was caught for a murder case, Gachhedar helped him get off the hook because he was a loyal follower. A Tharu in Sunsari raves about Bijay's help when he needed money to pay hospital costs. At election time, many like them come out on Bijay's side.They do not care if Gachhedar is a royalist or NC democrat, Madhesi or Tharu leader, or who he allies with in the capital. All they know is that Bijay will be there when they need money or help.
To understand why politicians are behaving like they are, you have to understand the ground reality. Mahanta Thakur is a reluctant participant, and because his party's financial balance-sheet is totally in the red he has little choice but to join the government.
When an MP was asked why he had joined Gachhedar's faction of MJF, he replied, "There are only two ways to bring bikas in my constituency: either I have influence in the government and they allot money for a project, or the Indians build a school or hospital in my area. Right now, my party is in power and Delhi is happy with us. This is better than being with Upendra Yadav on the streets."
This premise of needing state power to win polls does not always hold empirically. Many ministers or former ministers lost in last year's CA polls. Leaders who have never been a part of the ruling class won, with Maoists and the MJF the most obvious examples. The benefits of capitalising on the anti-incumbency wave often outweigh the advantages of being in government.
But politicians persist with the messianic belief that they need to be close to the powers ascendant to be successful. The system is designed in a way where political power has come to mean the ability to loot the state and share the spoils so that political power is reinforced.
There is no point in blaming the politicians till this incentive structure is overhauled. And creating this kind of new political structure is what the CA should have ideally been discussing.
