Democracy: Bumpy road ahead

By GANGA THAPA

Absolutely, from every point of view the cease-fire was necessary. The more noteworthy of the development is that a ceasefire agreement has been reached between Nepal’s two political extremist groupings that until recently were trying to get everything for their own purpose. True also, the organized core of these extremists is small but effectual and portrayed as the real threat to democracy. By extremism I refer to all attitude and behavior patterns that are directed toward the abolition or permanent restriction of democratic rights and efforts justifying and glossing over the past.

While not denying that some monarchies have been enlightened and some dictatorships have been maintained attributes of a free society for limited periods of time. The stultifying effect of even a moderate and humane monarchy or dictatorship is worse than the conflict, faction and indecision which are often found in a democratic government.

The Maoists have been fighting initially for basic needs and now for republic and monarchy also wants a role to play in politics. Even though there is no known paradigm shift, the ceasefire is an approach, a fresh start, for the negotiated and peaceful settlement. Of course, the faith alone neither brings peace, nor instills trust.

Things cannot be done with calculation, that tomorrow, after tomorrow, in five or ten years time one will win, it is necessary parties involved in the ceasefire did not allow themselves to be governed by the particular interest and take a broader, longer term outlook. Otherwise, it will be quibbling over nonsense. The sooner the people know who are going to run their own show the better. A Swiss code says: ‘the head of a family is liable for any damage caused by minors unless s/he can prove that s/he has given sufficient supervision and care as required by the circumstances of the crime. What this would mean in the present context is that both the Maoists and the monarchy should pay whatever prices are incurred as a result of their negligence.

The position of the general public toward monarchy and Maoists is ambiguous and doubtful. At the same time, there is also a strong desire for change. The reason that the Maoists should ride to power is, they have been criticizing multiparty all the time and want to show how to do better. My intention is, at least, at the beginning something has to happen to boost a refreshing change. Until now they are talking like leaders eager to show and they still have stamina to carry their responsibilities, but their mind and body language is telling different stories. Clearly, hijacking politics, certainly do not contribute to the construction of a legitimate political order. Such legitimacy must drive from popular understanding of a consensual agreement on, the forms of political behavior that are acceptable in society. People are now undeniably concerned about their well being after long, continuing and deadly violence. But for the present, the constitution of 1990 must be the focal point for the discussion— a great majority of people support it although its’ legitimacy is contested both by the right and the left. The simple fact may be that after the mysterious murder of King Birendra and his family and following the coup of October 4 that resulted from the breakdown of electoral democracy, the rise of monocracy protracted Nepal’s transition to democracy and increasing monopoly on power, monarchy has suffered a sharp loss of public confidence. We do not know how long it will take for a total collapse, but the process is irreversible. No constitution can stop a determined majority from getting what it wants but it would be mistaken to assume that monarchy is soon taking a step toward the longest goodbye in politics.

While not denying that the will of the majority rule prevails in a democracy, it is unlikely that a democracy can last for long when a bare majority has to compel an unwilling minority to accept the rules. Things go wrong for every great people whose ambitions exceed its power and reality. Most fundamentally, the outcome remains still uncertain because Nepal requires a radical change of political, and probably social, economic relations, and radical change never occurs easily and smoothly. The instability of democracy without equity is the same. I can only remind the reader of the many cases where absolutism and palliative tactics was a contributing factor for disintegrating democracy. The raison d’etre is the creation of institutional pluralism, wherein many parties and many bodies share power and check one another. All western democracies that are rich in tradition are characterized by this type of consensus. Nepal’s problem today is a manifestly new one. With no established democratic tradition, there is a particular danger that individual deficits in the legitimacy of public rule are blamed on the democratic system as a whole, that temporary crisis in sub-areas of society lead to the rejection of democracy per se. There is, of course, the possibility that the multiparty democracy; the official ideology of the Nepali state to which all Nepali citizens are supposed to subscribe, might be compromised as a result of this unusual alliance. Hence we should not assume that the political struggle is over.

Political struggles which are the expansion of human rights and government accountability are never ending, often beset by violence, when the regime resisted change and redistribution of power. For example, democratization in France entailed a revolution and then decades of political turmoil. The US emerged from a war of independence, a civil war, and a slow process of evolution. In Germany and Japan, it took a major military defeat before democratic transformation occurred.

Indisputably, the Nepali Congress is mainly responsible for destroying the process of democratization and for plunging the country into political and economic chaos in just thirteen short years. Oligarchs like Wagle, Khadka, Gupta and many others clearly compromised the people’s sovereignty in favor of their personal fortunes. This not only violates social, economic and cultural rights of the citizens, but also violates their civil rights. These violations not only directly affect the people of Nepal, but also lay the ground-work for a protracted social conflict that can engulf neighboring states. Even if I dismiss statehood as the ultimate fall-back position, my fear is that when the axe falls hard on Nepal, who will protect the country? Democratic institutions and statehood cannot be sustained unless people are allowed to exercise their freedom as long as it does not compromise the freedom of others.

Finally, one does get the impression that there is going to be a change in the constitution. It is not clear why departure is warranted. Fear of the growth of one extreme may provoke voters to support the opposite extreme, at the expense of a center position preferred by the most voters. True enough, when we change the constitution we change the society. But if we consider that we can solve our problems through constitutional reform, let us do it now and all at once. A new constitution cannot solve all our problems as long as the political situation remains a threat and as long as the factors causing it remain acute. The challenge is to bring qualitative changes, for example, of expanding the democratic system in order to ensure full participation and rights of the citizens within a democratic system whose first loyalty is to the nation as a whole. It is significant that the Nepali rulers must satisfy the people instead of the soldiers because of the growing popular discontent. To be sure, many of us hate hypocrites. In cosmology of most religions, hypocrites are cast into the lowest levels of hell, but within the institutions of politics, hypocrisy reigns supreme.

