Does democracy help reduce poverty in Nepal?

If we observe the post-1990s poverty indicators published by the World Bank, we find that Nepal’s poverty rate rose from 41.4% in 1984-85 and 33% in 1976-97 to 44.4% in 1995-96. It is noteworthy that Nepal’s post-1990s political history marks a fundamental shift from the traditional “isolationist and protectionist” (Shakya, 2009, p. 173) economic policies implemented by royal authoritarian actors to the “free and autonomous free market” economic policies advocated by neoliberal democratic forces. The above facts and background directly question the restoration of democracy and its positive impact on poverty reduction.

However, if one analyses the nature of poverty in Nepal, it is clear from the available literature that poverty in Nepal can be broadly divided into two categories. The first is urban poverty, which is a segment of people living in large cities of Nepal with low incomes and relatively low living standards, despite enjoying the wide range of opportunities created by the urban liberal democratic environment. The second is rural poverty, which is a segment of people living in villages of Nepal where a large portion of the population has little or no access to the opportunities created by the liberal democratic changes. Specifically, the urban poverty rate has declined from 19.2% (1984-85) and 22% (1976-77) to 17.8% (1995-96), while the rural poverty rate (the dominant factor in Nepal) has increased from 43.1% (1984) and 33% (1976-77) to 46.6% (1995-96). The changes in poverty indicators and the increasing free market policies based on democratic principles suggest that Nepal’s restored democracy in 1990, despite opening up global markets, enacting foreign investment policies, and formulating and implementing various five-year development plans, has not been able to evenly distribute these basic opportunities to all Nepalis. The urban population, which has become wealthy and has a strong hold on the market, has seized these opportunities, leaving behind the majority of the rural population, who still struggle to make ends meet. This tragic phenomenon is related to Amartya Sen’s assertion that democracy can only flourish if equality and equal distribution of benefits and losses are guaranteed (Sen, 2000, p. 187), which is completely contrary to the situation in Nepal. Sen’s conceptual framework of democracy and freedom may not be able to reduce poverty in Nepal because the Nepalese government only takes democracy at face value and fails to realize equal access to these freedoms and accompanying opportunities for all the people of Nepal.

However, the donor-driven poverty alleviation programs and projects, including the Millennium Development Goals, are also a product of democracy to some extent. This is considered to be an effective way to reduce poverty as a large part of the rural population of Nepal is meeting their basic human and economic needs including primary health care, primary education, reduction in child mortality and access to employment opportunities through donor-driven projects, although the previous authoritarian government system also failed to address poverty after it began receiving aid in the 1950s and 1960s.

Therefore, it can be agreed that Nepal’s democracy created a free market and environment for exercising various political rights including voting rights, but subsequently, due to the failure of democracy during Sen’s tenure to eliminate these not free From the perspective of rural marginalized and isolated areas, like during the Panchayat regime and the Rana regime, democracy has not been that effective in reducing poverty.

refer to

Adhikary, J. (2005). Nepali magaribak esthiti: etihasik bibechana. In Bhaskar Gautam, Jaganath Adhikary, Purna basnet (eds.). Debate on poverty in Nepal. Kathmandu; Martin Chautari, pp. 49-67

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). 2009 H1N1 Influenza (“Swine Flu”) and You. Obtained from http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/qa.htm

Chin-Daller, Patrick (2010). Universal human rights, cultural relativism, and the Asian values ​​debate. (February 25, 2012) http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/10/09/universal-human-rights-cultural-relativism-and-the-asian-values-debate/>;

Diana Ayton-Shenker, (1995).Human rights and the challenge of cultural diversity. (February 25, 2012) http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1627e.htm>;

Sen, A. (1997). “Human Rights and Asian Values”, (February 25, 2012) http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/sen.htm>;

Sen, A. (2000). Development is freedom. New Delhi; Oxford University Press

Shakya, S. (2009). Uncovering the past, present and future of Nepal’s economy. New Delhi; Penguin Group

Treanor, P. (2004). Why human rights are wrong. (February 25, 2012) Retrieved from http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/human-rights.html