Ensure freedom to media

The periodic attempts by the government to control dissemination of information on the pretext of regulating the functions of the country’s  mass media in a systematic manner is a matter of grave concern to all those who value freedom of the press. The reasons behind uncalled for intervention is something which has become too obvious to need any elaboration.
The members of all political establishments including the government want to maintain an upper-hand vis-a-vis the members of the intelligentsia. The government - indeed all post-1990 governments - has time and again interfered in the professionally proper functioning of free electronic and print media.

Strangely, last year the then NC led coalition government led by the then Prime Minister and present aspirant, Girija Prasad Koirala,   raided two vernacular weeklies in the capital and more than 21 journalists were put behind the bar for their alleged connections with the Maoist movement. Within a week, the government again seized a number of weeklies in different parts of the country. This year the government has, without any hesitation, attempted to control private FM radio and, by creating a fear psychosis, the print media. This becomes all the more intriguing as all this is taking place under parliamentary sky which is ideally supposed to ensure unhindered flow of information regardless of whether the dissemination of information in question is harmful for the people in power. The least anyone can do about this is to leaf through the Constitution of Nepal which not only guarantees press freedom but the right to information to each Nepali citizen.

The dissemination of information should no doubt be professional irrespective of the personalities involved. It  is not that there aren’t any legal provisions and Acts that ensure free flow of information. Apart from the Constitution, the Broadcasting Act of 1993 also allows private parties to operate television channels and FM radio stations. However, the government has failed to show any positive attitude towards the private print and electronic media especially on news and views. The government has always used the state owned media as a propaganda tool even a decade after the restoration of democracy. This is no doubt against the national communications policy drafted in true spirit of the Constitution. The government has also ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights-1990 and the UN Convention on Civil and Political Rights 1996 which binds member countries to guarantee in words and deeds the freedom of press and freedom of  expression.

The government can neither regulate the private media nor monitor state owned media if it at all believes in freedom of press or expression. It has to act according to the spirit of the constitution rather than acting according to what it sees as party or its leaders’ interests. The fourth estate, if it is undermined, would never strengthen the values and norms of democracy. The importance of the fourth estate in democratic country, therefore, should always be placed above the interest of the individuals, party and government.

Irrelevant comment

This refers to news story titled “Privatisation comes under fire”, dated December 14,1999, TKP. I would like to correct the statement of Bishnu Rimal, general secretary of the General Federation of Nepalese Trade Unions (GEFONT) stating that  the “privatisation appraisal report Monitoring Privatised Enterprises” prepared by Peter Young, the director of the Adam Smith Institute for the privatisation cell of the Ministry of Finance, stated that the majority companies were performing far better than public enterprises.

The publication was not written by Mr Young, but by an officer of the privatisation cell. The report was only presented by Mr Young at a press conference. The data and statistics of the report were gathered by two representatives of the privatisation cell after having visited a number of state owned enterprises.Mr Rimal seems to have made this remark without fully considering the facts.

At the recent “Privatisation Summit” held at Godavari Resort on the second and third December 1999, representatives from SAARC countries who actually physically managed privatisation units, gave positive reports on their respective programmes.

Mr Ellis of the World Bank (WB) also produced indisputable statistics from a host of developing countries illustrating the success of privatisation and the contribution to the respective economies.

Does Mr Rimal advocate that the government should continue to “bail out” ailing state owned enterprises when such funds could be more gainfully employed in improving roads, the building of schools, hospitals and so on? Perhaps it would be advised if Mr Rimal read and digested to contents of the Yellow Book published by the Ministry of Finance which gives the financial statistics of state owned enterprises in various sectors. It is also a well known fact that governments are not commercially oriented, and that many state owned enterprises are kept “afloat” for other reasons.

To suggest that the government was privatising the public enterprises under pressure from the IMF and the WB is somewhat of an irresponsible comment.

Perhaps a more realistic reason could be that donor agencies were concerned on the issue of apparent waste of funds being utilised to support ailing state owned enterprises.

