|
|||
|
|
|||
|
COVER STORY |
POLITICAL
CRISIS Nepal has experienced
periodic bouts of political instability in its five-decade journey toward modernization
and democratization. Political crises have deepened every time demands for amending the
constitution have been raised. With Nepalis passing through an unprecedented phase of
uncertainty in the midst of a six-year-old bloody Maoist insurgency, only sustained steps
to ensure political stability can help restore confidence in the people. The solidarity
shown by American politicians and people following the deadly terrorist attacks in New
York City and Washington DC provides a valuable lesson in managing crisis in a democratic
set-up. Are our leaders paying attention? By KESHAB POUDEL As the United States, the world’s sole
surviving superpower, is gradually recovering from the trauma inflicted by the September
11 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington DC through the proper functioning of
its institutions, Nepal’s politicians are pushing the country into another round of
turmoil by demanding amendments to the constitution. Although the pace of the discussions
has slowed after the tragic events in the United States, it seems certain that
institutions in Nepal will be shaken once the global situation stabilizes.
Experience has amply shown that
events in a big country like the United States redirect the course of world history. The
tragic events in New York City and Washington DC are bound to have lasting implications in
the world, particularly in a country like Nepal where instability does not loosen its grip
even at moments of national crisis. Nepalese politicians have almost perfected the art of
obstructing the consolidation of the democratic system. Instead, they relish pushing the
country into further chaos by demanding the resignation of politicians and officials
instead of strengthening their hands in dealing with crisis. Interestingly, no one in the US opposition,
media or public has demanded the resignation of President George W. Bush or any other
official in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. Neither have Americans blamed defects
in their constitution. Instead, the American people have
reaffirmed that democracy is the only system of government in which the administration can
count on and get unstinting support for the protection and preservation of the country's
interest during times of crisis. Do Nepalese politicians have the time to heed this lesson
of unity and bring stability in the country by suspending petty political interests? All
available evidence shows that few Nepalese politicians have the time or inclination.
Unstable Mind and Unstable
Politics Over the last 50 years, politicians and
intellectuals have firmly held the view that amendments to or replacement of the existing
constitution are the best ways to tackle the country’s political, economic and social
problems. Today’s political establishment have upheld that tradition. From the ruling
Nepali Congress to the main opposition CPN-UML and from intellectuals to professionals, no
one is ready to acknowledge that frequent tampering with the constitution would prove
costly to the nation. Why do politicians blame the constitution when the fault actually
lies with them and their parties? What Nepal is facing today is a direct result of
political upheaval of the 1990. Had the constitution of the day been allowed to run with
certain modifications, the institutions might have yielded better results and ensured
relative stability in the country. "If the government cannot deliver the
goods to the people, it is only natural to see voices of discontent being raised,"
says Professor Dhruba Kumar, of Tribhuvan University’s Centre for Nepal and Asian
Studies. "The politicians have failed to perform their role and some changes are
needed in the present process." Recent statements of Nepalese political
leaders and intellectuals shows that they seem to be more interested in pushing the
country into another phase of instability without comprehending the social and political
consequences. All political leaders seem to be prepared to amend the constitution,
ignoring the wider ramifications that would rock political and social processes more
violently than the six-year Maoist insurgency. Consolidation of democracy depends on the
roles of various political actors, the attitudes of the people, and successful economic
development. However, one cannot overlook the fact that democracy primarily rests on a
concept of constitutional unity. "Amending the constitution is the only
way to preserve it," says former minister Nilamber Acharya. "There are some
articles that need to be replaced," says Acharya, who was a minister in the interim
government that approved the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990. Strangely, politicians and intellectuals,
who are neither constitutional experts nor regular political workers, are arguing in favor
of amending the constitution with insufficient preparation and without a clear idea of
which articles they want to change. The recent parliamentary debate on the bill concerning
the Commission of Investigation of Abuse of Authority shows how ill advised Nepalese
politicians are about the value of an independent judiciary and the freedom of the
individual. Consolidation of the System Nepal’s primary challenges today are
the consolidation of the political process and the strengthening of institutions that have
become non-functional because of influences exerted by forces that are more powerful than
politicians. However, nobody seems willing to go into the root causes of the malaise. The consolidation of the political system
requires continuity in the constitutional process. Only through stability in the political
system can the country expect to overcome its multiple challenges. The United States has
been able to normalize the situation within a short period of time because all political
parties and the American people have rallied behind President Bush. Had such a tragedy hit
Nepal, the first thing most Nepalese politicians would have done was demand the
