Moderation For Political Stability
Only moderation can help stabilize the political institutions in the country with full-fledged democracy
By KESHAB POUDEL
As country's major political forces give up the politics of moderation, fragile and unstable political institutions and society have shaken further indicating that the process of democratization - which definitely requires stability to evolve - has no easy time.
Whether CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal, who is said to be pushing his extremist party colleagues behind or Dr. Tulsi Giri, vice chairman of the Council of Ministers, who is pushing all moderate monarchists arguing for more assertive King - they are not helping the process of making country's fragile political institution functional.
"Monarchy's utility is no more in democracy," said CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal, who had expressed similar kinds of statement against former prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala blocking the parliamentary process for 61 days. "How long would the King shoulder the burden of Koirala who does not have any utility now," Nepal had said threatening late King Birendra in May 2001 just a month before Royal Palace massacre.
Likewise, there is no dearth of persons like Dr. Giri and Satchit Sumshere Rana (former army chief) pleading against political parties and the leaders. "There is no public behind agitation as it is just a work of handful of vandals," said Rana in an interaction program. “Corrupt and anti-national politicians should not be given power."
A stable society can afford any kind of debate even to the extreme levels. Such stabilized societies have the capability to deal with any kind of violent threats or ideas. West German society faced the terrorist groups like Red Army whereas Marx, Lenin and many other extremists preached their extreme ideas in Britain but they did not create any problems to those societies.
But an emerging society like Nepal, which is in difficult phase of transition from traditional to modernism is put into a precarious position when challenge of extreme natures come into the play either in an action or idea. "That does not mean that kind of society cannot afford pluralism and different alternatives into actions but there must be self enlightened role of responsible citizenry to complete the process of transition towards modernization," said an analyst.
The experiences in Nepal within two decades have left behind enough lessons. In the last phase of Panchayat, there were both kinds of trends liberal and conservative. Even after Panchayat system, the multi-party role in subsequent elected parliaments had also gone through conflicting trends from blocking parliamentary procedures to violent demonstration against the elected governments. Unfortunately, both the systems reached to a dead end as it has now.
"A serious introspection is needed to find out the role of extreme and hardened attitudes between conflicting political forces. It is a common sense conclusion that the system reached to this crisis because of the irreconcilably extreme and hardened attitudes of competing parties," said a political analyst.
The theme of moderation is so much relevant at this time, which every sensible person in Nepal debates and discusses in private as well as in public.
When extremism, on both the sides of conflict, seem to have become the rule of the game, moderation and reconciliation have yet more powerful appeal to the common people of every walks of life. As countries differ in their economic, political and particularly institutional strength, whether it is democratic or undemocratic regime, those countries that have powerful economy, a strong and effective leadership and stable institutions, discussions about the importance of moderation and reconciliation have not much significance. But a country - which has a very week economy, disorganized political leadership and newly introduced fragile institutions of democracy - requires a great care to run the whole system with utmost responsibility.
In a country - which has been newly acquainted with modern ideas of liberalism and democracy - it is very strenuous to establish institutions in accordance with that and provide stability. "It is just like caring a child from infant disease. The same disease, which does not seriously affect a grown up and healthy person, could be fatal to a child," said the political analyst.
Developed democracies are accepting discussion and ideas of left and right extremism as pressure groups. Western societies have undergone a lot of such pressures from right or the left after the termination of IInd World War and particularly in the decades of 1960s and 1970s. Leftists upsurge took place in European countries through the student movements and later on in violent methods, too, like red brigade and so on. That did not shock the foundation of democracies but that has not been the case with the newly emerged democracies and liberal state in the third world.
From Korea to Turkey instances are there of the past 50 years as how fragile democracies are destabilized and destroyed by extreme actions and reactions either from left or right wing politics.
Nepal's context is different as it has its own traditional institution of monarchy, which has experienced all kinds of political upheaval.
Generally, being the only organized institution to uphold the integrity of the state, the burden of providing stability and maintaining integrity shifted upon the army. This trend may encourage ambitious generals to pre-empt the situation and takeover the power, which has no outlet to return back to democracy.
In the last fifty years, this crisis erupted in Nepal several times but all the time instead of shifting power to the army as a last resort, the institution of monarchy was forced to play - willingly or reluctantly - a decisive role from the center position of the power. There have been ample instances in the past when the power centralized with the King at certain critical junctures was reverted back to the people. Due to lack of experience and democratic institutions whenever the political leadership fails, the power goes to the King instead of army.
The present situation in Nepal is in the same critical stage. Right step towards cooperation and unity with a broader spirit of moderation and reconciliation may again revive the full-fledged constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy and a step towards wrong direction with extremism and fanatic obstinacy may push the country towards chaos, anarchy and devastation.
People in Nepal are yet with organized political forces and parties - while experiencing contesting the elections and running the parliament turn by turn that has trained and tempered politicians of 30s and 40s, and the institution of monarchy - which has a spontaneous faith and reverence from the people of multi-ethnic, multi- culture, multi-lingual and multi-religious component.
Things have surfaced much in recent days how a mischievous machination spoils relations between not only good neighbors but it disturbs the whole regional balance also. What we need at this time most is not only reconciliation and moderation within the state but also between the states.
Moderation has always been the foundation of this society and incidentally it has the pride to be associated with the originator of the greatest tolerant belief as Gautam Buddha. Reconciliation and moderation is yet very much possible if people and politicians in Nepal are left free from strategic interests of extraneous power.
