Stable Democracy
Or
Volatile Dictatorship?
W ith the upsurge in violence and chaos in the country, there appear no signs for immediate elections in the country. At a time when Nepal is trying to adjust with the new system, a debate is raging how to stabilize Nepal - either through democracy or dictatorship. Although one of the leading newspapers of democratic India termed democracy as volatile and dictatorship as stable for Nepal, Nepal’s own experiences have shown just the opposite - as it was stable during the period of democracy and volatile in the period of dictatorship. Stable democracy will be right prescription to bring the country back to track
By KESHAB POUDEL
“… If events in that landlocked nation (Nepal) should spin out of control, New Delhi could well be left scratching its head and wondering whether in case of countries in its immediate neighborhood, stable dictatorship or volatile democracies are more in its interest.” (Times of India , 14 March).
Although Nepal has several experiences of volatile situation during the period of dictatorship whether it was during Panchayat or recently after October 4, 2002 or with the formation of seven party government after April, 2006, Times of India, a leading paper of one of the world’s largest democracies, however, prescribed opposite views.
M.R. Josse, a renowned Nepalese journalist, who is well known for his commentary on international affairs, writes in his article, “Finally, one may consider a somewhat new Indian dimension to the Nepalese Maoist issue as reflected in a Times of India editorial (14 March) entitled “Virtual Republic.” Josse argue that the editorial of the Indian establishment newspaper often reflects what is on South Block’s mind.
W hatever the intention of the editorial, the paper suggested a very wrong alternative to the people of India about Nepal . “Unfortunately, this opinion has come not as a correct diagnosis and treatment of Nepal ’s problems. But this can be taken as a reflection of utter frustrations of the elites and opinion builders of India about their own democratic experiments till now,” said a political analyst. “In fact, democracy is the time tested solution of all these problems originating from conflicts, disorders and instability of all these natures.”
Democratic India
Though democratic experiment in India, in terms of two prominent scholars Francis Fukuyama or even Fareed Zakaria, is an illiberal and slow in its delivery, had there been no democracy in India, there would have been nothing to preserve its integrity as a nation.
“Despite being desperately poor, India has had functioning democracy since 1947. Whenever someone wants to prove that you do need to develop economically to become democratic they use as their one example – India . Much of this praise is warranted. India is genuinely free and free-wheeling society. In recent decades, Indian has become something quite different from the picture in the hearts of its admirers. Not that it is less democratic: in important ways it has become more democratic. But it has become less tolerant, less secular, less law-abiding, less liberal. And these two trends – democratization and illiberalism- are directly related,” writes Zakaria in his book The Future of Freedom. “ India ’s semi liberal democracy has survived because of, not despite, its strong regions and varied languages, cultures, and even castes. The point is logical, even tautological, decentralized government helps produce limited government.”
Fukuyama has his own views on democracy. “There is no doubt that contemporary democracies face any number of serious problems, from drugs, homelessness, and crime to environmental damage and the frivolity of consumerism. But, these problems are not obviously insoluble on the basis of liberal principles, nor so serious that they would necessarily lead to the collapse of society as a whole, as communism collapsed in the 1980s,”said Fukuyama in his book The End of History and the Last Man.
Stable Democracy
The experiences of different countries have shown that it is the democracy which is stable and smooth compared with dictatorships. Though tyrant and dictatorship guarantees short term stability; democracy, which is often volatile in nature, is a system guaranteeing a long-run stability accommodating conflicting interests and groups.
One of the basic characters of democracy is that it accommodates all aspirations of religious, ethnic and other groups through the periodical elections. India is the best example of how democracy accommodates various linguistic, ethnic, religious and regional groups. For example, India ’s present leaders of power structures show an example. India ’s democracy shows model of inclusiveness in its power structure electing Muslim as a president, minority Sikh as a prime minister and Dalit as a chief justice.
“We can guarantee the stability only through democracy. There are no alternatives to democracy. We have already seen how unstable and unpredictable absolute power in one or other forms can be,” said RPP-Nepal president Rabindra Nath Sharma.
One cannot see these kinds of accommodations of various groups in stable dictatorship. Even in many other South Asian countries which passed through various modes of dictatorship which brought temporary stability and ended in volatile situation. Even for the integration of nation, democracy is the best solution.
Several countries in the world including the dissolved Soviet Union or former Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia , they were disintegrated as they were under the tyrannical communist regime. So far as democratic countries are concerned, democratic values and ideals bind the country together even in difficult times.
Nepal ’s Experiments
In the last six decades, Nepal has experimented with various models of democratic system. From liberal democratic system to tyrannical and from parliamentary democracy to newer form of dictatorship of eight political parties, Nepal has all kinds of experiences.