Dr Douglas G Clarke,
Adam Smith Institute, Kathmandu         

Economic policy : Need for soul searching

By Dr Govinda Bahadur Thapa
Since the economic liberalization in 1991/92, Nepal has been gradually converted into a purely trading nation. It has basically lifted the flood gates for foreign goods. These goods are mainly for the Indian and upper middle class Nepali customers. This has made the Nepalese economy most liberal and open in South Asia. In a sense, a Nepalese market  surpasses any market in the world in terms of the availability of a variety of goods. Hong Kong and Singapore, known for an open economy, do not have cheap and low quality products of India and those coming from Khasha. But, in the Nepalese market, these products are abundantly available besides the high quality and high tech costly products of the advanced countries. Some people may say that these products are here because they are getting enough buyers. But this is not true. The investors currently are concentrating more and more only on the trading of foreign goods seeing no prospects in the production related investments. And they are quickly taking trading to the saturation stage. Because Nepal’s market is not expanding simultaneously in terms of size and depth, it seems most likely that some of the over enthusiastic traders may loose their investment soon.

From this, what conclusion can be drawn is that after liberalization Nepal largely became the market for the products of other countries rather than selling its own products in the international market.

So far as the case of exports is concerned, no new product has emerged during this period. Woollen carpets and ready made garments which currently account for 54 percent of the total exports and 84 percent of exports to other countries were being exported from Nepal even before the liberalization. Liberalization boosted their export to some extent and that also was largely due to the depreciation of the Nepalese currency vis-a-vis convertible currencies and some incentives provided to the exporters. Otherwise, it is pity that liberalization has, so far, added no new product in the list of the exportable items of Nepal.

Some people may say that the surge of exports to India since the last couple of years is attributable to its liberalization. But this is not correct. The surge of exports to India is purely the result of the new trade agreement with India, and liberalization has nothing to do with that agreement.

Otherwise, a liberal economic policy has a serious negative impact upon the existing industries. Now, textile industries, leather and shoe industries, soap and detergent industries, even the sugar industries which are the oldest industries in Nepal and several other industries have turned into sick units. All this has been so because of  the liberal economic policy pursued over- enthusiastically by the government. These industries could not stand in competition against imports. Least developed countries including Nepal due to varied reasons use mostly second hand technologies while the advanced countries use mostly the newly developed technologies. The advanced countries have also the advantage of economies of scale because they have enough exposure and experiences in dealing with the international market. On the contrary countries like Nepal can now only imagine to reap such benefits. Therefore, abrupt exposure of industries of such poor countries to the competition with the products of the advanced  countries sounds like throwing out a new born baby into hostile weather. In this regard, drastic cuts of import tariffs, to the minimum level within short periods of time has the most serious negative impact upon our industries. Therefore, even if liberalization was unavoidable, enough time has to be given to our industries so that they can gradually adjust themselves with the changed environment and gain some maturity and experience in the industrial field as China and India did. This could not be done. As a result, our industries happened to be born sick and the prospects for new industries also has evaporated.

As an alternative, we often talk of developing such industries in which we  have comparative advantages. And in this respect, we put forward the development of water resources and tourism. But, experience shows that harnessing water resources is becoming an extremely costly affairs for Nepal. If we continue pursuing the current process of implementing water related projects, their products one day will become out of reach for the Nepalese consumers. Electricity is the case in point. In case of tourism, it is undoubtedly true that Nepal has a tremendous comparative advantage in this sector. But the question is how much additional employment opportunities can be created by this single sector so that our massive unemployment problem can be mitigated? And, how much additional income can be generated from this sector alone so that our national income can be lifted up to a respectable level? After all, this is not petrol or gold mine. Therefore, while formulating economic policy, we need to be as practical as possible.

This is not, however, to reject the liberal economic policy altogether. This policy also has some brighter and positive aspects and we should take as much benefits as possible from those positive aspects so that we can uplift our economy within the shortest possible time. Firstly, Nepal has been fortunate enough to obtain support and goodwill from all types of countries and institutions around the world for its development. And if we utilize it properly and judiciously, we can avail unlimited resources from them. This would not have been possible if we had not decided to go along liberal way. Secondly, world market is open to us and accepts our initiatives positively and sympathetically if we have something worthy to sell and we can take benefit of foreign capital, advanced technology and technical know-how prevalent in the advanced world. Thirdly, the potential of the country can be exploited fast and we can quickly  look into other probable frontiers of the economy for development. This becomes possible only if we do away with all the restrictions put in private investments.

