DEMOCRACY
Inclusive or Exclusive?
Democracy does not need any qualifying as it incorporates all the basic elements
By KESHAB POUDEL
"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst forms of government- except all those other forms that have been tried form time to time," said Winston Churchill explaining the nature of democracy.
As Churchill said, democracy is neither partial, complete, absolute, inclusive, exclusive, party-less, people's, etc. What it denotes is system of governance with certain basic elements. According to Abraham Lincoln, democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people. One of the most important characteristics of democracy is that it is for the people.
In western countries, where democracy functions, no one tries to add adjective before it. However, the situation in countries like Nepal where chances of practice of democracy are negligible, every one considers himself as a messiah of democracy when they add certain adjectives in front of it.
From prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala, who claims to have gambled his whole life to preserve democracy, to Maoist leader Prachanda, whose party preaches one party authoritarian government, and Communist Party Of Nepal- Unified Marxist Leninist leader Madhav Kumar Nepal , all of them are talking democracy adding adjectives like inclusive democracy, people's democracy and absolute or full democracy.
New Brand But Old Model
Whatever adjective is added in front of democracy, the interim constitution drafted by them have so many articles which gives privilege to certain group of political parties and bar opponents and critics of different ideologies in taking part in making and unmaking government.
During the last thirty years of Panchayat - which was actually autocratic system where people of opposite views were barred to enter – also claimed itself as a party-less democracy.
"Democracy does not need any adjective. Whenever adjectives are added into it, democracy denotes the curtailment of some vital elements. Nepal has past experiences about this. During the Panchayat period it was a partyless democracy and therefore some vital elements of democracy was missing from that," said a political analyst.
" The change of 1990 came out with a democratic constitution without added adjective. Thus, the democracy was visualized in the constitution with all basic ingredients of democracy which required patience and persistence to make it successful. But, it was abruptly ended in its experiment and Nepal was again thrown into a situation of uncertainty and confusion about democracy".
"One is not sure where the decisive power lies in the politics of Nepal . Outwardly, it is the syndicate of eight parties as a unit despite their inner contradictions. And the syndicate is considered as a decisive force - as a privilege political force to be in the power. Interim constitution, which is promulgated by this syndicate, has a provision which clearly deprives a section of opinion to emerge as a political party and contest for power," said the analyst.
According to article 141 (3) of Interim constitution, a political party whose objective is against the letter and spirit of the preamble of the constitution shall not be eligible as a party to be registered by the election commission. The article 38 (1) said the government will be formed with the political consent of eight political parties qualifying those eight political parties which signed political agreement on November 8, 2006 . The party includes Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, Nepali Congress (Democratic), United People's Front, Nepal Peasants and Workers Party, Nepal Sadbhvana Party United Left Front and CPN-Maoist.
T he preamble of the constitution says: "We the people of Nepal in exercise of sovereign and inherent state power promulgate and declare this interim constitution 2063 prepared on the basis of political understanding for such time until Constituent Assembly promulgate a new constitution institutionalizing the fruits and achievements of people's revolution in Nepal ."
However, Article 166 (2) contradicts the statement of preamble. The article states that the constitution will be promulgated by the House of Representatives and approved by legislative parliament. From preamble it appears that the present constitution is enacted, promulgated and proclaimed by the people. However, article 166 (2) says that it was promulgated by the dissolved House of Representatives and approved by new Legislative Parliament. "If preamble is correct, the article 166 (2) is incorrect and if 166 (2) is correct then preamble is incorrect," said a renowned constitutional lawyer and former attorney general.
Restrictive Clause
As this democracy has added objective of inclusiveness, it goes in contradiction with that provision. Further curtailing the entry of political parties, the interim constitution makes a provision requiring signature of 10,000 persons as proposals to register the political party in the Election Commission. According to article 142 (5), a political party needs application with at least 10,000 signature of voters to register as a party. The same article, however, gives privilege to those political parties represented in the legislative parliament as they don't have to produce signatures to register at EC.
