Deterioration Of Political Language

Deterioration of political language increases political problems

By KESHAB POUDEL

As the language of political leadership in ruling and opposition sides deteriorate, it creates more political problems leading a large number of simple Nepalese to fail to understand why the King and the political leaders are unable to hold dialogue for political settlement.

“I know when the session of agitation will begin and when it will end,” reportedly said King Gyanendra to Jana Bhawana weekly replying to the queries about ongoing political agitation of seven political parties. "The country had to bear the bitter truth how even the best democratic system of governance also does not deliver economic, political and social development as desired by the people when the people responsible for governance are not efficient, far-sighted and honest,” he is reported to have told a group of journalists last week.

Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala's reaction to King Gyanendra’s statement, too, is not mild. “The King’s address has nothing new as he is repeating his criticism against the political parties. The time has come now for the King to choose between full democracy and republic,” said Koirala addressing a rally in Kathmandu .

The gap of communication sometimes is the biggest hurdle in Nepalese politics. Till persons in leadership on the both side improve their standard and refine words in communication, even the most essential and basic dialogue would seem impossible. This is one area in which friends of Nepal from outside cannot give us any helping hand. Only the soul-searching by sincere persons from both the sides can do something if they relax and realize enough is enough.

In the past elections, Bihar was mentioned as a worst benchmark for political mud-sliding. Elections have not been held in Nepal for quite sometime but Bihar still seems to have great influence on Nepal on the standard of deterioration of political language. From ruling to opposition side, there emerges Bihari standard of language.

Though all are talking about the same thing as they are adhering to the Constitution and want to reactivate it to address national problems like terrorism and poverty, it is mysterious what keeps them apart and what fuels their hostility towards each other.

Despite their squabbling tone, political forces are stressing on the need to sort out the present problems through the activation of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990.

But one roadblock in the process of reconciliation is the nature of the language they use. The language, which is being used in politics these days, has deteriorated to such an extent that it sometimes appears like street-quarreling.

Despite many complexities and weaknesses in political relations, the initial period was quite good. Nepal was very fortunate during the initial period of democratic establishment in 1951 when it had enlightened and graceful leaders like B.P. Koirala, Subarna Sumsher and Surya Prasad on popular side. King Tribhuwan was also very sagacious and cultured in his dealings with the people, particularly with the politicians even when they were sometimes in opposition.

After him, King Mahendra was also introvert and therefore he avoided high-sounding and harsh words against his critics in politics. King Birendra had several ups and downs during his three decades of reign but he was a person who was very gentle and choosy in his words. Perhaps, he was the last category of leader who avoided unpleasant, confrontational and accusing words.

These days publics get to hear utterances of politicians in distasteful and provocative manner. Though they speak their things from their inner conviction and with utmost of sincerity, it hardly influences the mass majority of common people.

None of them seem to care about persuasive arguments. When an opposition leader issues a statement, there would be instant reaction in the same inferior and provocative language from the ruling side. Instead of serving their purpose, such languages only increase their problems. So this is going on and nobody knows when they are going to change their style and refine their vocabularies to pursue the mind of not only the decisive common people but their hardened adversaries also.

Problems are already there in the country for which even a top-rated statesman can hardly bring about a magical change. The country can get other kinds of help and aid from extraneous sources but the leadership is one thing, which either we have or we don't. It cannot come as grant and it cannot be substituted. Similarly, there is a medieval age saying that the people get the punishment for their sin by the emergence of bad leaders (or rulers).