But the question is that we implemented this policy in Nepal mechanically without taking into account the ground reality of the country. Mechanical implementation of this policy can enrich only a handful of smart people as is now being seen in Nepal. And this can by no means enrich even a quarter of the population. Then how can we expect the alleviation of the mass poverty and unemployment problem? In the name of liberalization, we are making the government weaker in respect of intervention in the market. Now the government cannot provide fertilizer at low price to the farmers, cannot supply adequate foodgrains to the starving people of the remote areas and cannot provide loans to the entrepreneurs at low interest rates. Similar is the case with the domestic industries, electricity, drinking water etc. And the government is made to remain a silent observer even if the traders charge exorbitant prices for essential items. Therefore, if the government is made so weak and helpless in the economic matters, how will the interest of the poor, unskilled and unemployed people be taken care of? The financial crisis occurred in East Asian countries in 1997 should be the eye opener for other developing countries. In that crisis, the countries which adopted the liberal policy in mechanical ways like Korea, Thailand and Indonesia became the crisis bearer and suffered most while the countries who went in a restrained way like India and China remained least affected.

Market is sine qua none for the liberal policy to succeed. Advanced countries leave no stone unturned to expand existing markets and open up the new ones. This is how the advanced economies have not only survived but flourished. Nepal’s own market is not only small but unintegrated also. Moreover, the poverty of the rural areas where more than 85 percent population live has restricted the domestic market from expansion. This is the principal reason for the ongoing sluggishness in the state of our economy. Therefore, even for the success of the liberal policy, the purchasing power of the rural population must be increased. And this is possible only when the government remains powerful enough to intervene in the market and can divert resources towards the areas of its priority.

Serotonin effect

By Chet Raj Bhandari
One person whose place I was taken to in the initial days after having landed up in Kathmandu was the incumbent Prime Minister K P Bhattarai. This happened largely because the person with whom I was lodged up was a committed Congress sympathiser and he made a point to chaperon newcomers to the Valley to Kishunji, as he said it, and as many still do.

It goes without saying that I stood convinced of the importance of catching a glimpse of the true son of the soil as I so identified him then as. I looked forward to the occasion with awe and inspiration.

As it turned out on the very first day, we could not get the opportunity to find him at home. I recall how almost all the workers who could not see him that morning betrayed a strong sense of disappointment borne out of selfless respect for the man. Deep down, I too felt as if I have missed an opportunity of the lifetime. Almost simultaneously, I felt a still deeper urge to see him.

But as it so happened, my friend dropped the idea of taking me to Kupandol for some unexplained reason. (He was perhaps disenchanted with him already). I have now learnt that my friend was more or less on the fence already having got fed up with the ways Bhattarai extended favours to the select few. Commitment to the party cause did not qualify one even then as now, I now realise.

My first encounter with Bhattarai came my way rather unexpectedly though. We were at Jamal when all of a sudden my friend realised that I could be taken to the party office where I  could invariably get to see him. Soon we were in the midst of the mass of the party workers hanging around.

I was nearer the very place of action, I felt. Believe me, it took me nearly fourteen years to realise the futility of the exercise I once indulged in.

No sooner had we found a place in the crowd, Bhattarai could be seen needling through those, should I retrospectively say, dancing attendance, having finished the days’ appointments at the party office with chosen few in tow. As if our day’s mission had been accomplished, we followed them right up to a New Road pan outlet.

The walk was really proving to be an effortless one since largely because we were inches away from one of the most revered persons in the Nepalese politics (after B P Koirala of course).

I have related this to make my own point. I considered him a very pineapple of politeness on the day I too was eventually introduced to him as a student at that pan shop. In fact, he was garrulous enough to enter into conversation with anyone and did recognise faces once introduced to.

But, as it must have dawned on you also, it is not so now. But I for one am not for blaming a saint in him; I know for sure that people in power go on to imbibe mysterious bodily tonic known as serotonin which, inter alia, powers the subject beyond the realm of the ordinary. And, as I need not mention, the same evaporates once one is out of power.