As has been the experience in the past, the office may require verification of signatures. Ordinarily, parties with 10,000 persons are considered as big. Any politician who is able to bring such a crowd in the office of Elections Commission will have to bring the crowd in the roads in front of EC office.
Here again, if that party stands for opposite views, then physical clashes with syndicate parties may not be ruled out. If that party stands for previous patterns of constitutional monarchy with multi-party democracy like the party led by Rabindranath Sharma, or others like him, one can very easily guess there will be counter measures from the extremists.
"At a time when prime minister Koirala to Prachanda, all have the habit of pointing at the threat of revival of monarchists, one can very easily guess how they will deal with them. So, the inclusiveness in the constitution is a decorative and attractive term to look at but it is particularly impossible to have in practice," said the analyst. "The constitution guarantees the political freedom to those who did participate and supported last April uprising but for those who were critical to this political arrangement are denied such rights."
However, practice of democracy in western countries show that democracy guarantees the right of even those whom the persons in power hate.
A universal concept of democracy has emerged into the practice from which Nepal cannot remain alienated. It would be like repeating the same mistakes the authoritarian Panchayat system committed, through one party form of campaign called Go Back To Village by excluding critics and opponents of mainstream politics. It is high time to amend the restrictive provision of the interim constitution like procuring 10,000 signatures and parading huge crowd in front of election commission.
Reconciliation: Safe Model for Democracy
Nepal cannot have any safer model of democratic experiments than that of change with continuity. The traditional forces of the country may have to go into a gradual transformation to the stage of modernity but there must be continuity. Reformulation and abrupt changes brings instability and instability invites further instability and chaos which is being experienced everyday in Nepal one after another.
Before Maoists were pacified, Madhesis have been aroused. Different areas in hills have different patterns of destabilizing0 forces in operation. It is, therefore, the reconciliation which was politically espoused B.P. Koirala that alone could be the alternative to this chaotic situation.
"The concept was not new in Nepalese politics as the historic call for national reconciliation by B.P. Koirala emphasized upon the reconciliation between traditional and modernizing forces. The basic elements of Nepalese society include a vast majority of traditional minded people who in due course of time gradually may reach into the moderation. That kind of tolerant view is not valid in the eyes of the present leadership in power," said the political analyst.
The basic characteristic of a traditional society is it's basically a rural economy based upon traditional tools and arrangements. More than 80 percent of the population lives in a close community life in villages.
The majority of that people live in a joint family system which has long since vanished from western industrial society. Social beliefs and social interactions are also a traditional nature in Nepal .
Role of Traditional Force
The institution of monarchy not only symbolizes the traditional forces but is also institution of continuity of change. Whether it is in Afghanistan or in Cambodia even though the institution of monarchy was abolished, the modernizing forces were compelled to reconcile with the traditional force. Afghanistan needed King Jahir Shaha to assure the Loya Jirga that the change has his free consent.
"Similarly, modernizing new regime in Cambodia , the preacher of change restored the institution of monarchy to create congenial atmosphere for reconciliation with the traditional forces of the country. It is not necessary for each country to repeat same mistakes and correct it later on. Nepal has not yet reached to that stage of alienation of modernizing forces with traditional one. Whatever is being experimented in the name of interim constitution, it should not be at the cost of one against other."
For example, the article 159 (3) of interim constitution says the first meeting of CA will decide the fate of monarchy but prime minister Koirala's derogatory remarks at the institution issued form Biratnagar and recently from New Delhi says otherwise. These kinds of utterances have no political justification except as an expression of vengeance and super ego.
The most sensible thing could have been to observe the discipline of the constitution, to which they owe allegiance. Taking into the consideration of the hard reality of the country, its history, socio-cultural relationship and geo-political compulsions, Nepal has no better alternative than synthesis of all those elements.
Reconciliation between the traditional forces with modernizing can alone guarantee the smooth functioning of democratic society. And democracy cannot exclude the part of social forces from the mainstream of the politics. Democracy in that sense cannot be exclusive.
