National 8 (Spotlight Weekly)

Security and Political Environment: A Nepalese Prospective - I

By Dr. Ram S. Mahat

King Prithivi Narayan Shah, the founder of modern Nepal described the country's situation as a "yam between two boulders"; and emphasized that Nepal's territorial integrity can be preserved only through a defensive strategy by maintaining good neighborly relation between the two giant neighbors. This dictum remains the reference point of Nepal's security policy even at present. During the period of rising British power, the Rana family oligarchy tailored the foreign policy favorable to the British interest primarily to maintain their oligarchy, while preserving national independence and security. The country has not fought any war since 1916. Even now the dynamics of relation between India and China constitutes the basic ingredient of Nepal's geo-strategic thinking, and maintaining good neighborly relation between the two remains the core strategy of Nepal's security policy. This policy was conditioned by Nepal's geo-strategic setting constituting 1590 - kilometer - long border with India and 1414 - kilometer - long border with China. The country's location bordering the Gangetic belt where an enormous share of its human and resource base is concentrated makes it critically important from the perspective of India's security and stability. Furthermore, Nepal's social-cultural ties and economic interdependence with India are extensive and deep, and it is dependent on the latter's seaports for trade. For China, the possibility of Nepal acting as a springboard for Khampa like anti-Chinese activities in Tibet that continued until mid 70s is one most paramount and sensitive issue. Nepal's geo-strategic setting renders it impossible to allow the use of its territory for any subversive or hostile activity aimed at either of its neighbors. Balancing and responding to legitimate interests of these neighbors and not offending their sensibilities is critically important for its survival and security.

Ultimately, it is successful diplomacy and not military buildup which can guarantee the security of small states. Nepal's reliance on diplomacy has been successful not only in ensuring its independence, security and achieving international status, but also for extracting development assistance for the country. The demise of British Empire from India and the end of Rana oligarchy in Nepal contributed to Nepal's expanding relations with the outside world. The expansion and diversification of Nepal's participation in the global system got further impetus under subsequent phases of political development. At present, the country has diplomatic relations with 113 countries and is represented in all major international organizations and forums - a fact which has helped the country in developing not only a distinct personality in the comity of nations, but also in diversifying her political and economic contacts.

Broader Concept of Security

The basic concept of security has undergone profound change in recent years. The traditional concept with focus on military and strategic consideration is no longer sufficient; security of the people has assumed the center-stage. National security is still important, but its attainment is linked more and more to human security. Security of national border is not sufficient to guarantee the security and welfare of the people living within. The Human Development Report, South Asia says - national security cannot be achieved in a situation where people starve and arms accumulate; where social expenditure falls and military expenditure rises. Like the concept of development, the concept of security has increasingly become people-centered. South Asia today is the most militarized region of the world, but that does not make the region any more secure. The mighty Soviet Union crumbled despite its having nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the entire world ten times, when human aspirations for more freedom, better jobs and economic well-being could not be met.

More human lives are lost everyday due to malnutrition, hunger, disease and natural calamities than from armed conflicts. Even when lives are lost due to armed conflicts, such conflicts have been largely internal and not external. Insecurity emanates from vulnerabilities which need not necessarily be inter-state; they could be intra-state with the potentiality of weakening and destroying state institutions, political order and even national sovereignty. Viewed against this backdrop, it is important to ponder about Nepal's vulnerabilities. What are the sources of Nepalese vulnerability? Is Nepal's insecurity more due to our military weakness, small size, land locked-ness, a location which is sandwiched between two nuclear powers, or the open border with India which could be misused against either country, or due to poverty, economic deprivation, poor governance, exclusion of large proportion of the population from the basic needs of human life, or failure to meet the rising aspirations of the people? The vulnerability of a nation state like Nepal arises from internal problems - failure of the state, slow development, rampant corruption, erosion of institutions, crisis of leadership, aberrations within the system and the failure of the leadership to correct them, and influence gained by external powers and international institutions over the decisions of the government. The event of 11 September shows that terrorism could pose security threat even to the most affluent and militarily the mightiest power on the globe. The Maoist violence and terror has already taken a death toll of about 8000 lives in the last 7 years. Experience of many other countries indicate that ethnicity, language, and religion could represent other sources of insecurity. Nepal could fall victim to this problem, unless appropriate interventions are made to assure adequate space to all disadvantaged communities of our national life. Presence of about 100,000 refugees coming from Bhutan for more than a decade could be another source of insecurity, unless appropriate action is agreed upon for their early repatriation. It is beyond the scope of this paper to go into all such issues which have bearing on Nepal's security and politics. I will pick up some of these issues, particularly the Governance, Political Stability, Terrorism and Ethnicity.

Governance and Delivery

Governance is concerned with the manner in which people are cared and looked after, and how their needs and aspirations addressed. It involves the functioning of institutions, process and relationship in the exercise of power, and through which citizens articulate their interest, exercise their rights and obligations. It is also linked with the degree of efficiency with which resources are managed in response to critical needs of the society. People are now questioning the degree of accountability of their rulers towards the ruled, the transparency process, and their own participation in the decision making. Good governance ensures equitable access to resources without regard to gender, class, ethnic or religious affiliation. The hallmark of good democratic governance is its ability to secure freedom from discrimination, want, injustice and fear. Therefore, the manner and mode of governance is closely linked with the notion of security.

