 |
||
|
||
COVER STORY |
|
||
|
||
COVER STORY |
STUDENT CLASHES Over the last 12 years,
political parties have often exploited students to break the rule of law, instigating them
to vandalize private and public property in the streets to challenge the authority of the
state. For radical communist outfits, including the CPN-UML, violence is perhaps
justifiable, as their ideology prospers in anarchy and instability. Strangely, the Nepali
Congress, a democratic party that has matured under the philosophy of rule of law, is also
adopting violent means to advance its political agenda. Is it the kind of culture students
and youths expect to learn from the nation's pre-eminent democratic party? In Nepal's
political sphere, experience shows, ideological orientation hardly makes a difference as
far as the tendency to encourage violence and anarchy is concerned By KESHAB POUDEL "Will they uphold constitutional
methods of achieving their purpose or will they prefer revolutionary methods of achieving
them? If they adopt the revolutionary methods, however good the constitution may be, it
requires no prophet to say that it will fail; it is therefore, futile to pass any judgment
upon the constitution without reference to the part which the people and their parties are
likely to play," observed Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, prominent constitutionalist of India.
Although Ambedkar wrote about
situation in India of his time, his remarks are applicable to the Nepalese context where
political parties often use the term "revolution" to pull down the government
and political system adopting any destructive means. Strangely, they don't mind justifying
the destruction of private property and loss of human life as an effort aimed at the
protection of the democratic system. Former prime minister and Nepali Congress
leader Girija Prasad Koirala, the leader of the country's pre-eminent democratic party, is
a good example. In recent statements, Koirala, who was compelled to resign as prime
minister under illegitimate pressure, declared a student who was killed in police action
while vandalizing private buses at Butwal as the first martyr of the period since King
Gyanendra assumed full executive powers on October 4 last year. Besides expressing condolences to the
martyr's family and friends, Koirala, under whose seven-year rule more than three dozen
students were killed in similar circumstances, urged students and youths to wage another
do-or-die war to put the constitution back on track. Interestingly, Koirala's fellow
students are sacrificing their lives to protect the constitution along with the Maoist
student wing, which has openly declared the constitution dead. Despite their differences on ideology,
Nepal's political parties, whether radical, right, left or center, share a similar
political culture - the culture of destruction and violence - since new-generation
political recruits have been schooled in vandalism and anarchism. Koirala, who joined
Nepalese politics challenging the authority of the Ranas in Biratnagar, is surrounded by
lieutenants who grew up amid agitational politics. This is the reason why Nepali Congress
leaders are prepared to break the law if they feel their political agenda demands that.
The leaders of the CPN-UML are not
very different, as most of its leaders, including general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal,
were once student leaders before joining full-time politics. Almost all political leaders
see violence as a well-accepted political practice. When students go on torching buses and
smashing shop windows, it is seen as democracy in action. Their conduct baffles those watching from
the sidelines. "I don't understand why a mature and mass-based popular leader like
Girijababu is taking such a destructive line, evening justifying every act of vandalism by
students. How would the world community take the barbaric mode of agitation launched by
the Nepali Congress and its student wing?" asked a political analyst. "If I were
in the position of Koirala, I would probably have to make similar statements to attract
the masses. But, I can say this is not a universally accepted democratic culture." Under the call of Koirala, whose party
stands on the ideals of liberal democracy and protection of private property, students
have set fire to more than 150 vehicles, including two dozen private cars and buses, in
different parts of the country. Moreover, the student groups attacked private houses and
burnt tires at the main streets in the capital, showing to the world the cruel methods the
leader of Nepal's leading democratic party is justifying. If Nepali Congress leaders like Koirala,
who has such a long sacrifice and bitter experience of "grand designs", justify
street vandalism and anarchism as a political means, what type of democratic culture can
Nepal expect in the future. When Koirala is pushing his party's student wing into the
street to burn tires, destroy public buildings, private property and block public
mobility, how can he prove that he is different than the radical communists and other
anarchist? Interestingly, all radical student organizations are backing Koirala's line of
street agitation.
