Wednesday, February 1, 2006

Niraj Aryal

This week it was no different politically speaking. Perhaps it was more troubled with bunds and the Maoists terror. This is how Nepali matters are moving ahead, from bad to worse. Admit this fact.

Release of frequent press related matters from international agencies are creating more rifts than facilitating a compromise between the warring sides. Take for example the statement by the European Union which says that the municipal elections planned by the government are "a step backwards for democracy". Does this statement in any terms be described as a one out-and-out for easing conflict? Or, is it that they are just making their presence felt in the Kingdom, after all this is their job. Friends should understand the issues in hand and try to ease the differences instead of what has been made to understand.

But questions are being raised in the intellectual circles. How can an election be undemocratic? Or is it that obstructing people from taking part in the elections is more undemocratic? Indeed the EU's fresh statement does not summarily reject the elections. It appears that the EU as a conglomerate of democratic nations could not denounce the happening of the elections in Nepal and hence a slight reference towards that end.

Instead it should have said that definitions of democracy keep on changing as environment changes. But it is not so. Countries like Pakistan, Iran and even some factions in Afghanistan are arguing for an Islamic Democracy, a form suitable to their environment, what is wrong with this argument? Why west opposes this argument?

Analyzing Nepal, some can argue in the present context there is no possibility for elections. But it is too late to call it off. Isn’t it? Why international agencies based in Kathmandu initially hesitated to pressurize the seven party alliances to participate in the elections? Do they believe that the Nepalese people feel democracy is not a system that is suitable for them? This is indeed a false argument. People here in Nepal acknowledge it being a system also best suitable for them by all accounts. If it is so then the international advocators of democracy should have convinced their cohorts in Nepal that by and large people in Nepal still support their representatives. Good or bad they were and are still our leaders. Why the very agencies stationed in the Kingdom were unable to forge a compromise. Is this a diplomatic failure on the part of the west? Or simply the West got carried away by Nepal's number one enemy country in the immediate neighborhood? It appears to be so.

Regarding democracy in Nepal some arguments have it that people in the country were lucky enough to taste democracy even just in parts. People living in oil rich countries mostly in the Middle East still have no experience to a democratic setup. Is this justified? It is justified because….oil is there

Not going far, there are few examples in the neighborhood as well. Maldives and Bhutan! Here also the reasons are clear to all. Bhutan has water and India needs that very badly to meet her growing energy demands. This closes the chapter of democracy in Bhutan.

Pose a question to a layman, would you participate in the election? Few months back the answer would have been a big YES! Now it is a big No! The reason is again known to all. People are afraid of participating in elections than opposing it. Poll candidates are being shot and people are being terrified. Perhaps this is the reason for such a big No! That is why this election cannot be categorized as being conducted without a popular support or better say with the consent of the agitating seven.

Isn’t it a double standard in the part of the seven party alliances to object the elections and the international agencies that are supporting their cause?

Go to the past and see why the democratically elected governments were unable to conduct elections. The Maoists terror was such that the environment was not conducible for elections to take place. Then everybody agreed. Now with the parties forming an alliance with the Maoists, the case is worsening. People are not just terrified by the Maoists but also with the political parties and their cadres. Who dare vote in such a chaotic situation?

The Maoists are by no means a group of people, albeit sons of this soil, who subscribe to a democratic process. Maoists cause is thus justified but we are living in a dilemma as international advocators continue to support the Maoists cause, at least this is seen by default. Whereas the political parties by rejecting the polls are becoming more undemocratic. Thus making a hue and cry when beggars and peons are elected is also not justified. If election is a part of a democratic process then by a western definition of democracy every body has their right to exercise it. Isn’t it?

The case is again different in Nepal and not so simple. It is not just the west that is concerned in Nepal there is also India factor- the regional giant, which has its own high-stakes in Nepal, which is repeatedly indicated by high placed Indian bureaucrats. It would be worth remembering here that the Indian interest in Nepal is much larger than the western interest.

The Indian Ambassador in Nepal very proudly indicated in the 57 th Republic Day message that his country considers it a privilege to stand by the people of Nepal. He claimed India as the largest democracy and stable as well. No questions have yet been raised. But again Ambassador Mukharjee failed to indicate that his own government has failed to stand by its own people. Official Indian statistics reveal that in the recent times Indian government has been unable to improve the health sector, education, urban governance, conditions of women, communal relations, social integration, inequality and social security. Given these background, Babooo Mosai's claim can be analyzed as a totally false one.