Nepal: Democracy and Economic growth

Dr. Ganga Bahadur Thapa, T.U

It is considered that the push for quick democratization depends mainly on the economic growth of a nation. However, it is always debatable how much economic development is required for smooth functioning of democracy in a country. The process of economic growth is not always even, that of democratization is not smooth either. It is always arguable whether economic growth stimulates democratization and vice versa, since they do not always go hand-in-hand. The economic growth of a nation may transform it into a developed economy, or it may simply improve the quantitative aspects of life with little real effect on its qualitative aspects. Similarly, the presence of certain institutions and practices may camouflage a country to resemble a democracy, although in fact it may have many problems and inadequacies to attain it. Unquestionably, there is no society in the world, which does not aspire for rapid economic development to attain wholesome democracy. But this is not the only way to measure democracy. There are several other issues, which need closer scrutiny in order to assure the people that they have achieved a genuine democracy.

Nepal is not blessed with an abundance of natural resources required for the economic growth, which, in turn, would promote quick democratization; still there exist aspirations for democratic development. Economically, Nepal is very backward since the main source of national income and employment is based on agriculture and it has a shaky industrial base. With the per capita income of less than US$ 200, it ranks as one of the least developed countries of the world, although the economically active population in agriculture sector is gradually declining and an increasing number is involved in service, trade, commerce and so on. One of the great resources for development is manpower, which is available abundantly with a good deal of potential but remains largely untrained, untapped and wasted.

In addition, one clue to the paradox lies in the poverty of the planning in Nepal. In terms of development, the two obvious lessons that accrue from Nepalese experience in planning are: one, as long as local institutions do not take initiative in the process of development, a meaningful change in the society can not be brought about. Two, the top-down approach that marks the centralized planning failed because the actual beneficiaries were not involved in planning and decision process. The real issues, as a consequence, were either un-addressed or wrongly addressed and the resources needed for development were not mobilized. Therefore, a bottom-approach is called for. This approach, in fact, recognizes the need for people’s initiative in every sector of the economy; and planning for broad-based national development is believed to be a process where the people participate in the governance of the country.

Similarly, contribution from the modern sector is very low. There is a regional disparity in the economic front due to diverse geographical terrain, extremely uneven resource endowment, and subsequent low participation in the economic activities of the districts located in far away regions. The economy still remains traditional and protracted. In spite of the policy for privatization and liberalization, public sector involvement is considerable. The government maintains a huge investment in public utility services such as communication, media, imports, agricultural subsidies and so on.

After 1990, all the governments have maintained the policy of economic liberalization with the main features of privatization, denationalization and deregulation. However, the steps taken so far have not been effective in bringing about substantial changes in the country’s economy. Lack of political commitment perhaps is the first and foremost reason for the failure of so many good-looking development programs. When such commitment is lacking in the political leadership, it is useless to expect much from the top bureaucrats whose main objective is to maximize their power and authority, especially over resources. The government for creating an atmosphere of stability that would attract foreign investors has done little work. A change in government in Nepal is invariably followed by a change in economic direction. The needs of the poor have never been the priority with policy-makers, for they have little political clout in spite of their huge number.

Moreover, neither the manifestos of major political parties nor the policy papers of the government expound any concrete policy on the economic aspects. There is some superficial unanimity in all of them; they differ only in articulation and choice of words rather than in substance. Most of the political parties supposedly favor market economy and advocate individual freedom, but all of them lack in definite direction. The result is that the gap between rich and poor is gradually widening in the society. The income of about top five percent of people is hundred times more than those at the bottom who constitute over seventy percent of the population. The actual percentage of people in absolute poverty is much higher than official figure of forty percent. While the population of non-middle classes keeps increasing, the gap in the standards of living and assets between the higher and the lower strata are growing and strengthening. The inequality is not only eroding social solidarity but also encouraging the upper class people to seize new opportunities. The members of privileged strata have high education, technical and managerial skills, entrepreneur skills, investment capital, vital linkages, considerable influence upon national affairs, and also international connections which enable them to rapidly take advantages of the newly attained democracy and secure their positions both in politics and economy.

Assessments: Nepal’s experiment with democracy began rather recently. After a long period of authoritarian rule, it is now undergoing a constipated political transition. However, it is still an open question as to whether there have been substantial changes in the factors that matter—political, social, economic, cultural and international.

