Now
that the second Constituent Assembly elections have been held and the results
declared, it is time everybody in the country accepted the results for what
they are, and started working on completing the tasks at hand. Unfortunately, this
is not happening.
Ever
since it emerged that the Nepali Congress and the UML have become the two
largest parties in the new Assembly by far, several people in Nepal—including many
journalists and those in the intelligentsia—have been talking about the
regressive nature of these two political parties and what that may mean for the
country. A few of these supposed neutrals had begun to lament even as the
results had only just started trickling in, and started making calls for more
progressive policymaking from the Congress and the UML.
These
were the two parties that were most maligned by the other political parties.
They were constantly described as regressive and as comprising of old fogeys.
The failure of the first Constituent Assembly to write the constitution on time
was blamed squarely on these two political parties. Here are two parties that
only want to perpetuate the hegemony of the higher castes, it was said.
All
of the above may have been true. But the fact is they have emerged victorious in
these elections despite all of this. This goes to show that they do have a
clear mandate from the people who approve of their policies, regressive or
otherwise.
The
success of these two parties, however, is now very conveniently being attributed
not to their manifestoes and their policies, but to the electorate’s
disappointment with the performance of the Maoists. It is being claimed that
the polity’s disenchantment with the Maoists has worked in the favour of the
Congress and the UML but there is a clear reluctance to admit even consider
that it may have been the less destabilising policies of the Congress and the
UML that may have appealed to the electorate.
Some
have even suggested that the Congress and the UML should not forget the aspirations
of the people and should not revert to their regressive agendas. Does it just
escape them completely that the so-called regressive parties have actually won
an election, and that they have beaten all the so-called progressive parties
rather comprehensively?
In
these circumstances, we in the media have the responsibility to analyse the
election results and understand the sentiment of the electorate, rather than
make assumptions about their voting preferences. The view that the Congress and
the UML did well in the election only because of the ineptitude of the other
political parties is a hypothesis that cannot be tested. Hence to make this
claim authoritatively is misleading and assumes the voter is stupid.
It
is time for us to accept what the electorate wants, rather than assume what it
does.
(This column first appeared in the Himalayan Times on 22 December 2013).
