By Narayan Prasad Mishra
In every political system, one can broadly observe two distinct types of political thinking: politics driven by fixed ideas and ideology, and politics guided by openness and adaptability. These two approaches shape not only how parties function but also how nations evolve.
The first category consists of those who operate within a rigid ideological framework. Their beliefs are firmly rooted in a doctrine, and their political actions are directed toward preserving and advancing that doctrine at all costs. For such actors, the end often justifies the means. Whether an action is right or wrong becomes secondary if it serves the larger ideological goal. In this context, communist movements are often cited as examples. Historically, many communist parties have demonstrated a willingness to justify extreme measures in the name of protecting or advancing their system. The ideology becomes paramount—above flexibility, above dissent, and sometimes even above the immediate welfare of the people. In this context, we can cite the example of our own Maoist revolution, during which thousands of people were kidnapped, tortured, suppressed, threatened, injured, looted, had their hands and legs cut off, killed, and the UML leaders, then the Jhapa movement, when they killed Dharma Prasad Dhakal and others, the landlords, with unthinkable cruelty.
This rigidity has some strengths but inhuman weaknesses. On one hand, it provides clarity of purpose, discipline, and long-term direction. On the other hand, it can lead to intolerance, suppression of alternative views, and an inability to adapt to changing realities. When circumstances change, rigid systems often struggle to respond effectively because their foundational doctrines bind them.
In contrast, the second category includes those who approach politics with open minds. These actors, though they too have some ideology, do not strictly bind themselves to any one doctrine. Instead, they remain flexible, adapting their policies and decisions according to the needs of the time, public opinion, and practical considerations. Their approach is more pragmatic than ideological.
In Nepal’s context, most non-communist political parties can be seen as belonging to this category. They often shift positions, form alliances, and adjust policies in response to the political climate. Even so, we sometimes find non-communist parties behaving like communists. We all know that politicizing educational institutions and government offices harms the country and its people. Political unions in educational institutions and employees’ unions in offices can be detrimental. In principle, they should not be allowed to exist. However, in our context, democratic parties often follow the communists and demand that such political organizations be recognized as professional associations, claiming this is their democratic right. Communist critics—especially from more ideologically rigid groups—frequently label other parties as “parties without thought,” suggesting a lack of clear direction or philosophical foundation.
We now have the Rastriya Swatantra Party in power. This party appears to be a coalition of individuals from various backgrounds—communists, Congress supporters, Madhesis, Janajaties, and people from the hills, partisan and non-partisan, professional, etc.—who have left their original affiliations for various reasons. They seem committed to improving the country’s condition by addressing corruption, nepotism, poor governance, and party-centered rule. Yet they are often labeled a “party without thought,” sometimes even the foremost example of this category, particularly by self-proclaimed ideological critics. This characterization may not be entirely fair.
However, excessive openness carries its own risks. Without a clear guiding principle, political parties may drift toward opportunism. Decisions may be driven more by short-term gains than long-term vision. Alliances may appear inconsistent, and public trust can erode if leaders are perceived as lacking conviction. While such parties often claim to offer a fresh, pragmatic approach outside traditional ideological frameworks, they face a fundamental question: can openness be sustained without losing direction? Can flexibility coexist with integrity and purpose?
Ultimately, neither approach—fixed nor open—is inherently superior. A purely rigid system risks stagnation and authoritarianism, while an entirely flexible one risks inconsistency and lack of vision. The challenge for any political system is to strike a balance: to uphold core principles while remaining responsive to changing realities.
For Nepal, this balance is particularly important. The country’s political history has been marked by both ideological struggle and pragmatic compromise. Moving forward, the success of its democracy will depend on whether its leaders can combine conviction with adaptability—holding firm to what is right while remaining open to what is necessary.
So far, however, it seems that many people believe these forces attempt to embody all the positive elements of every group—Congress, communists, royalists, Madhesis, hill communities, and others. Yet their true shape remains unclear—blurred and shrouded in uncertainty. We still do not know what they will ultimately become. Will they fade away as suddenly as they emerged, or will they evolve into something new, meaningful, and worthy of admiration for the majority of the people?
In the end, politics should not be a battle between fixed and open thoughts, but a thoughtful integration of both—guided by honesty, accountability, and a genuine commitment to the nation’s welfare.
narayanshanti70@gmail.com
Login to add a comment