"When the world community sees
flames on the streets, burning cars, lights turned out and destruction of public and
private property, how would they treat Koirala and the leaders of other parties who
condemned violence until a few months ago," said an analyst. Angered by the political situation,
political leaders have defended students who have declared that public vehicles will be
destroyed in case they roll along the campus areas. Sparked by the death of a student
leader protesting against the rise of petroleum prices in Butwal in police firing a few
days ago, the agitation has gained a strident political content. The student unions have
been blocking the roads in the main areas torching tires on the streets in Kathmandu and
called general strikes in different parts of the country. The joint agitation of eight student unions
affiliated with the Nepali Congress, UML, Nepal Peasant and Worker's Party, United
People's Front and Maoists have already staged protests, including half-an-hour light
blackout, strike of petrol pump and numbers of violent mobs. As four parties have decided to stage
another people's movement from May 4 by organizing a mass meeting, the students have
called three days of general strike on 20, 28 and 30 April. The students will also stage
similar kinds of demonstrations. "Our struggle is for political rights and it will
continue till the King hands over political rights to the people," said Gagan Thapa,
general secretary of Nepal Students Union, affiliated to the Nepali Congress. "The
struggle has already begun and we will wage a decisive war against the King," echoed
Devendra Parajajuli, president of the All Nepal Free Students Union (Revolutionary),
affiliated to the Maoists. Student Politics
Students have played an important
role in Nepalese politics. In 1979 and 1990, students were thrust on the forefront of the
agitation against the partyless political system. At a time when political parties do not
find people rallying behind them, they see students determined and capable of leading
their cause. "Every means is justifiable to restore the democratic process in the
country. The Maoist student wing is also taking part in our agitation," said Rajendra
Rai, president of All Nepal Free Students Union, which is affiliated to the UML. Torching tires, staging demonstrations and
disrupting normal life, the student groups have already declared further programs, which
are more likely to create hardships for the common people rather than produce any
meaningful change. Is this the culture the country's two major
popular political parties want to develop in the interest of strengthening democracy? If
they encourage and tolerate such behavior, how can they expect to rule? When they are in
power, what will be their response in case of repetition of such acts by other political
parties? Political parties have bitter experience of
violent culture. Koirala who played a crucial role to strike an alliance with the
communists in 1990 against the Panchayat system, was himself a victim of street violence.
But nobody wants to remember the past while they are focused on the future. Nepali Congress leaders have shared a forum
with counterparts from the NWPP, UPF and UML and issued a press release calling on the
people to wage another agitation to restore democracy. "We will stage rallies and
demonstrations like those of 1990 against the King's direct rule. Our leaders have already
backed the agitation of students," said Arjun Narsingh KC, spokesman of the Nepali
Congress. Koirala is not alone at the forefront of
supporting violence. All his old communist arch-rivals in the UML, UPF and NWPP, who made
Koirala's seven-year prime ministership unstable and bitter, are backing him. Whenever
Koirala was in power, communist forces organized street protests destabilizing his
government and the political process as a whole. Koirala, who was regarded as a villain
and unwanted politician until a few years ago, is now an indispensable man.
The same communist groups stalled the
proceedings of the House of Representatives for 64 days in 2001 seeking the resignation of
Koirala over his alleged involvement in the Lauda aircraft leasing scam. Although Koirala
seems to have received clearance from his arch political rivals and the Commission of
Investigation of Abuse of Authority, his minister and colleague Tarani Dutta Chataut and
other senior civil servants are still facing the charge in court. It seems that violence
is established political culture in Nepal and common citizens, too, do not distinguish
between law-breakers and law-abiding political leaders. "A democratic system can endure only
when citizens as a whole hold fast to constitutional methods for achieving their social
and economic objectives. When constitutional methods are open and available, they must
abandon the bloody or coercive methods of revolution, of civil disobedience, and of
non-cooperation. Democracy cannot survive long among any people with whom the loudest
voices counts as the voice of wisdom, or when coercive pressures take the place of reason
and persuasion," writes Pylee, in his book "Constitutional Government in
India". Violent Culture Nepalese joined the political process and
learned political culture by breaking the rules and challenging the authority in the
revolution of 1950-51. The Rana rule was displaced following a month of armed struggle and
agitation. The traditional way of politicization still dominates the Nepalese mentality.
Students who entered politics in the early 1970s remain a major force in bringing
differences in the political process. Because of the contribution of the students in
changing the government and political system, student leaders have secured favorable
positions in the party rank and file. Sher Bahadur Deuba went up to the prime
ministerial post. Many of his colleagues like Ram Chandra Poudel, Dr. Ram Sharan Mahat,
Bal Bahadur K.C., Bimlendra Nidhi, Bal Krishna Khand and† Bipin Koirala, rose in the
Nepali Congress hierarchy. Most of the UML politburo members were student leaders of their
time. When a whole set of leadership has grown up
in agitation politics, democracy has lacked a compatible political culture to survive and
function in society.† "In fact, the spirit of peace is the fundamental civic
virtue. Without it, only the law of the jungle remains. The more stipulates that each
actor will renounce violence as long as his interlocutors do the same," writes Jean
Baechler in the book "Democracy: An Analytical survey". "Friendship,
politeness and reutilization are permanent precautions required of political actors if
they want to fulfill the political orders." In Nepalese politics, there is little
respect for viewpoints of others and tolerance does not have much meaning. Even people
working under the democratic system rarely respect the opinions of opponents. What Has Gone wrong? In the last 12 years of parliamentary
exercise, the political leaders have shown their own interest, trying to avoid listening
to the voices in parliament. This tendency has encouraged agitation on any minor issue.
