COVER STORY (Spotlight Weekly)

In A Political Crisis

None of Nepal's four Constitutions promulgated in the last five decades, have been given adequate time to become stable. Now there is talk of amending the fifth, the present Constitution. Is it the failure of the Constitutions themselves, or is it the lack of commitment, and faith in democratic principles and ideals, among politicians and the public, that are responsible for this fickleness? Why do Nepalese lose faith and give up on political systems so quickly?

By KESHAB POUDEL

Ten years ago, in 1990, a huge celebration was held in Nepal. Parties of various political colours hailed the proclamation of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal. This new Constitution changed Nepal's government from a Monarchy, into a Constitutional

Monarchy with a Parliamentary Democracy. This year, a coalition of nine left wing parties, has already called two Bandhs (strikes that virtually shutdown the country), to pressure the government into withdrawing the recent increases in the price of petroleum products. The Bandhs have been called for November 16 and 17, which happens to coincide with the tenth anniversary of the signing of the Constitution.

But since the politicians appear to have lost faith in the Constitution, and the people appear to have lost faith in the politicians, what is there to celebrate?

A demonstration urging for timely promulgation of the constitution in 1990 : Where has the backing gone ?

"Writing constitution is to write down utopia and to practice the constitution is to onfront the realities. Npal has a marvelous utopia in the past and now the country is facing hard realities of the society. Mere debate of change is an easy task for a politician but to fulfill the dreams and aspiration of the people in a country like Nepal is a really uphill task. Crisis in Nepal is not due to the constitution but the constitution has been put into trouble by the politicians," said eminent constituional lawyer Ganesh Raj Sharma.

In a democracy, it is common for people to speak out against government decisions, that is a defining element of democracy. But in Nepal, instead of increasing the general populace's faith in the democratic system as a philosophy, Bandhs have resulted in the decline of public faith in the system.

Since 1990, demonstrations have become ugly, and scores of strikes organized by the opposition parties, have turned violent. As a result, all forces, including those responsible for the present Constitution, are now calling for change. So, ironically, the demonstrations, themselves an act of democracy, are further alienating the people from the constitutional process. The fact that the demonstrations have turned violent, is making people believe democracy is a bad thing for Nepal.

Framers of the constitution : Where do they stand now ?

In recent years, economic decline and the decay of government bureaucracy, have weakened the ability of the government to govern effectively. Though a new generation of political parties and leaders are beginning to emerge, they are far from delivering on their promises, and more importantly, their responsibilities, and wide spread disillusionment with politicians continues. An example of the declining public confidence was the large numbers of people who ignored the black-out called by the Leftists last week. Nepal's major political parties and politicians have shown a lack of faith in the Constitution, and the public has demonstrated their lack of faith in politicians, and everybody is calling for change.

"If there is a serious debate about the Constitution, it should be taken as a very good signÖ The system has to deliver something and leadership needs to function properly," said advocate Sunil Adhikary. However, at a time when almost all the institutions are not

functioning well thanks to weak leadership, one cannot blame everything on the Constitution. "As political leaders failed to deliver the goods, extreme rightists and extreme leftists are trying to run activities against the present Constitution," said Bishwo Nath Upadhyaya, former chief justice and chairman of Constitution ecommendation Commission that drafted the present constitution.

"It is good that there is a debate on the Constitution. But for political institutions to exercise their right by calling bandhs, black outs, and gheraos, are extreme and unwarranted," said one analyst.

A violent demonstration : Erosion of faith

The very people who were responsible for the drafting of the Constitution are criticizing it. "It is true that a strong political group, which was also responsible for drafting the Constitution, is now criticizing each institution under it," said Justice Laxman Prasad Aryal, member of the Constitution Drafting Commission. Politicians are not alone to blame for this shift in faith. Even lawyers and judges seem to have changed their position. If we examine the manner in which the Supreme Court, authorized to define the Constitution, behaved in the past three cases of dissolution of the House of Representatives, we can see how frequently the judiciary changed its stand.

The problem with the present political process is that everywhere there is disenchantment, lawlessness, corruption, anarchy and faithlessness. The Constitution is suffering not because of its own defects, but because of faithlessness generated by several factors. The problem of Nepal is the inability of government, a lack of integrity, and inexperienced

leadership. For these faults, it is unfair to attack the Constitution. Democracy has proven to be a slow process, and not just in Nepal. It is so slow that many people lose faith in developing countries' ability to handle democracy. As the great British statesman, Winston Churchill, once said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, but the best among those ever practiced." Everyone talks about democracy.

