By Narayan Prasad Mishra
Spiritual teachers, scholars, and enlightened thinkers often remind us that merely belonging to a religion—whether Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, or any other faith—does not make a person truly religious. A religion becomes meaningful only when an individual embraces and practices its principles. True religion is reflected in one’s character, conduct, and behavior. Without these, religion remains only a name, not a living reality.
The same principle applies to democracy.
A political system does not become democratic simply because it is called a democracy. Without the practice of freedom, justice, equality, and respect for the rule of law, the word “democracy” loses its meaning. A nation cannot claim to be democratic merely by giving its system that label. Genuine democracy requires a wise, just, and impartial legal framework that protects all citizens equally.
For democracy to function properly, the laws enacted in its name must themselves be fair, rational, and free from prejudice. Laws crafted to serve the interests of particular individuals, groups, communities, or political parties cannot be called democratic laws.
Likewise, a government that uses legislation primarily to advance its own interests cannot truly be described as democratic.
In every nation, the civil service, police service, and armed forces form the backbone of the state. Public servants have a duty to implement lawful government directives faithfully. At the same time, they also have a responsibility to raise legitimate questions when they believe something is wrong or harmful. Constructive criticism and professional integrity strengthen a nation; they do not weaken it.
Therefore, amending laws governing the civil service, police, or military with the hidden intention of removing officials who ask questions, express concerns, or are perceived as insufficiently compliant is neither democratic nor just. Matters such as tenure, retirement age, and service conditions of public servants should never be used to advance the interests of individuals, officeholders, or political parties. Nor should such fundamental provisions be altered repeatedly to suit changing political circumstances.
Policies concerning public service must be based on long-term national considerations. They should take into account a country’s history, traditions, culture, life expectancy, economic conditions, public health, and future needs. These are issues that should be approached with careful study, broad consultation, and a vision that extends beyond immediate political gains.
It is in this context that many citizens continue to question the controversial and undemocratic changes made to the amendment of civil service rules and regulations and to the retirement of the experienced, patriotic workforce of the country, following the promulgation of Nepal’s Constitution of 1990 under the leadership of Girija Prasad Koirala. Some Congress Party Chanakyas—political strategists who regard those actions as great achievements—have long defended and praised them. However, such claims should be subjected to objective analysis rather than accepted unquestioningly. Genuine democratic reforms deserve careful scrutiny, especially when they affect the foundations of state institutions.
For this reason, I sincerely hope that the present government will not repeat similar actions without thorough study, research, and careful consideration. A mature democracy is built not on political expediency, but on fairness, wisdom, and respect for institutions that serve the nation as a whole.
A democracy worthy of its name must be measured not by what it is called, but by how it is practiced.
narayanshanti70@gmail.com
Login to add a comment