Human feelings suppressed under 30 years of Panchyat regime suddenly erupted in the wake of successful People's Movement of 1990. Expectations from subsequent elected governments were naturally very high. This period also coincided with the time when communication revolution throughout the globe brought the country's poverty in sharp focus vis-‡-vis the situation in other fast growing economies. Unrealistic expectations were further pushed by frequently held elections. In keeping with the world-wide trend and based on own experience with the performance of the generally command and control economic policy adopted by the Panchayat regime, Nepal moved towards a market friendly economic policy with reduced state role in business activities and social sector where more space was left to the private and non-government sector. The state's role became more pronounced in such activities as the creation of enabling atmosphere for the market forces, building up infrastructure, expansion of education and health services, preservation of environment, poverty alleviation and decentralization of power. Nation building requires a coalition and creative partnership among the state, private sector and the civil society, for which the state must take a lead role with appropriate national and local level development policies. Naturally, in such a situation, people are closely watching the functioning of the state institutions which are responsible for delivering services, and showing results, and bring about socio-economic transformation. Let us briefly summarize the gains made in the decade of 1990s under democratic dispensation.

Progress in the social sector includes:

- Improvement in Nepal's global ranking of human development from 152nd to 129th position;

- Human Development Index from .0416 to .0490;

- Average life expectancy at birth from 49.5 to 58.6;

- Literacy rate from 40 to 58 percent;

- Net enrollment in primary education from 64 to 72 percent;

- Girls to boys ratio in primary education from 56 to 78;

- Infant mortality from 102 per 1000 live birth to 60;

- Contraceptive Prevalence Rate (CPR) from 24 to 39 percent and;

- Decline in percentage of population without access to safe drinking water from 54 to 20 percent.

A review of statistics on infra-structure show:

- Total length of roads increased from 6700 Km to 15200 Km;

- Electricity generation from 201 mega watts to 520 mega watts (including Kaligandaki A commissioned only in 2002);

- Telephone line distribution from 57000 to 256000;

- Number of hotel beds from 10300 to 35000 and;

- Additional 332,000 hectares of land under irrigation.

The indicators on macro economy show:

An average growth of 5 percent, with per capita income growth of 2.7 percent, annual growth in non-agricultural sector being 7 percent.

Annual export growth of 18 percent in dollar terms, and generally favorable balance of payment throughout. Foreign exchange reserve sufficient to cover eleven months imports.

Revenue/GDP ratio from 9 percent to 12 percent.

Inflation stabilized at less than 5 percent for the last several years.

The above figures do not cover the first two years of this decade where the performance, largely owing to Maoist insurgency and other unfortunate developments, has generally been unfavorable. Despite the general skepticism and all- pervasive negativism that one finds in the Nepalese society, poverty level has gone down from 49 percent 1991, to 38 percent estimated for 2000. The economy has witnessed some structural changes. Agriculture's contribution to GDP has now come down to about 40 percent from a level of 50 percent, thanks to the rapid expansion of non-agricultural modern sectors, propelled largely by private sector initiatives.

These achievements may not be spectacular or even comparable to high performances of East Asian, and South East Asian countries. Nevertheless they are not for different from the South Asian norms, and adequate to prove wrong to the often-mentioned "failure on all fronts" criticism. At the same time, these gains give ground neither for satisfaction not complacency; nor do they provide justification for the poor governance under successive governments. Economic growth has not been sufficiently broad-based to make a meaningful impact on the economy. Economic structure has diversified but new employment opportunities fall for short in proportion to the additional labor force entering the labor market each year. Performance of agriculture has fallen below expectations. Growth largely derived from non-agricultural sector has benefited the urban centers, thereby widening income disparities.

The already prevailing problems of inefficient civil administration, and weak public institutions have worsened with excessive politicization under successive government. Charges of nepotism and corruption, both real and perceived, are wide spread. Public institutions do not properly deliver services to the people. Public sector enterprises suffer from excessive political interference and control. They already represent huge financial liability to the government which is adding up each day. Public investment in social sector such as education and health services has led to quantitative expansion, but this is accompanied by deteriorating quality. Increasing disparity in quality between public and private education has brought up social contradictions.

The country does not lack good policies and innovative programs for poverty reduction, but there is implementation crisis due to poor governance, ineffective institutions and weak sustainability. The popular perception about the functioning of national institutions including government ministries, cabinet, parliament and judiciary is not favorable. All these point out to a weak governance which has been a subject of much public discussion in Nepal.

Politics, Leadership and Stability

Unstable governments have been one major hallmark of Nepalese politics in the last twelve years. Although elected for a period of five years, no House of Representatives (Pratinidhi Sabha) has completed its full term. All general elections conducted or announced but not held has been of mid-term nature. It has became almost a practice to recommend the dissolution of the House whenever the Prime Minister senses a threat to his government.

