Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Dev Raj Dahal

 The establishment of multi-party democracy in Nepal helped the Nepalese citizens to speak up, to organise and agitate against the centralisation of power in ways that were not easily done before. Right to opposition is one crucial aspect of civic spirits. Citizens' dissatisfaction with the governing class or distrustful of the way power is exercised by this class is a legitimate means of expressing discontent. The bigger question is how to provide social justice to ordinary citizens to overcome their growing apathy, alienation and disaffection. In a multi-ethnic multi-lingual and multi-racial country, it is only the social justice that can hold the society and the state together. The question is: has democracy brought any change in the rational use of political power and a sense of social justice to the ordinary citizens? It is difficult to answer straight away. So far, it appears that Nepalese democracy has become a contested site where political parties and actors of different sizes and hues continue to vie for power and privilege as their uppermost priority. It is, therefore, facing a challenge in establishing the rule of law and guarantee for human rights.

The rhythm of democracy movement had carried a noble mission of emancipating the citizens and transforming the people into public. There were broad claims to stress the responsibilities as well as the rights of citizenship. As the spirits of movement evaporated, discourses of intellectuals debunked a sense of national apocalypticism. One grim fact is that despite a change in institutions, the continuity of the same political elites, held a powerful grip on Nepalese politics and the new elites did not feel any need to define how they were different from the old politics of pragmatism. As a result, change in the basic policymaking process has been postponed. Politics failed to become a key to rekindle a sense of optimism, trust and empowerment by means of social and economic transformation. National leaders do not seem to have any vision of their own and, therefore their imagination is grounded more in the past than the future. They seem less concerned to logical warning and ethical appeal about the nation's destiny. As they are imprisoned by the past, it is far less clear whether they will become a voice of the future. Whose side they are on, then! It requires scholars to enter into a centre of political discourse.

The nation's image as one of the poorest countries next to Ethiopia conveys vivid reality of what the national leaderships have done in the name of the people. A small group of elites with a grandiose rhetoric of people's liberation through "economic liberalisation," appropriated the social space of the citizens and undermined every possibility of redressing the unequal balance of power and wealth through public ownership and their capacity to overcome market manipulation and failures. A truly transparent market can serve a meeting point for all -- to compete on clearly defined rules --provided each has the means and resources at disposal. A need to restore civic ethics in leadership for quality democratic governance has now become a matter of paramount importance to reconcile the principle of social justice with the legitimacy of political order. This can be a temporary response that is, by definition, not a solution.

Media, independent intellectuals, civil society and ordinary citizens at large increasingly believe that Nepalese leaders are too feudalistic, family-bound and egoistic to do justice to the ordinary people. This is spreading like a virus into the political parties, the institutional channel of interest aggregation, articulation and communication. As a result, there is erosion of their mediating capacity between the state and the society. This explains the reason why contemporary Nepal does not provide adequate opportunities for its citizens to participate in its political life. As present constitution and institutions lack performance legitimacy the traditional disposition of power is bound to gain strength in the future, no matter what its implications on political community.

In the absence of economic security conducive to political freedom and self-realisation, majority of the Nepalese citizens have failed to protect themselves against the callously organised interests of political parties-bureaucracy-business complex. The separation of political economy from ethics has undermined the sense of common good. This has undermined the organizational base of democratic politics. At a time when personal behaviours of many of the elected leaders furnish a rather poor role model, citizens are being nostalgic about previous leaders - B. P. Koirala, Puspa Lal and Madan Bhandari to nourish the cognitive development of their children. The available means for the personality growth, inculcation of democratic values, shaping character and integrating youths into the life world of nation are grossly insufficient. If Nepal is to successfully grow democratically it must, of course, maintain internal cohesion and stability. A shared vision about the nation's future also requires effective partnerships of the government with the private sector and with the groups within civil society.

The stability of democracy is not possible unless sound performance of the polity, especially economic performance, is attained. The right to livelihoods, within a framework of democratic autonomy, is a highly valued goal to be attained. Without critical minimum resources, citizens will be dependent on others, unable to exercise sovereign choice embedded in the constitution. A culture of dependency converts the political imperative of democracy into a legal, formal one and eats into its soul and vitality. Young citizens' migration from the rural to the urban areas continues to evacuate the critical change agents of society spawning deep wound into its social structure. The increasing movement of young citizens abroad in search of better jobs has weakened their aspiration to live together and share the sovereignty of the nation. A sense of political uncertainty continues to expose the citizens to the dangers of sudden, shocking encounters -- hunger, violence, injustice etc, the things they had never experienced before.