Successive prime ministers since 1990 appeared to see virtue in avoiding parliament and
their cabinet colleagues have followed suit. After proving the government's majority and
passing the annual budget, no government took parliament seriously. The arguments and
concerns of the opposition were of little value to the premier and ministers. The houses
were often adjourned because of lack of quorum and the absence of concerned ministers. When the opposition failed to find anybody
from the government to listen to their voices, politics often transformed into violent
street agitation. When the opposition spoke, it was more often through picketing and
protests inside the parliament chamber. This is where the process of political
instability began. In many cases, opposition parties stalled the house for months,
blocking any effort of the prime minister to address them. "Since our political
leaders have learnt the political process through agitation, insurgency and force, they
lack the attitude and values compatible to the democratic process," said a
sociologist. "Politicization determines the quality and aptitude of political
leaders. Political culture cannot be acquired from books; it is developed step by
step." At a time when most political actors
originated from student movements, few believe in tolerance, obedience and patience. We
have seen this happening in the 12-year-long parliamentary exercise. In a country where
the main opposition party has the record of calling three-day bandhs and opposition
leaders educated in the United States and Britain take part in breaking the law, one does
not need to go deep to find the reason for the failure of the process. "The successful working of a
democratic constitution requires in those who work it, a willingness to respect the
viewpoints of others, a capacity for compromise and accommodation and real feeling of
forbearance. Inflexibility an intolerance on the part of those who happen to be the rulers
of the day will sow the seeds of hatred and vengeance. Constitutional government and
democracy have no meaning if decisions are always taken on the strength of numerical
majority and the genuine feelings of the minority are bypassed and ignored," writes
Pylee. When there was parliament, no government
tried to respect the feeling of the minority, since it had adequate number of members to
prove its majority in the house. There is also an overwhelming tendency
among the political parties to seek votes on the basis of particular leaders. The UML
stand on the ideals of† the late Madan Bhandary and Nepali Congress projects B.P.
Koirala and Ganeshman Singh as legendary. "No country can remain democratic and no
people can preserve a constitutional government, if the generality of the people are
imbued with an immoderate sense of hero worship," writes Pylee. The success of the party system largely
depends upon the availability of effective and efficient leadership to the parties.
Unfortunately for Nepal, the national movement threw up in its onward march few leaders,
able, devoted and trusted. No nation can expect to get an efficient top leadership without
carefully building up a series of levels lower down properly selected and trained
leadership. Walter Bagehot pointed out that nothing changes the face of politics as the
change from one generation to another. While change is inevitable, it is essential to
ensure that along with the change of leadership, the qualities that must be common to
leadership in every age are not destroyed. In a country where leadership lacks
integrity and character is corroded, democracy cannot endure. Since a proper system of
education is an effective instrument in the development of right attitudes, the system of
education should be so reoriented as to inculcate in the youth the virtues of tolerance,
discipline and respect for the country. So long as the young are unable to exercise the
franchise in an intelligent manner, after analyzing the political issues in a rational
way, democracy is not safe. These students may be stamped through empty slogans and
irresponsible promises into becoming camp followers of unscrupulous political adventure. Role of the King Despite his oft-stated public commitment to
democratic rule, King Gyanendra is yet show the country that elections will take place
soon, allowing the people representatives to rule. Elected institutions like parliament
and local bodies are popular instruments to safeguard the monarchy. As the authority is
now vested on the King Gyanendra, he can play important role urging political forces to
join the democratic process. In absence of such popular institutions,
the King has to deal with every matter alone. As long as such institutions are
functioning, no one confronts the King. In every bargain and political controversy now,
the King has to confront directly. The sooner the elections are held, the quicker the
country can have popular institutions to back the king. "Unfortunately, all actors are
creating a situation unfavorable to holding the elections. All political leaders are
willing to invite the Maoists in the agitation to press the King, but no one is willing to
ask the Maoists to declare their commitment to the election process," said a
political analyst. The King has to take an initiative so that
the country would have elections soon and new representatives to form a government
accountable to the people. If the democratic process gets back on track, parties will
learn importance of democratic attitudes and values. Greater confrontation between the political
forces would encourage a more violence culture among political workers and youths. If
political upheavals are not resolved in a peaceful manner, a culture of intolerance would
ultimately replace the democratic process. |
Send your feedback to the
editor: spotligh@mos.com.np |