resignation of the prime minister and other officials and call for the enactment of a
constitution. "It is standard practice in Nepal to blame politicians, the government
and the constitution for any happening or non-happening in particular points of
time," says a political analyst. Democracy in Nepal presents a confusing
picture, as if it is a system to demand everything at any time. Those who do not follow
the mass hysteria whipped up by politicians are easily designated as anti-democrats. A
democratic government is largely dependent on the leadership qualities of politicians for
the process of consolidation, structure of civil society and political and other
institutions. As they are still in the process of evolving in Nepal, the cycle of
confusion and chaos continues to run faster. Frequent calls for amending the
constitution or its outright abrogation would destabilize the institutions and prolong the
debility. Only mature and stable institutions can help the country overcome the crises it
faces. More than 50 years after the overthrow of the oligarchic Rana regime, the economic
and political record of Nepal offers an ambivalent picture. Nepal has not made any effort
to build institutions nor drawn up any concrete proposal for economic development because
leaders have been preoccupied with political infighting and maneuvering in the pursuit of
power. Strength of Institutions Even after such tragic incidents in the
United States, the situation has stabilized because mature institutions have helped to
apprehend the crisis.As political institutions have become so sturdy and resilient, they
have supported all presidents with the same breadth and strength. Be it Abraham Lincoln
during the Civil War, Franklin Delano Roosevelt during World War II or George W. Bush
today, American institutions have rallied to the support of all presidents in times of
need. Instead of moving to consolidate the
country’s institutions through unity of purpose, political leaders in Nepal are
seeking to replace the constitution. "It is unfortunate that nobody is defending the
existing constitution," says senior advocate Mukunda Regmi, who was a member of the
panel that drafted the basic law. "At a time when the world's sole super power is
calling for global support to eliminate the menace of terrorism, our political leaders are
in a race to amend the constitution." Experiments in other countries have shown
that a period of constitutional stability is needed to consolidate and build institutions.
The needless debate generated by political leaders of all ideological hues has further
shaken institutions like the judiciary and bureaucracy. "Their style of functioning
is one that would precipitate complete breakdown, as nobody knows what will happen
next," says a senior bureaucrat. To confront the crisis and find a solution,
Nepal should work to build stable institutions, which can function independently.
Unfortunately, all institutions seem to have been shaken one after another in the last
five years, mostly out of political expediency. From the family to political organs and
from the security apparatus to the judiciary, all institutions are have been badly
bruised. No one is certain what role they would be able to play in times of need. "Political leaders are calling for
amending the constitution without understanding the basic elements of the
constitution," says a political analyst. "They have not bothered to explain to
the people which articles of the constitution need to be amended and what obstacles the
existing articles have created in the process of democratization." It seems that major political parties have
already agreed informally to amend the constitution despite palpable hostility within
their ranks. Former prime minister and senior Nepali Congress leader Krishna Prasad
Bhattarai has, however, openly challenged these calls, stressing the need to follow the
letter and spirit of the constitution. "The constitution does not need to be amended
now. It should be allowed to function properly for another 30 years," Bhattarai, who
headed the interim government that approved the constitution, said last week. As all major political leaders, including
his party colleagues, are demanding amendments to the constitution, Bhattarai's voice
seems to be in the minority. Hence, no one seems to take it seriously. "We don't have
to hesitate to amend the constitution as long as we preserve its basic essence," says
Arjun Narsingh K.C, a powerful member of the ruling party. "I don't think that
amending the constitution would bring any political instability in the country." As the government and Maoist insurgents are
engaged in negotiations to find a way of ending the violent insurgency, political parties
have found it convenient to raise public discussions on the need for amending the
constitution. However, no political leader has a clue about which clauses and articles
need to be amended in an effort to accommodate the Maoists and make the political set-up
more responsive to the needs and aspirations of the people. "There is a need to amend the
constitution and our party is ready to change every article and clause except the four
unchangeable provisions," says Bharat Mohan Adhikary, chief whip of the CPN-UML and
an architect of the current constitution. "If we amend the constitution, the
situation will improve automatically." Although Adhikary's party has already endorsed
proposals to amend the constitution, he does not have valid reasons to show why his party
has demanded those changes. As the United States is calling for global
solidarity to fight against terrorism, Nepalese politicians seem to be more concerned
about the raising what are essentially non-issues and further destabilizing existing state
structures that could play into the hands of agitators and anarchists. Wish Unfulfilled Every Nepali had high hopes of an
improvement in quality of life in the beginning of new millennium. But Nepal found itself
gripped in great trauma even before the beginning of the new millennium because of
assorted crimes of violence and terrorism that spread across parts of the country.