Nepalese leaders have yet to marshal the support of citizens on behalf of the goals of modern state and transform the people into Nepalese. Democracy implies both to the internal life of political parties and the democratization of society. The former embodies the representation of electoral process, such as election, rule of law, civil liberties and human rights while the latter includes civic education, mass mobilisation and citizen participation in the structures of representative democracy. When the value of state membership (citizenship) becomes lower than the party membership, in no way does it project Nepal's civic and civilised character. This means the nation's identity is less inclusive in the minds of deprived and marginalised. An identity which is essentially exclusive tends to reinforce a culture of aggressive behaviour among the newly activated citizens which might serve new flash-points in society with widespread acts of unrest. Some elite acculturated with alien ideas even question the very relevance of national identity while the others feel just deprived and alienated. Both the tendencies are the deadliest enemy of democracy.

The question of identity can be resolved only when there is an eventual production of a "public figure" capable of mediating knowledge, ideology interests, wealth and power in society. Unfortunately, the Nepalese political class which has a glorious ancestry rooted in the country's democratic struggle, lost its direction giving way to the birth of a neo class and its increasing convergence with the bureaucracy and comprador class. The neo-class has succeeded in bringing the professional bodies, people's organisations and civil society in general politics consensus, thereby undermining the base of wider social representation in politics. Nepal still does not have a strong civil society with dense networks of social structures to mediate different interest groups of society. As a result, the gulf continues to widen between the have and have-nots. No single political formation has been left untouched by graft and nepotism. The partisan press -- aligned with different factions of political parties -- gives venomous expression to this fact. In this context, the bigger issue at stake is how to check the career politicians who equate their voices with the voices of the people and take refuge in a sort of cultural relativism, the justification of value judgement.

The traditional ideological elements of religion, ethnicity, caste, class, gender, etc. epitomised in an Hindu curse theory of karma, meaning fate, had furnished a belief that inequality is a part of natural order. These elements are seemingly becoming assertive and pulling the citizens towards a political culture of conformism, dependence on superior authority, submissive behaviour to the leaders and succumbing to a world-view shaped not by themselves but by others. This culturally-rooted anti-modernism has succumbed the innocent mass more to the legitimation of conservatism than human rights and democracy, temptation toward resignation than self-confidence and instrumentalization for narrow purpose than nationalism.

It seems, therefore, difficult to convert the political, business and official leaders' tendency to behaviour defined by constitution. The other issue of seriousconcern is: How to overcome the emerging masculine and ethnocentric perspective of the national leaders that is gaining momentum in their behaviour and provoking the indignation of critical minorities, women and the margiualized? Who bears the responsibility for the blind acceptance of elite status quo which in no way is politically neutral?

The survival of democracy in Nepal depends on popular will and commitment to it which, in turn, is the consequence of the affirmation of the integrity of each culture and the preservation of each language to enrich the shared Nepalese identity. The sense of trustworthiness in other social groups and parties is a particularly crucial aspect of democratic political culture. Ironically, lack of interpersonal trust among leaders of political parties in Nepal has led to a danger of ferocious jockeying for political power and frequent alternation of coalition partners. This shows that Nepalese democracy is radically diseased by governmental instability and that only a profound transformation of political culture can cure it. Increasing citizens' confidence in their leaders is one option, while the reform in institutional culture of leaders and citizens is another. Still, necessary correction in the prevailing social conservatism is yet another better option. How to do it? The tendency of homogenisation and hegemonisation of other identities cannot be a desirable option in an age of democratic pluralism as they evoke sub cultural distinctiveness, ethnicity, religion, region, language, etc. and ungluing the webs of nationalism that so far tied this nation-state.

Greater economic prosperity is what exactly so many Nepalese citizens hope for their future. A political culture whose own civility is in question would be an enormous liability in holding the state and society together.. The health and happiness of the citizens are of incomparably greater to make them feel "we are proud to be Nepali." At a time when private money plays an influential role in public affairs rather than "one person one vote," what is desired is the revival of public spirits and strengthening of the sphere of social justice -a justice based on reciprocity, sharing and caring to each other.

As the jarring puzzles from the future unfold today, ordinary citizens began to sound for a total cleaning of the system. A positive change can certainly be effected, provided concerted efforts are initiated by public-spirited citizens, the press, judiciary and civil society with enough potential for countervailing and correcting the centralisation of political power. As the crisis engulfs the system as a whole, it also affords an opportunity to widen the democratic space and renew its civic spirits so that Nepalese citizens are not looked upon as passive recipients of governance but active participants in it.

The success of Nepalese democracy springs from its ability to marry the citizens' vast appetite for tolerance caught in a perilous situation and liberate them. National leaders have to take responsibility to restore ethics to politics and build a sense of civic competence among ordinary citizens. One way is civic knowledge about public affairs, the other is freeing the polity from the sound-bite of demagogues and still an other is improving people's quality of life, especially those of the powerless. Only then can the polity reflect citizens' concern towards democracy and postpone their disaffection and apathy to public life. This strengthens the base of social justice.

Mr Dahal, a prolific writer, is Associat Professor of Political Sciences at the Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies, TU-Nepal.