National 3 (Spotlight Weekly)

The Blame Game

In the politics of accusation, politicians may not lose but the people certainly don't win. Is there any escape from a cycle where everyone is to blame, but no one is responsible?

By Joe Bavier

It was the kind of headline that left political savants shaking their heads and muttering, “Oh, Christ! Not again.”

Right there on the front page of The Himalayan Times last week:

“HEALTH OFFICIALS BLAME INSURGENCY FOR SPREAD OF AIDS IN NEPAL”

It seems for each and every one of the country's woes, there is an appropriate scapegoat these days.

The agitating political parties blame the government for the democratic vacuum they feel is keeping them out of the decision-making process. The Communist Party of Nepal (UML), since it is the major stakeholder in the current government, choses to point a finger at the Prime Minister when it comes to explaining why the peace process has stalled. And the ruling cabinet, for its part, holds no compunctions about placing responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the Maoists for everything from the decline in tourism to its inability to enforce child labor laws.

The above article, it turned out, was a well reported piece about the indirect effects of conflict on growing HIV/AIDS epidemic in Nepal and was not nearly as salacious as the headline might have hinted.

But in the increasing rush to pass the buck among ministers, party officials, and even journalists, it was a rarity. The blame game is seldom so benign.

Last month, at a meeting with representatives from the International Commission of Jurists which signaled an all-time low in Blamepolitik, government ministers went so far as to pin responsibility on the Maoist insurgency for the escalating wave of beatings, abductions, and summary executions being carried out by their own security forces.

“They admitted that they are unable to protect human rights and that the security agencies are not in the control of the civil administration,” the ICJ's Secretary-General, Nicholas Howen, told reporters following the meeting, adding, “Addressing the breakdown of law cannot wait for a peace settlement.”

And while, in a way, it was refreshing to hear the government clearly state the truth that they really have no control of the situation on the ground, Howen got the situation backwards. Though the country's pressing human rights issue needs to be dealt with immediately, it is not something that has surfaced due to a breakdown of law.

Laws, in the democratic sense of the term, have never truly existed in Nepal. And according to Prof. Dev Raj Dahal, Tribhuvan University's Department of Political Science, that is at the root not only of the Maoist insurgency, but of Nepal's governance problems as a whole.

“In the West, political culture means a subjective relationship to government,” Prof. Dahal says. “In the East, it is an objective relationship. People vote for someone, and they expect a specific benefit.”

And it's not only voters who are looking to get something out of the political process.

“Private politics are very important here,” he says. “Politicians are competing for future positions in times of uncertainty.”

And with fourteen prime ministers in as many years, there has always been plenty of uncertainty to go around. So, in a situation where taking responsibility for anything at all is bad political karma with possible dire ramifications when a new government is inevitably announced, criticizing is often the best strategy for staying alive. As long as you're not losing, you're winning.

It's a cycle that's played out for centuries under successive dynasties and hereditary premierships. But it's one that now incorporates the added element of political factions that were forced to spend generations outlawed and underground. It's a dangerous combination that will likely take decades to outgrow.

“Politicians are socialized in opposition politics,” says Dahal. “So even when they come to power, they act like opposition leaders, rather than bringing creative solutions to public problems.”

And the whole mess gets muddled even further by the two additional elements of the country's three-way power struggle: the Palace's push to regain its lost authority, and a revolutionary struggle personified in the CPN (Maoist) movement.

All of this infighting has done little to advance the agendas that governments elsewhere in the world are charged with promoting. So, where do you turn in a vacuum of authority? Not to civil society, despite its accomplishments, according to Dahal.

“Civil society can put pressure on those that are not cooperating,” he says. “It has played an important role in educating the public, in bringing new legislation, and in creating an atmosphere for peace. But our civil society is also factionalized. They are from parties. They are partisan. And they are weak in collective action.”

And so, with the nation in turmoil, the government ineffectual, and civil society split along party lines, is there any hope at all for Nepal? Dahal says, yes. But the key will have to be democratization. And in a nation with no democratic tradition and precious little education in effective governance, that could take some time.

“I'm optimistic,” he says. “There are positive signs too. Reformist agendas are on the table. (The government) is worried about the cost of the war. And so is the international community. They want to see a solution. So, I think you'll see a groundswell of pressure.”