Democratizing the Democrats
At a time when pressure is building to promulgate the new interim constitution, the problem of Nepal is to democratize the democrats
By KESHAB POUDEL
 |
Pas agitation : Culture of intolerance
|
Although leaders of eight political parties believe that current political problem will be solved after promulgation of the new interim constitution, they are yet to agree on its modality which, in principle, has already been agreed.
This is not the first time in Nepal when political parties rejected to respect the dissenting opinions. Whenever there is disagreement on certain issues, political parties, who publicly adhere to the principle of multi-party democracy, reject the idea of right to dissent.
“There is no question to give any role, whether symbolic or ceremonial, for monarchy in the interim constitution as envisaged by Nepali Congress,” said CPN-Maoist leader Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, a newly converted democrat. “Because of Nepali Congress and some factions of SPA, some royalist and regressive forces have already started to challenge us. There is no question to give any platform for Monarchists.”
Recently converted democrat who has been a follower of hard core communist doctrine for a long time, Dr. Bhattarai is not alone in speaking in absolutist language. Even members of the follower of liberal democratic parties hold similar view. “No body should be allowed to go to poll with monarchical view,” said Narahari Acharya, a member of Nepali Congress. “The monarchy is already dead.”
A group of students led by leader of student wing affiliated with Nepali Congress has already shown how their brand of Loktantra would be by vandalizing the car of Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal leader Rabindra Nath Sharma. Student leaders did not attack Sharma physically but they were against the views taken by him and his party on monarchy.
Although right to dissent is first and foremost element of democracy, nobody seems to be ready to accept this fundamental notion of democracy. If this culture is not developed, no constitution will work in the country. All constitutions have to face similar fate as a scrap of a paper whenever there is opposition.
 |
Nepal (left) and Koirala : Reconciliation at the top
|
“A democrat is not a born democrat. A person has to go through an awareness of democratic society commitment for that and forming attitudes and habits in accordance with that,” said an analyst. “Since more than fifty years, Nepal has been passing through different phases of democratic experiments in which all had commitment for broader form of democracy in this country. This country has no adherent of fascism or autocracy though the practices have been at several occasion resembling that.”
The greatest challenge to democracy was from communists at different phase by different set of organizations. Till the uprising of 1990, there were communists who had a declared objective to establish the dictatorship of proletariat through revolution. The change of 1990 converted that brand of communists into a multi-party democratic force with unequivocal declaration.
During the heydays of parliamentary democracy in Nepal , there emerged a new brand of communist which is known as Maoists, which used more ruthless and barbaric method, of introducing their own version of communism in Nepal . After the recent changes of April 2006, they too have been converted into a political force with a commitment to the multiparty democratic system.
“Each of these forces converted into multi-party democracy with many ifs and buts as their rhetoric postures but basically all have now renounced the objective of dictatorship of particular form. While talking about the rightist force to reckon with the role of King Gyanendra, his role for certain period will be remembered as very controversial. All the four Kings in the last five decades had their commitments for democratic ideals. Among them, King Mahendra and Birendra were involved with the party-less form of democracy which was considered as the negation of multiparty democracy,” said the analyst.
King Gyanendra played the most controversial role which is still haunting the mind of the people for whatever he did during his direct rule. But he did not declare his objective goal to switch over to anything other than the prevalent multi-party democracy. Though his actions violated the provisions of the constitutions; his assertion was always in favor of present multi-party democratic constitution.
“Nepali society has its unique character of conflict and cooperation in assimilation and reconciliation throughout its history and one can find the nation united by invisible but strong threats of interdependence and co-existence. Any political forms or constitution can easily be introduced and implemented by a broader consensus of the people that has been seen throughout its history of making of constitution. It is always everywhere mentioned and it is in everybody’s knowledge that politics of Nepal is determined by external factors more than the internal ones. From Prithvi Narayan Shaha, the founder of present Nepal , to any serious analyst of Nepalese history, all had similar experience,” said the analyst.
Late Leo E. Rose in his book Nepal Strategy for Survival observed, “To Kathmandu the current potentialities of external domination and subversion are not very different in kind- though they may be in degree – from those with which Nepali governments had had to contend for at least two centuries.”
Although Nepalese political forces, which claim themselves as decisive, have already completed several rounds of discussion on interim constitution, they are yet to agree on modalities. Their argument is still lingering on the issues like arms management and promulgation of constitution. “There is no question to promulgate the new interim constitution without arms management,” said CPN-UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal . “Promulgation of interim constitution will pave the way for arms management.”
Now Nepal is at very serious crossroads. Whatever and whenever the constitution will be promulgated, it is impossible to survive in a complex role of external element and without any strong democratic commitments. “Democracy is a process of modernization of kinds for which Nepal does not have enough of experience. Now the time has come to democratize the democrats,” said the analyst .
