June 17, 2005

Only through tolerance and persuasion can Nepal ’s democratic process flourish

By KESHAB POUDEL

In the opinion of E.M. Foster, a noted British scholar, the secret of British democracy is tolerance and patience in politics. Nepalese are very much reminded of his opinion at this time. In the present context of Nepal , what Foster had described is essential for overcoming the present dangerous impasse.

For the last three and a half months, along with political leaders, civil society, media and lawyers seems to be losing their faith on tolerance and persuasion. With the arrogance of power, people at the establishment side are inciting civil society members and politicians saying that they are just a bunch of people with no public support. Patience and tolerance seems to be fading.

Reconciliation for Survival

Although there is confrontation in the internal politics, Nepal ’s foreign friends, however, are echoing the voices for reconciliation. As reconciliation is prerequisite for Nepal ’s survival as a sovereign and independent country, conflict and chaos will harm Nepal ’s interest. Tolerance and persuasion are two fundamental aspects of reconciliation. Unfortunately, there is a long tradition of criticizing persons who plead the idea of reconciliation through tolerance and persuasion.

Political Leaders in Agitation : Wanted reconciliation

American ambassador to Nepal James Moriarty is criticized by a section of people in the ruling as well as in opposition side for pursuing the idea of reconciliation. The media representing anti-establishment side termed Moriarty as a palace-centric whereas the pro-establishment media termed him too soft towards leaders of organized political force of divergent interests. It remains to be seen how these intellectuals, small but vocal, in both the sides, will respond to a call for reconciliation by Indian prime minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and other Indian political leaders.

This is not for the first time when a person who pleads the cause of reconciliation has been criticized by such a small but apparently influential group. Even the leader like B.P. Koirala was criticized by them for his call for reconciliation between patriotic monarchists and patriotic democrats.

 “There are handfuls of such persons on both the sides of extremism - pro and anti-establishment. Unfortunately, the vast majority does not get proper leadership to express their opinion on compromise and reconciliation,” said a political analyst. “In fact being multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic and multi-geographical settings, the vast majority of people in Nepal have an age old habit of living in compromise and reconciliation. It is shameful that leaders of foreign countries are trying to convince Nepalese leaders about the reconciliation and importance of tolerance and persuasion whereas our own intellectuals and politicians are criticizing them.”

The secret of survival of Nepal as a nation between two big giants is due to its character of assimilation, compromise and reconciliation. There had been visionary leaders in the past who correctly assessed this character of the people and led the nation with their own distinct imprint. The founder of Nepal and original proponent of national integration King Prithivi Narayan Shaha, the Great, was a legend. On the democratic transformation of the country, there was legendary leader B.P. Koirala who had not only made the ideals of liberal democracy popular on the mass scale but resurrected the concept of national integration by his historic steps for national reconciliation between the traditional institution of monarchy as well as modernizing ideals of democracy.

Nepal was fortunate to have such leaders in the initial stage of national integration and democratic modernization. “Unfortunately Nepal lacks such visionary and compassionate leaders on every field and everywhere these days. Those concepts and ideals have mass appeal but unfortunately there are no takers of that at present,” said the analyst.

Provoking Each Other

Despite the importance of reconciliation, what Nepal has seen is domination of intolerance towards the political opponents. The government ministers are accusing the opposition leaders and opposition leaders, civil society, media; lawyers are challenging the authority of the government through street. Instead of making call for persuasion and tolerance, all kinds of intolerant activities are being conducted by each side.

The tolerance and persuasion seem to have no meaning in the present political impasse. “We will punish those who violate the law and regulations. If police use force to maintain law and order, there is no question of violation of human rights,” said vice chairman Dr. Tulsi Giri. “The duty of the government is to protect the law to guarantee the rights of the citizens.”

Just a day after Dr. Giri’s statement at the anniversary of Human Rights Commission, opposition leader K.P. Sharma Oli challenged the legitimacy of the government. “This government is unconstitutional. There is no need to respond to statement like those given by a ghost of Panchayat era,” said Oli. “It is everybody’s right to oppose this unconstitutional government.”

Political leaders in both the sides hate each other and decline to negotiate. They seem to be happy to meet the leaders of foreign countries and listen to their suggestions and advices of reconciliation from them. Just a month after discussion with the King at Jakarta , Indian prime minister Dr. Man Mohan Singh repeated his stand again with Congress leader G.P. Koirala stressing the need for reconciliation between the monarchy the democratic forces – two pillars of Nepal ’s stability.