The multiparty democracy, no doubt, has successfully established a framework of political and civil rights and accelerated people’s participation, but it is still centering on a limited section of people. What went wrong with democracy? What are the explanations for the failure of democratic consolidation in Nepal? At this stage we can get only a tentative answer which has both positive and negative aspects, although more negative than positive. On the one hand, Nepal has retained democracy of some sort and has not reversed back to the royal absolutism as was in the 1960. On the other hand, it is still facing difficulties in consolidating the democracy regained in 1990, and its performance hitherto cannot be termed as satisfactory but some thing less than that.

Several governments of various parties came to power since 1990, but they left little behind as a mark of their performance criteria. Neither they initiated major reforms in socioeconomic sector nor proposed any institutional changes in bureaucratic set-up nor even eliminated authoritarian social hierarchy. On the contrary, their styles of functioning are marked with ad hocism and, therefore, could not bring significant change in the society.

The problems of democracy are serious because there are social, economic and ideological differences among the people and the parties. Moreover, conflicts of vested interests are also on the rise. Not only this, national leaders do not seem to have any vision of their own. Their imagination is influenced more by the past than the future. They seem less concerned to the warnings and the earnest aspirations and appeals for the nation’s destiny. As they are imprisoned by the past, it is far from clear whether they would ever become a voice for the future.

One of the contributing factors to the failure of speedy democratization process is the absence of leaders with ability and credibility who could act as a mitigating and moderating force among the contending political forces. In fact, the fundamental political, economic and social power structures remain almost the same. It is argued that successive governments in the past were not responsive to the people and that there was always a crisis of governance. Likewise, social sectors such as health, education and welfare have also suffered and are becoming increasingly inaccessible to the majority of the people. It is due to privatization that these services charge exorbitant fees making it impossible for the common people grounded in poverty to afford the expenses. Thousands of villages do not have access to safe drinking water and have to live in a precarious condition due to inadequate housing. Judicial system too is becoming increasingly more expensive and beyond the reach of ordinary citizen.

The core of the political problem that the country faces today is the lack of collective action. It is required to build a viable system comprised of political parties and interest groups through which diverse social actors could articulate their interests without jeopardizing such customary practices that serve the larger public good. The issues are clear, but their solutions remain elusive. Although the diverse groups in the newly born civil society are aware of their desire to participate actively in the political process, they have not been able to develop institutional mechanism for constructive dialogue, bargaining and mediation. All political parties understand that they need to take firm roots in the civil society and build organizations of mass participation, but they have not been able to offer vision for the future that would excite the public opinion and entice their voluntary participation in organized activities.

It is also argued that not only democratic culture in general is lacking, but also selfless, visionary, strong and effective leaders are not there to be seen. In most cases, the leaders are characterized with their unaccountability to the public, which ironically make them even more corrupt, dictatorial and intolerant toward opposition. Party politics is becoming increasingly more complex and fluid and therefore, less predictable. Today’s politics is characterized with more and more intra-elite conflicts for power. Tolerance, accommodation and consensus building, which are crucial for the development of democracy, are utterly lacking. In a number of cases the contradictory postures of political leaders have caused serious problems to democratization. Moreover, political parties are facing a challenge of institutionalization while personalization of politics is emerging which weakens the quality of democratic life. Another serious problem in the aftermath of 1990s political change is the continuously worsening relationship among the pro-democracy forces, which remain, divided.

The media, who constitute one of the strongest pillars of democracy, are weak but also in many cases extremely biased, especially TV, radio and newspapers owned by the government. They perform practically as a humble servant of the party in power. The private media are financially much dependent on the support of political parties and function as the mouthpiece of their respective parties and contribute little by failing to furnish impartial news in society.

However, the civil society and its activities are expanding widely. In this sense, Nepal is no longer a traditional society. Likewise, modernization is pushing towards social mobility, secular thinking and political awakening; although the pace is very slow. It is one of the many ironies of Nepalese democracy that the general masses receive numerous assurances during the elections, but are paid little attention after it although their role is pivotal to democracy.

The democratization process has been hindered, among other things, by the following factors:; highly centralized social structure; orthodox social patters and values; ideological uncertainties; personal ambitions of people in power; minimum degree of social consensus; underdevelopment of political institutions; rise of corporate and regional interests; low economic growth and corruption, nepotism, and patrimonialism. These are the areas Nepali political parties, civil societies and leaders have to address now to establish their relevancy in governance and development. In this respect, it would be desirable to adopt appropriate methods and formulate adequate policies that are suitable to the circumstances. In spite of the absence of experience in the democratic governance, Nepal has demonstrated in the past years that it has the capacity to hold on to the democratic system.

Headline | 5 Question  | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past |