As a country of various geographical regions and numbers of ethnic and linguistic groups, absolutism, in any form, cannot accommodate their conflicting interests. It is possible only in democracy.
“Nepali people should take the responsibility of restoring democracy as well as safeguarding the nation. If we talk of only one responsibility we will be following the wrong track by being one-sided. Therefore, we need to understand that the national unity can be built on the foundation of democracy only,” said Nepali Congress leader BP Koirala in his statement issued on December 16, 1976 .
Nepal ’s six decades of experiments helps to draw the conclusion that period of normal parliamentary process was able to accommodate conflicting interests and opinions through the electoral process.
The first phase of Nepal ’s experiment on parliamentary democracy began in 1959 when country held the first elections for parliament. After the elections, a first elected government was formed under the leadership of Nepali Congress leader B.P. Koirala in 30 June 1959 . However, this experiment did not last for long and King Mahendra dismissed the elected government led by B.P. Koirala on December 4, 1960 dissolving both Houses of Parliament and suspending the constitution.
Whether in the elections for first parliament in 1959 or past three parliamentary elections following the restoration of democracy in 1990 - which were keenly observed by international teams of vigilance from different countries and organizations - showed how they could accommodate the conflicting interests.
“During the first parliament in 1959, all the persons belonging to different casts and ethnic groups suffered for common democratic cause. Under the leadership of B.P. Koirala, persons like Ganeshman Singh, a Newar, Ram Narayan Singh, a Madhesi, Yogendra Man Sherchan, a Thakali, Premraj Angdumbe, a Limbu and Dewan Singh Rai – who were in prison with B.P. Koirala for many years together - made great contributions,” said the analyst.
According to the Elections Commission, the first general elections were held in February 19, 1959 and Elections in two constituencies were held two months later. Out of 42,46,468 voters of estimated 8.4 million population, Nepali Congress secured 45 percent votes winning 74 seats out of 109.
“Only a democratic ideal could accommodate and assimilate persons of such varied ethnicity and regions,” said an analyst. “There was no such emotional integration or political solidarity as was seen in the team of politicians of first parliament. Even the main opposition leader joined the majority party to fight for the restoration of the parliamentary democracy. That experience of the formative period of democratic phase of Nepal now serves a lesson to keep in mind.”
Second Phase of Absolutism
After the dissolution of elected parliament and dismissal of elected government, the second round of authoritarian system came into existence under the leadership of the King. There was almost 30 years of authoritarian exercise of power under Panchayat system but when it failed all of its prominent leaders scattered to different alliances.
Although frequent elections were held for various units of Panchayat from grass root level to central level, it failed to accommodate all conflicting interests for a quite a long time.
Panchayat system evolved individualistic approach and competition among various individuals for the sake of power. Though Panchayat system established some stability, it was at most a volatile situation that survived through various compromises with unseen forces with ulterior motives.
Unlike the government accountable to the people, authoritarian Panchayat system harped slogans of nationalism of all kinds but it survived with a series of compromises with unseen powers.
Second Phase of Parliamentary Democracy
As the Panchayat system crumbled following mass uprising in 1990, the second phase of parliamentary democracy started in 1991 following the elections for parliament. In the second phase of practice of parliamentary democracy, there began a process of accommodation, integration and consolidation.
Nepali Congress emerged as the biggest political party not because of any wise and charismatic leader but because of commonalities of interests of persons representing constituencies of heterogeneous ethnic and regional elements.
T he second elections of 1991 had drawn criticisms about the quality of fairness but still it was much better than violent and rigged atmosphere of elections in the neighboring state of India and in which Bihar is the worst example.
“Although Nepal has a long border with Indian state of Bihar , those kinds of deterioration was not seen at all in any constituency in Nepal ,” said the analyst.
In the parliament too, Nepal had two closely competitive political parties which were able to form the governments turn by turn. The centrist Nepali Congress had secured highest votes in all previous elections and thus they were able to form the government most of the time. In all three parliamentary elections held in 1991, 1994 and 1999, Nepali Congress emerged as the largest party and CPN-UML secured second largest number of votes.
According to the Elections Commission, Nepali Congress secured 37.75 percent votes in 1991 election winning 110 seats out of 205 followed by CPN-UML with 27.98 percent votes winning 69 seats. Sadbhavana Party, a regional party, secured 4.10 percent votes winning 6 seats in the parliament. In the following elections in 1994, Nepali Congress secured 33.38 percent votes winning 83 seats and CPN-UML secured 30.85 percent votes winning 88 seats. Rastriya Prajatantra Party came up with 17. 93 votes winning 20 seats and Nepal Sadbhavana Party secured 3.49 percent votes winning 3 seats.