According to the World Bank and the United Nation Development Program (UNDP), Nepal is
still one of the poorest and least developed countries of the world. As per capita income
hovers around US$ 200 and social development is insufficient, Nepal ranks on the lowest
rungs of the UNDP's Human Development Index. Despite their enormous social and economic
problems, Nepalis have not lost their zeal for democracy. More than 60 percent of
registered voters cast their ballots in the last five elections, a turnout higher than in
many industrialized democracies of the West. President Bush’s call for a global
alliance against terrorism has generated some hope for peace among Nepalis, but their
quest to overcome poverty is obstructed by the turmoil their leaders are fostering
deliberately or otherwise. The country's political, economic, legal
and sociological structures have been passing through a phase of great convulsion. The
long spell of instability has made the miserable conditions of the people worse. The
country has seen Nepalis killing each other, which is against its traditional culture of
tolerance and harmony. In the last six years of the Maoist
insurgency, more than 2,000 Nepalis have lost their lives, but the world's civilized and
democratic community failed to take sufficient notice. While a few official statements
against violence and for peace were issued in some foreign capitals, lawlessness continued
to flare up in different parts of Nepal. Suddenly, the world has changed in a most
tragic but dramatic manner after what happened in New York City and Washington DC. The
fight against terrorism is not a matter of concern only for Americans but for the whole
world. The events of September 11, 2001 have
redefined international relations in a profound way. The conflicts of the past were mainly
between competing interests of states. Now fanatically inflamed terrorism has come in the
garb of religion. Religion has been hijacked to promote the dreams of fanatics. This reorientation is bound to affect
Nepalese politics in ways that may not be fully understood today. Nepalis need to
understand that when highly developed democracies seem to be helpless in the face of
shadowy enemies, Nepal cannot isolate itself from the evolving global scenario. However,
pointless arguments on non-issues would only serve to prolong instability. "This
constitution has everything in it to bring change in society as the country is yet to
fully implement and exercise constitutional provisions," says senior advocate Regmi.
"I don't think the time has come to amend the constitution." Politicians need to consolidate the current
system as revolutionary slogans of a bygone era cannot feed, nurture and educate children
nor ensure a safe and secure life. The greater the political instability, the larger the
scale of problems the people would have to face. After various experiments over four
decades, a democratic constitution exists in Nepal today with clear provisions
guaranteeing the rights of the people. As long as the right to elect representatives to
parliament remains guaranteed and an independent judiciary exists to interpret the laws of
parliament, the people will remain decision-makers of their fate. These provisions exist to prove that Nepal
has a democratic alternative to meet any kind of challenge it faces. Unfortunately,
politicians with substantial strength in parliament ignore this vitality of democracy and
are carried away by easy ploys of populism. As every country needs political stability
and consolidation of the system, will the debate over the amending the constitution
benefit the country? The constitution is a means to create a system of institutions and
infrastructures of governance. Nepal has that kind of constitution. The task is now to
adhere faithfully to the provisions of the constitution and consolidate the gains the
country has made. Nepalese politicians actually should have been leading informed
discussions on ways of building institutions, fulfilling the needs of the people and
decentralizing power to local communities in the process of democratic consolidation. |
Send your feedback to the
editor: spotligh@mos.com.np |