During this period, practically every prime minister has recommended the dissolution of the House, and called for mid-term election. G. P Koirala did it twice. The first one was challenged in the Supreme Court but was upheld; the second was done with the consensus of all political parties, therefore, never questioned. Man Mohan Adhikary dissolved the House when a vote-of-no confidence was registered against him; therefore the recommendation was overturned by the Court. Surya Bahadur Thapa's recommendation to dissolve the House was not accepted by the King on judicial advice; Sher Bahadur Deupa's recommendation was challenged but was upheld by the court. However, he himself could not hold the general election and was subsequently sacked by the King under a questionable constitutional move.

Despite serious internal problems within the ruling Nepali Congress, the first government after the general election of 1991 was generally stable in the sense that the first Pratinidhi Sabha saw only one Prime Minister. Making and unmaking of the government became very frequent since the second Pratinidhi Sabha which produced five Prime Ministers with five cabinets under various set-ups. In the process of cabinet making, practically all parties, except some small radical left parties, have been parts of the Government. In the third Pratinidhi Sabha, Nepali Congress had comfortable majority; but even this period saw making and unmaking of government with three cabinets under three prime ministers due to serious infighting within the ruling party which culminated in its official split in June 2001. Naturally, changes in government produced not only more Prime Ministers, but also large number of ministers. During the second Pratinidhi Sabha out of the 265 members in Parliament (including both Houses), 121 (45.7 percent became ministers. Within this review period, 55 (65.5 per cent) of the 84 Nepali Congress legislators, 26 (29.2 per cent) of the 89 Communist Party of Nepal - UML legislators, 20 (100 per cent) of the Rashtriya Prajantra Party (RPP) legislators and 3 (100 percent) from Nepal Sadvabana Party have become ministers, along with 3 (100 per cent) from independent legislators. Between 1996 and 1997, Nepal had the largest cabinet of 48 ministers. Even the third Pratinidhi Sabha dominated by Nepali Congress saw the making of some 79 ministers out of its 112 members in the Pratinidhi Sabha under three prime ministers, not counting the ministerial status enjoyed by more than half a dozen other MPs as committee chairman and party whips.

Another important political behavior witnessed during this period is the resort to extra constitutional methods in forcing the wishes of the opposition. This practice started from the very beginning of the first parliament when the opposition parties started physically blocking the parliamentary proceedings reaching its climax in the wake of the Tanakpur agreement, demanding the Prime Minister's resignation on the alleged "sell-out of national interest". This became very frequent in the second parliament. The most notable instance of blockade of parliamentary business through "gherau" of the speaker's chair by slogan - shouting opposition members was in 2002 for 57 days, rendering the entire winter session of the parliament futile. Interestingly, this exercise against alleged corruption involving the Prime Minister on the infamous Lauda deal was taking place at a time when the Commission of Investigation against the Abuse of Authority (CIAA) was seriously investigating the case. Obviously, the whole exercise was aimed at influencing the commission's work.

Thirdly, practically every major political party went through a period of serious internal turmoil. The Communist Party of Nepal (CPM) which was split into UML and ML over the Mahakali Treaty have now reunified. Similarly, RPP and NSP which were once divided during the second Pratinidhi Sabha, have also reunited. Internal problems, however, remain. The Nepali Congress has now been divided in the wake of Deupa's untimely recommendation of the Pratinidhi Sabha.

Such period of political turmoil and uncertainty marked by frequent government changes and untimely elections tend to provide fertile ground for malpractices, populist policies and corruptions. Naturally allegations of corruption, scandals and malpractice involving ministers, MPs and politicians became frequent newspaper headlines shaking people's faith on them. Increasing perks and privileges of parliament members like the import of duty-free vehicles and pension scheme for parliamentarians became subjects of wide public criticism. These privileges were subsequently stopped.

Such behavior and political conduct naturally reduces the credibility of leadership and erode political values and ethos which do not contribute to the process of strengthening democracy. Instability in government takes its own toll in civil administration, development policy and programs and overall governance. However, one also needs to acknowledge that such behavior is not uncommon in a nascent democracy of developing societies. While some may blame the parliament in Nepal as being a problem for democratic consolidation and challenge to governance[1], it is also the only legitimate and effective institution for voicing people's grievances, articulating their interest and legislating reforms. Despite criticisms, 275 bills were passed in a period of 12 years, some of them of landmark nature. The last Pratinidhi Sabha saw the passing of some anti-corruption laws which included the empowering of the CIAA with draconian power, which has perhaps no parallel in South Asia. The Act provides the CIAA with sweeping power to search, confiscate, seal and arrest anybody on charges of corruption; corruption case can be registered against anybody who is alleged to hold property disproportionate to his known source of income, and the burden of proof lies on the accused. A high level judicial commission was formed to look into the assets of all people who have held political, administrative and other positions since 1990. The parliament has also passed a historic bill guaranteeing woman's right on parental property. The passage of Local Self Governance Act represented another milestone in the history of decentralization of power to local bodies.

(To Be Continued)

(Excerpts of the paper presented at the New Delhi seminar on Indo-Nepal relations organized by the Observer Research Foundations India on February 13-14, 2003)