In 1999 elections, Nepali Congress secured 36.14 percent of votes taking 111 out of 205 seats. Similarly, CPN-UML won 30.74 percent votes with 71 seats. RPP’s two factions secured 14 percent votes. Interestingly, breakaway group of CPN-UML the CPN-ML secured 6.38 percent votes.
Once considered as an extremist party like India ’s Naxalites with the same kind of brutal and violent records, the UML became the second largest party and there was a drastic change in its character and rapidly it emerged as the left of center party.
The Third Phase King’s Authoritarianism
The third phase of authoritarianism began following the dismissal of elected government led by King Gyanendra on October 4, 2002 and its culmination was the action of February 1, 2005 when the King took control of all state power leading the council of ministers.
When all possibilities of sharing power was stopped during this period, many political parties were fragmented into the pieces and there began the politics on the basis of caste, ethnicity and regionalism.
Following King Gyanendra’s pronouncement of April 24, 2006 reviving the dissolved House of Representatives, the situation has not changed much. From the King’s to eight political parties’, absolute government was imposed upon people. The new Interim Constitution 2007 - which was promulgated on January 15, 2007 – stipulates that the eight parties are superior and others are inferior in terms of sharing power.
"This government has mixed up characters having combination of heterogeneous views and ideologies. Some have commitment for pluralism and democracy pluralism and many have communist authoritarianism as their guiding ideology. As fully democratic constitution has been abrogated by compromised document of interim constitution which is not able to fulfill any particular political goal, the freedom at present in Nepal is not a guaranteed one but at the mercy of eight political parties’ alliance. Most undemocratic article of this constitution is not to allow any other political party except eight in the
government," said the analyst.
Role of Monarchy
Monarchy in Nepal has played very important role as a cushion between army
and democratic forces. Whenever there appeared a direct conflict between these
two, the monarchy stepped in to prevent it. After sidelining monarchy following the
promulgation of new interim constitution, there is no such cushion now between them.
Debate has started on monarchy ultimately after prime minister Koirala shifted his stand and sided with populism without realizing the role of monarchy. Of course, certain individuals have played certain roles, but one cannot ignore the importance of institution as such.
"The utility of this institution is not dependent upon the person and character with the crown but it is a mysticism of this institution that the people are assured and believe that the monarchy is there to act according to its role. Having some experiences with the constitutional monarchy the people in Nepal at the grass root believe that it is neither absolute nor tyrannical,” said the analyst.
Soon after sidelining the monarchy, people have started to debate possibility of military intervention. This debate should not come when new Army Chief has already reiterated his full support and cooperation to new democratic government.
Following the sidelining of the monarchy, the future scenario at the moment between civil and military authority is completely a new thing in Nepal . A state can not do away the organized army though it can continue without popular politics. Of course, its prices are very high and dangerous in the long run.
The debate on volatile democracy and stable dictatorship has come at a time when monarchy was completely sidelined.
Interim Period Eight Party’s Absolutism
When the possibility of holding the elections has become uncertain, political parties, slowly and gradually, are facing problems of fragmentation on pieces on the basis of ethnicity and regionalism.
“As Nepal is in a critical stage of interim period having no compulsions to go to the constituencies and remain accountable to the electorates, various fractions and groups have again jumped into the political field to try their capacities and, thus, fish into the troubled water,” said the analyst.
Even at this interim period as the power is shared on the party basis, all the political parties have maintained their integration except some smallest units - but that also is in the process of reuniting again.
“Had the leaders of political parties been determined and committed to their own following masses, instead of seen and unseen patrons, with their ulterior designs and strategies, the most unfortunate dirty games of such invisible forces would not have disturbed the real political process,” said the analyst.
As there are no immediate chances for sharing power by holding the elections, various ethnic groups and regional groups are coming up creating the situation more volatile – as such, under the posture of democratic absolutism Nepalese democracy seems to be volatile. If there is no possibility of sharing power through holding elections, these kinds of situations are inevitable.
Interestingly, the transition of interim period was quiet and peaceful till there was parliament with legitimate mandate of people. Following the promulgation of new interim constitution framed by eight political parties and interim legislative-parliament with nominated members from eight parties, the new phase of unrest began in the country.
Nepal ’s own experiences have shown that dictatorship is more volatile with unpredictable results while democracy leads to stability as well as predictability. The prescription for Nepal ’s volatile situation would be the parliamentary democracy accountable to the people. Till the government is unaccountable to the people, it will be known as authoritarian government whether it is the government of eight parties formed after April, 2006 or King Gyanendra after October 2, 2004 . Both the governments failed to bring stability in the country accommodating all conflicting interests.
