 |
|
| Kathmandu, Monday March 17, 2003 Chaitra 03, 2059. |
|
Democratic alliance
By LOK RAJ BARAL
Any ordinary student of politics
un-derstands that two and two never become four in politics. It is more so in Nepal where
politicians change their parameters after they are enticed to prospect of power if not the
actual power. This phenomenon is more applicable to systemic leaders than the Maoists who
still remain untested in terms of power. However, from ideological point of view, the
Maoists also face the dilemma on whether or not they should water down their stand. If
they do it will be at the cost of their identity as a revolutionary party.
Other political parties who could end the
partyless regime by forcing the King to accept the sovereignty of people, at least
theoretically, are almost marginalised by the King who thinks that the inherent power
vested with him empowers him to situate himself. But such intent can hardly meet the
spirit of constitutional monarchy as is being practiced in other countries.
The irony of Nepali political development is
also similar to the wrong roadmap that occasionally leads to catastrophe on the slight
error of calculation. So Nepal’s political course is always uncertain and
unpredictable. Expediencies and short-term strategies often influence politics unless some
powerful events overtake them. In 1951, King Tribhuvan proclaimed election to a
constituent assembly in right earnest but the subsequent developments prompted the same
King and his successor to be the source of all powers including the source of the
Constitution. The people’s power had been theoretically restored in 1990 but soon
after it has gone back to the King. And no parties have resisted effectively. Instead of
becoming the force of resistance, political parties are apparently becoming less effective
than the public opinion formed by the press, professionals and other members of civic
society. Although many of them apportion blame on political parties for creating such a
mess, the vociferous criticism made by these groups has not supported the King’s move
to rule as an active monarch. As a result, politics is now being crystallised and
polarised with all including the parties, both systemic and the Maoists, trying to forge a
broad democratic alliance for taking ahead the course of democratic development. And those
trying to drum up support for the King particularly for usurpation of state power are now
dwindling in number and influence. Political parties, despite their failures, are likely
to regain the confidence of people in the name of democracy and human freedoms. The level
of consciousness has gone up due to long democratic exercises in the country. The protest
movements launched during the partyless regime and the extension and expansion of such
exercises since 1990 have made the people assertive regardless of temporary setbacks
suffered by the democratic process.
On the basis of these developments and the
new lessons of democracy being learned by the people of Nepal— that formal democracy
as underlined by the Constitution alone would not do any good to the people at large—
are likely to spur the movement for more democratisation of society and polity. Political
participation demanded by the people would not be confined to the provisions of the
Constitution and laws as participation without empowerment of poor and oppressed sections
of the populace would not matter in the new context. When people start demanding both
participation and empowerment, politics would be qualitatively different from today. The
Nepali democratic elites would be hard-pressed to meet such demands. Unless democratic
process addresses these demands, the new social order envisaged by us would not be a
reality.
The new trends of polarisation between the
protagonists and antagonists of change seem to be drawing a new battle line, though the
risk of yet another compromise in the middle course of this forward move would not be
ruled out. Nevertheless, demand for greater degree of empowerment making the people real
sovereign along with the qualitative transformation of the existing order would be a new
reality. Such a scenario can also be visualised in the context of gradual weakening of
Nepali monarchy in recent years. The assertive posture of the monarch seems to be
temporary as the monarch is highly unlikely to cope with challenges posed by the resurgent
popular forces. Although he seems to have realised it when he reiterates his commitment to
constitutional monarchy and multiparty system, his words, in the opinion of senior
politicians, have seldom matched his action. Such gaps have spread the atmosphere of
mistrust between the King and political parties pushing the latter to open a front against
the move of the King. The standoff between the King and parliamentary parties continues
unless the two sides agree to restore the constitutional process in which participation of
parties would be duly recognised.
Putting the system on the constitutional
track can however be possible only when the King retracts his action by inviting the
political parties to run the government until a fresh election. The first priority is to
install an all-party government vested with full power and authority to negotiate with the
Maoists without any preconditions. Any negotiated settlement that empowers people should
be acceptable to all. Yet, it has by now been clear that any future development needs to
insure the active participation of the Maoists. Given the nature of the present
constitution and the rigidity and preconditions that intersperse it show very limited
scope for making it resilient.
It seems that integration of political forces
into the existing constitution would be difficult in view of the minimum demands of the
Maoists. So the constituent assembly is likely to be the point of convergence of all
forces. If the Maoists agree to abide by the true spirit of the present constitution with
suitable reforms, but that is not likely the emerging scenario, the agenda of constituent
assembly can be abandoned. However, constitution alone cannot meet the challenges if the
political actors involved in it lack commitment and confidence. Internalisation of the
basics of democratic values and process is always a prerequisite for the consolidation of
democracy. For achieving it, a broad Left-democratic alliance that consists of
today’s systemic parties and the Maoists needs to be formed and consolidated. Such a
democratic enterprise demands firm commitment to the multiparty system and popular
sovereignty from both the Maoists and other parties.
(The author is Executive Chairman of Nepal
Centre for Contemporary Studies)
Other Story
|