King birendra promulgating the constitution :Start of new era

Whether it is the USA or the UK, all of them have problems. If the Nepalese put their faith in the institutions of democracy, it will eventually yield results.

British democracy, which is regarded as the best model in the world, does not have a written Constitution. The British experience has proven that democracy does not need a written Constitution, if it has the culture and commitment behind the ideals. "As long as people have faith in the Constitution and political institutions are developed by it, there is no threat to democracy. Stability requires faith in the Constitution and ability and skill in governance," said eminent constitutional lawyer Ganesh Raj Sharma.

In Nepal the existing Constitution guarantees democracy, but people still talk about the threat to the system - they do not really believe it has any power. On the contrary, although there is no constitutional guarantee to democracy, British citizens do not have these fears. "The faith and character of people upholds the democratic spirit in Britain. Although the UK does not have a constitutional guarantee of democracy, the disposition of the people ensures democracy will reign," said Sharma.

Recent experiences have shown that the transition to democracy is a complex process involving more than mere political transformations. The transition todemocracy concerns the whole body politic. Nepal's Constitution guarantees democracy, but we lack a guarantee from the public. The greatest crisis in a democracy is the crisis of faithlessness. Like other developing countries, Nepal has many struggles.

Economic development, political institution building, preservation of independence, and stability are all serious matters. In a country which does not have a long democratic tradition, it naturally takes time to accomplish these tasks.

Nepal does not have a long history of economic development. Along with political institutions, Nepal is building know-how and creating a market system.

A mass procession : Normal process of democracy

Nepal is at a cross-roads of change -- social, political and economic. "We have out-dated technology and problems of political institution-building, such as the judiciary, political parties, legislation and government," said Pannakazi Amatya, a political scientist. Even institutions like trade unions are yet to become unions of the working class in the true sense, as leadership is generally imposed from the top. " Our society is based on the feudal system. We have yet to learn the process of democratization," said former Chief Justice Bishwo Nath Upadhyaya.

In the last fifty years of developing the constitution, Nepal has always referred to the British parliamentary system, because Nepalese people can relate to the monarchical form of democracy, with the power vested in a sovereign parliament. But if Nepal continues to change its form of government, the people will loose faith in the democratic system. The experiences of the Western world have shown that it takes time for a constitution to be successfully implemented. People's habits and attitudes need time to adjust. One decade is not long enough to change people's habits and ways of thinking. The South Asian experience is a conclusive example.

Even 50 years has proved inadequate for habits to change in India, and democracy has been more successful in India than in Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Indian democracy has survived for five decades without interruption. The democracies in Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan have faced periodic breaks-downs. Contrary to India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan, which learned the apparatus of the constitution and rule of law through the legacy of British Colonial rule, Nepal and Bhutan had to grow their political systems and constitutions indigenously. We planted the seed of democracy in Nepal just ten years ago, we must give it time to establish itself, before it can flourish.

Although India, with the 300-year-long association with the British Raj, has endured many crises, they have never replaced their Constitution. Political parities have come and gone, but they have not blamed the Constitution for the failure of their government.

In the cases of Bangladesh and Pakistan, all leaders, both civilian and military, have blamed the Constitution, and replaced them with new systems.

Interestingly, disenchantment with government has remained fairly stable, before and after new constitutions have been installed. Nepal's experiences have shown that changing constitutions does not affect the quality of government, and corruption remains at the same high level. The Nepalese have been unable to generate faith in the Constitution like the Indians.

Nepal's present crisis lies in inefficient, corrupt governance, and the fact that it makes no difference who is in power, not in the Constitution.

As Singaporean senior minister Lee Kuan Yew said stability and prosperity can go together. How can Nepal achieve prosperity without political stability is very difficult to comprehend.

Success in constructing a democratic civil society depends on the commitment of the population at large to the democratic ideal, on its active involvement in all aspects of political, social, and cultural life, on tolerance of differences combined with respect for majority opinion, as well as on the existence of democratic institutions and wise political leadership. Democracy cannot therefore be achieved rapidly - particularly in countries emerging from decades of totalitarian or authoritarian rule - since changes in human attitudes are less easily accomplished than remodeling political structures.