Celebration of love

By KAMANA SINGH BASNYAT

Love may not make the world go round but it surely does make the ride worthwhile. Indeed, the word "love" though vague carries a deep, beautiful and profound meaning in the life of everyone. The very thought of love makes our eyes twinkle and the same love makes our heart dance endlessly.

Love can happen at anytime but expressing your love at the right time means a lot especially when love is in the air. One day or the other "I" or "you" will be the ultimate victim of Cupid’s arrow because love can take the form of anything or anyone. The cheerfulness of love is usually mind-blowing. In today’s materialistic world where money, time and speed means everything the word "love" seems to be hiding somewhere in the corner of everyone’s heart. Without love everything is very dull, dry and dead. Love provides a very profound meaning to human existence.

February 14 is not an ordinary day. Every year across the world this day is celebrated as Valentine’s day. On this day, thousands of candies, flowers, cards and gifts are exchanged between loved ones to express their love and faithfulness towards each other.

All the gift shops and galleries of Kathmandu have been decorated as a newly wed bride to attract the customers. These shops are offering every kinds of gifts and cards for people, especially teenagers, who are seen hovering at the gift shops.

Different people have different views about Valentine’s Day. Some of them think they should celebrate it and some think that they do not require a special occasion to celebrate or share their love with their partner, for them everyday is a Valentine’s Day.

As I firmly believe in love, I feel if one has respect for these four little letters ‘love’ then he/she will surely find the love of his/her life one fine day or maybe in this Valentine’s Day. And those who are already into a relationship, this day will make their relationship stronger.

People spend their entire life looking for love, wanting it, needing it and seeking it and most of the time they don’t
find it.

Bargaining behind the curtain

By JISHNU SUBEDI

Just a couple of weeks ago, the dem- ocratic forces were busy drawing plans for a joint movement against the King for straightening the course of the 1990 Constitution. For them the government was unconstitutional, so it had no legitimacy to hold talks with the Maoists. Human rights activists, who were supposed to be closer to the Maoists, were arguing that legitimacy of the government was the main hindrance for a peaceful solution to the seven-year-old internal conflict. The tone has changed now. Ironically, it is the Maoists, who gave legitimacy to the government, and now the democratic forces are left with no agenda but to ask for a favour from the Maoists and the Palace. Thanks to the Maoists, the issue of legitimacy of the Lokendra Bahadur Chand government is sidelined now.

Not everyone is so enthusiastic about the bolt from the blue— the ceasefire. Though not in very specific terms, India showed their reservations in the ceasefire that has been achieved by keeping the democratic forces in dark. Another key ally and major supporter of the government in the war against the Maoists, the United States, too, conveyed the message that the situation does not look so good. The US believes that it is the recent cache of arms and artilleries acquired by the RNA and advancement in their capacity that forced the Maoists to declare a ceasefire rather than a genuine desire for peace. Both the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are worried about what has transpired between the two armed forces, bargaining behind the curtain. In a recent article written by Dr Babu Ram Bhattarai which was posted on the Internet, it stated that "although Dr Bhattarai envisages a role of democratic forces in the future dialogue process, he asks them to be in one side of the two armed forces". The article clearly indicated that a role of the political parties would be limited to that of a facilitator.

And very surprisingly, the publicly known and accountable-to-some-extent facilitator and human rights activists, who played an active role in the peace talks last time, are kept in the dark this time. However, it can be argued convincingly that because of a number of complications involved and secrecy required, they had to be left in the ground-breaking announcement of the ceasefire.

What is not convincing in this whole episode is the murder of Armed Police Force Chief Krishna Mohan Shrestha. It is now somewhat clear that the ceasefire announced last week did not occur overnight. Then, why did the Maoists consider it necessary to kill Shrestha? In the same article, Dr Bhattarai wrote that "the ceasefire is an outcome of the efforts of many human rights individuals and institutions in the past to the Krishna Mohan Shrestha episode. If so then, why did not they immediately announce that killing as a ‘great leap towards dictatorship of proletariat’?

CP Gajurel, a Politburo member of CPN-Maoist, vehemently argued in his article entitled " No hidden agenda in dialogue" that the demands, which the delegation of the Maoists is going to raise at the negotiating table, will be raised by the masses on the streets. He cautions against overestimation of the ‘dialogue’ and opined that the mass struggles and mass movement help the ‘dialogue’ to bring the desired positive results. The message is clear enough that the Maoists are considering to stage street protests to reinforce their demands at the table. This message is sufficient to give the chilling memory of their so-called Janasabha that they announced to hold in Kathmandu on September 21, 2001 when the ceasefire was being observed and the peace talk was in progress. The government of Sher Bahadur Deuba was forced to ban any mass meeting in Kathmandu for one month and later on, the mass meeting was re-scheduled in Biratnagar. Now, once again the Maoists are perpetuating their desire to organize mass protests and rallies of all parties against the October 4 royal move. It is not convincing that they are so anxious about holding such mass protests and rallying all the parties against the violation of the 1990 constitution, which they themselves consider defunct.

The Maoists’ key military strategist Badal is also one of the delegates in a five-member team of the CPN-Maoist. With a large number of the Maoist cadres flooding the streets of Kathmandu for a ‘peaceful’ rally to ‘reinforce’ their demands at the table and ‘Badal’ freely roaming around Kathmandu, where will the security forces be? Though the inclusion of Badal has increased the authenticity of the Maoist team, it has equally posed a threat that Kathmandu will be converted to a Maoist base area and, more convincingly so, in case they insist on holding mass protests without surrendering their arms.

(The author is Assistant Professor at Nepal Engineering College)