“It is a matter of shame that our leaders have tolerance and patience to attend meeting in foreign capitals but they don’t have that tolerance and patience to unite on the basic of patriotic and democratic urges from inside,” said a political analyst. “If King Gyanendra can lead the cabinet which has vice chairmen of north and south poles, why can he not accommodate others. Similarly, if political leaders like Girija Prasad Koirala – who has been championing the genuine cause of millions of Nepalese like democracy and freedom - is begging support from Indian prime minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi, why can he not tolerate the arrogance, if there is any, of the King of his own country.”

The whole political rendered for the noble ideals of patriotism, democracy and the welfare of the people seem to be at a stake for a leader like Koirala. In his utter disappointment of the response, which Koirala seemed to be expecting from the King, not only took to him to a foreign capital but also made him knock the doors of all shades of politicians of a chaotic democracy of a big neighboring country.

As a long associate and brother of B.P. Koirala, Girija Prasad has strong faith on reconciliation and skill of compromise. Provided a proper response, there is nothing that can hinder the process of reconciliation through tolerance and persuasion.

“I fear that if a sharp polarization ever occurs in Nepal , then the survival of the nation will be jeopardized. This nation does not want to see such polarization,” said Nepali Congress leader and former deputy prime minister Shailaja Acharya. “Both the King and the political leaders must exhibit maturity and reach understanding.”

Former deputy prime minister Acharya, who is now isolated from main stream politics, has been very unstable. But as a long-time associate of late B.P. Koirala, Shailaja knows the importance of reconciliation.

With a very sensitive geo-strategic position, a country like Nepal cannot cope with long periods of constant conflict and chaos. Longer the conflict and chaos prevails, it will threat not only democracy but also the country’s own survival.

If the monarchy – a long, stable institution guaranteeing Nepal’s sovereignty and independence, is Nepal’s own institution, existence of organized political forces of divergent interest groups – which mobilize the people and lead their democratic aspiration – too, are Nepal’s institution.

Acceptance of each other’s existence will fundamentally alter the present political crisis and chaos. If Congress leader Koirala can share the platform with leaders of communist parties – which were always harsh and personally critical to him during his tenure as prime minister - why cannot he discuss political matters with the King?

Agitating parties including Nepali Congress leader Koirala, although his manner and method is highly objectionable, is championing the genuine cause and the King, who, too, has his own way, is working to defend the country’s sovereignty and independence. Koirala and other political parties are pleading the democratic rights of millions of Nepalese. “This is a very good case but the manners of lawyers are bad. We cannot criticize the case on the basis of bad lawyers,” said an analyst.

Although civil society members like lawyers and media can play powerful and decisive role in promoting the freedom of press, individual liberty and democracy through write-ups in the media and litigation in the court, all seem to be interested in coming out to street to challenge the establishment.

Had lawyers pursued the case in court and media covered the debates that would have more powerful impact through day-to-day court’s arguments. Such kind of debates would have generated unprecedented awareness among common people about the situation.

From media to lawyers and political parties, all of them are organizing agitation with the demand to restore their rights. Such agitations have temporary impacts. An agitation of lawyers may carry the news for next day but that is it.

Angered by banning the news in FM Radio stations and news reports about plans to amend the present Press Act; Nepalese journalists have already organized a number of demonstrations. Some journalists were put in prison for more than 24 hours just last week. But that may not cause ripples for longer period of time in society.

Provoked by Dr. Giri, who returned from more than two decades long self-imposed exile from India with anti-Indian posture – civil society members and political parties continue to challenge the authority.

“We don’t have time to read and listen to the voice of person like Dr.Giri, whose appointment is unconstitutional. We don’t care what first vice chairman Giri means,” said CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal . “Our struggle is with King Gyanendra as he has to choose the course.”

Although ruling and opposition sides are championing the cause of common people, they are satisfying their own egos and not serving any cause. Neither vice chairman Dr. Giri’s statements are serving the interest of the King nor is Nepal ’s statement serving the cause of democracy.

After all, the same lessons of tolerance and persuasion are stressed by diplomats in Nepal and leaders of the neighboring country. When prime minister and political leaders of neighboring country are stressing for reconciliation, Nepalese leaders have yet to realize it.