Comments on R.S Mahat’s

In Defence of Democracy: Dynamics and Fault Lines of Nepal ’s Political Economy

By Harka Gurung

When reading journals, I begin with book reviews. In the case of thematic book, I first scan its bibliography. Dr. Mahat’s book has Select Reference of 12 pages but no citation of two recent books with much relevance to his theme. The first one of these is The Nature of Underdevelopment and Regional Structure of Nepal by Baburam Bhattarai launched on 13 May 2003 . Incidentally, Bhattarai and Mahat share the same publisher, Adroit of Delhi. Adroit also means dexterous and skillful, therefore, this publisher seems neutral to ideology of the writers. But Delhi books are now more costly as the new budget has imposed customs duty on printed books as dangerous knowledge. The second book not mentioned in the reference is Forget Kathmandu by Manjushree Thapa (2004). This could be so because Manju’s book sub-titled as ‘An elegy to Democracy’ made the prediction of 1st February 2005 of which democrats remained blinkered despite the royal fiat of October 2002.

The title of Dr. Mahat’s book as In Defense of Democracy is very appropriate by one who has been a staunch democrat since his student days. This book of three parts and 17 chapters is well written based on extensive research and personal experience. Part I attempts to delineate the economic history of Nepal . I detect two lapses. On Brian Hodgson who advocated trans-Himalayan trade through Nepal , the author seems unfamiliar with his pioneer article of 1857 titled “On the Commerce of Nepal” (Selection from Records of the Government of Bengal, Vol XXVII). It includes trade statistics (8 pages) for 1830/31showing 11% (in value) of Indian import to Kathmandu was exported to Tibet while of Tibetan import, 57% was exported to India . There were then 52 native and 34 Indian merchants in the valley and their trading capital was estimated at Rs. 5 million and Rs. 2.3 million respectively. On the British annual royalty (for Gurkha recruitment), the author is correct as being Rs. one million after WW-I and Rs. two million after WW-II. It is unknown where this award in perpetuity went after the fall of Rana Maharaja in 1951. The author as a former Finance Minister should have probed on this matter.

Part II presents the core theme of the book that democracy has been very conducive to economic development. This contention is not surprising as Dr. Mahat was a key player on economic affairs of the post-1990 Congress governments. He gives range of statistical data to show impressive expansion of physical and social infrastructure as well as decline in poverty. The above scenario seems too rosy. First, comparison of progress in indicators of pre- and post- 1990 ignores the cumulative or propulsion effect of existing structures on their subsequent expansion. Even according to the author’s Table 6.1, there was no improvement in population growth rate, public and private fixed investment, import as % to GDP and domestic credit as % of GDP, during democracy. Second, the main proximate cause of reduction in poverty level during 1996-2004 was remittance and not economic dynamism within the country. The reality is there was no substantive change in the socio-economic structure which the author has admitted by including ‘the legacy of exclusion’ as one of the critical issues (Chapter 8). As I stated in my foreword to Dr. Devendra Pandey’s Nepal’s Failed Development (1999), we are too engrossed in mere growth ( briddhi) or quantitative increment and oblivious of development ( bikas) or structural change as its original meaning implied ‘ to envelope/unfold more fully”.

There are contrary evidences on the primacy in development process as being political or economic. In 1980’s Latin American countries experienced increased support for democracy when their per capita income was declining. On the other hand, the so-called economic Asian Tigers were the making of mostly autocratic regimes. They were also called the flying geese until the financial crisis of 1997 while democratic countries of South Asia remained lame ducks. Another curious contrast was that between the dismal development performance of Panchayat regime and tremendous achievement of Singapore and Malaysia . If we had autocracy, they also had command system known as ‘Asian values’ of Lee Kuan Yew and Mohammed Mahathir. The main difference was that Nepal was shackled by feudalism and this Dracula persists despite more than a decade of the liberal democracy.

Part III of the book dwells on some critical issues and fault lines. The author’s treatment of Arun III and Bhutani refugee is eloquent and realistic. Arun controversy over environmental and cost issues was spurious that led to national loss. Bhutani refugees are victims of cultural hegemony policy and will remain an intractable problem without co-operation of the Big Brother to the south.

Fault line is a geological term for a major structural divide in rock structures such as the Main Boundary Fault or Thrust between the Tertiary Siwalik rocks (Chure Danda) and Cambrian-Palaezoic metamorphic rocks ( Mahabharat Lekh). In Chapter 16, the fault lines listed by the author are: Soft State Governance, Political Behaviour, Economy or Politics, Disparity/ Decentralization, Education Dualism, Donor Dependence, and Lower Productivity. In fact, the above seven aberrations are not basic but expressions of deeper contradiction in the polity. The author does bring out this issue in Chapter 15 (Political Deadlock). That is, the fault line in political context is the contest between the forces of autocracy and democracy. However, one side of the battle line is still in disarray.

Reflect on this line from Dr. Mahat’s book (p.49); “In the immediate post-Rana period, the lack of unity and fragmentation among and within political parties considerably strengthened the role of the king, who, in turn started to manipulate the situation in his favour”. Has the situation changed after five decades? If not, why? The onus lies on the political parties for their ideological dissonance. Dr. Mahat makes frequent reference to the democratic socialism of B.P Koirala. Yet the economic policies adopted by Congress Party as well as CPN (UML) were based on the diktat of donor agencies as they did not have the confidence to tax the people. This had two effects: the country became more dependent and the parties lost their ideological mooring. The fall out was the denudation process: centrist Congress gliding to the right , progressive UML sliding to the center, while the agenda of change was left to the monopoly of radical Maoists.

I will conclude with symbolic interpretation of the book’s two cover photographs. The front cover photo has a horse-riding Maharaja statue on pedestal but holding a Communist flag, a few Congress flags among the crowd below, and a refulgent red sky. That was the spirit of 1990 which the democratic forces hope would now reincarnate. The back cover photo is of a building in somber shade that housed the Parliament. This building was originally the theatre of pleasure for Maharaja Juddha who hanged four martyrs. It was in this very building that the elected representatives performed such antics that made a mockery of democratic exercise and broke the heart of the people. Democracy needs to be restored and defended. But for this, those who presume to lead should be clear about their mission as being for the majority poor.