Glimpse of military rule in Asia

By C D Bhatta
After a few days time, we shall leave the 20th century behind. The first half of it saw the world almost destroyed by war —partly as a result of its division into rival blocs fighting for the war, while regionalism and block politics characterised the second half. The second half has also seen an unprecedented expansion of world trade, which has also brought unprecedented economic growth.

While the nation-state as an entity has its genesis in the modern western context in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, the Asian experience is markedly different. When state and nationalism were in an ascendant mode in the West, the political fortunes of Asia — the mythical “East” were in decline even as the major empires and dynasties were ineffectually dealing with the onslaught of modernity and the industrial Revolution in the garb of colonisation.

The advent of the 19th century marked the transition from mercenary and often marauding private armies/militias to the legitimisation of the management of violence through the emergence of a state-controlled military. The European military -- navy included, was central to colonisation and the flip side was in parts of Asia differently grappling with the colonial yoke and the related state-society-military relationship.

In terms of the militarisation of Asia, Japan stands out but with a caveat: one must distinguish between pre- and post-Hiroshima Japan. Prior to 1945, Japanese militarism was a complex mix of the shogun tradition that venerated the warrior, religion and the deification of a divine Emperor. Japan followed niju seifu, or dual government, wherein civilians had no say in matters military — but the military through its political influence could inhabit the civilian arena. Thus from the beginning of the cabinet government system in December 1885 to the final surrender in August 1945, Japan had 30 prime ministers heading 42 cabinets. Fifteen of these PMs were military men — and three of the Generals, Yamagata, Katsura and Terauchi were premiers for more than half of the 30 years from 1889 to 1918. The price paid by Japan for its excessive military orientation is all too well-known.

The Communist regimes offer a different pattern and China’s trajectory is a case in point. While no stranger to the determined application of military force either internally or externally — Tiananmen has its genesis in 5,000 years of Chinese thought — it is only after Mao that the military, the PLA acquires a centrality with the communist party as a vital pillar of state. The peasant army was the vehicle for the Chinese revolution that overthrew the forces of oppression and the tenet that power flows from the barrel of the gun is yet to be harmonised with a normative civil-military relationship. The two Koreas, Vietnams and Cambodia have to be analysed separately as part of the Cold War dynamics in Asia.

In southern Asia, the erstwhile British Indian armed forces played no role in the freedom struggle since the path chosen was one of Gandhian non-violence, for which the Mahatma has been designated as the politician of the millennium not the century by the famous CNN International. The contrast is with states such as Myanmar, Indonesia and later Bangladesh where the military was actively involved in the freedom movement. However, historical record reveals a deeper malaise when the military is deified as the only saviour.

Indonesia, where military rule was the norm during the Cold War decades, enshrined uniform in politics and it remains to be seen how successful the current return to democracy will be. Myanmar which invited the ‘tatmadaw’ in 1962 to save the state is yet to return to democratic moorings and the military cannot be ignored in the polity of Dhaka. The inference is that where the military is deified — ostensibly in good faith — and encouraged to occupy the political space, the net result is negative. Power is addictively heady and soon the saviours acquire a vested interest in perpetuating military rule or influencing the politics of state.

The virus of militarism in politics have been adversely affecting state and civil society over the years endangering the nurturing of democratic pluralism and civil liberty. The return to normalcy — that is normative liberal value and practice is a long, slippery and often elusive haul. While talking about Nepal it remained under the rule of Shree 3’s for one hundred and four years. Jung Bahadur grabbed the power through coup and his henchman kept the system alive for one century.

Nevertheless, democracy is also not a driving force for the country. The downfall of Nawaz Sharif in Pakistan and Suharto’s in Indonesia is a completely new dimension in the politics. Their downfall is entirely related with the economic mismanagement more than anything else. Those who think democracy is the driving force for the country have been proved wrong here.

Summing up, the countries in the 20th century have gone through all types of rulers. Now that everything has been changed upside down. The military rulers are also talking about the economics as they have realized that economics is the driving force of the country than anything else. It’s right time to concentrate on the economic front than pseudo-democracy. Democracy is just an abstract idea, it does not exist in reality.

(The author is studying International Relations at the University of Birmingham, UK)