Nepal: Tossed into a New Political Future

 Dev Raj Dahal

Political openness in Nepal has opened the possibility for the evolution of people’s right to sovereignty, equality and justice. Their capacity to reason—to learn through experience and to live a life of dignity—has yet to be attained. This means the establishment of multi-party democracy in Nepal only helped the Nepali citizens to vote, speak out, organize and agitate against the centralization of power in ways that were not easily done before. Right to oppose is one crucial aspect of civic spirit.  Citizens’ dissatisfaction with the governing class or distrustful of the way power is exercised by this class is a legitimate means of expressing discontent. The bigger question is how to provide social justice to ordinary citizens to overcome their growing apathy, withdrawal, alienation and disaffection. In a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-racial country, it is only social justice that can hold the society and the state together. The question is:  Has democracy brought any change in the rational use of political power and a sense of social justice to the ordinary citizens? It is difficult to answer straight away. So far, it appears that Nepali democracy has become a contested site where political parties and actors of different sizes and hues continue to vie for power and privilege as their foremost priority. It is, therefore, facing a challenge in establishing the rule of law and guarantee for human rights.

The rhythm of democracy movement had carried a noble mission of emancipating the citizens and transforming the people into public. There were broad claims to stress the responsibilities as well as the rights of citizenship. As the spirit of movement evaporated, intellectual discourse debunked a sense of national desperation. One grim fact is that despite a change in institutions, the continuity of the same political elites held a powerful grip on Nepali politics and the new elites did not feel any need to define how they were different from the old politics of pragmatism.    As a result, change in the basic policy-making process has been postponed. Politics failed to become a key to rekindle a sense of optimism, trust and empowerment by means of social and economic transformation. Critics claim that national leaders do not seem to have any vision of their own and, therefore, their imagination is grounded more in the past than the future. They seem less concerned to logical caution of donors and ethical appeal of independent intellectuals about the nation’s destiny. As they are imprisoned by the psychology of past, it is far less clear whether they will become a voice of the future. Whose side they are on, then? The question demands scholars to enter into a deeper dialogue on the theme than has been possible so far.

The nation’s image as one of the poorest countries conveys a vivid reality of how the national leadership has performed. A small group of rich and powerful elites with a grandiose rhetoric of people’s liberation through economic liberalization, appropriated the social space of the citizens and undermined every possibility of redressing the unequal balance of power and wealth through public ownership and their capacity to overcome market manipulation and failures. They are the primary beneficiaries of the economic growth generated by reforms. A truly transparent market can serve a meeting place for all -- to compete on distinctly defined rules and regulations -- if each actor has the means and resources at its disposal. Yet, the poor corporate governance — weak legal and regulatory systems, inconsistent accounting and auditing standards and inadequate protection of minority shareholders — has made access to private investment capital insufficient in lifting the people out of poverty. A need to restore civic ethics in leadership for quality democratic governance has now become a necessity to reconcile the principle of social justice with the legitimacy of political order. This is especially important at a time when tax payers of the donor countries are demanding improved accountability in the delivery of development assistance especially focusing on areas such as accountable governance, honest judiciary, orderly financial sector and a resilient social safety net.

Within the country, media, independent intellectuals, civil society and ordinary citizens at large increasingly recount that Nepali leaders are too feudalistic, family-bound and egoistic to do justice to the ordinary people. This feeling is spreading like a virus into the political parties, the institutional channel of interest aggregation, articulation and communication. As a result, there is an erosion of their mediating capacity between the state and the society. Party intellectuals, far from devoting to rational investigation and moral judgment, have succumbed to the lures of pelf and power which muted the voice of their conscience while independent intellectuals are “faced either with a kind of despondent sense of powerlessness at their, or with the chance of  joining the ranks of institutions, corporations or governments as members of a relatively small group of insiders who make important decisions irresponsibly and on their own” (Said, 1996:20). If Nepali intellectuals do not relate themselves to the value of politics as a public sphere, they will see the “end of politics,” an end of opportunities for the citizens to participate in political life. As both present constitution and institutions lack performance legitimacy, the traditional disposition of power is bound to gain strength in the future, no matter what its implications for the political community.

Without economic security conducive to political freedom and self-realization, majority of the Nepali citizens have failed to protect themselves against the callously organized interests of political parties-bureaucracy-business complex. The separation of political economy from ethics has downplayed the sense of the common good. This, in turn, has undermined the organizational base of democratic politics. At a time when the personal behavior of many of the elected leaders furnishes a rather poor role model, rational citizens are being nostalgic about the previous leaders -- Tanka Prasad Acharya, B. P. Koirala, Pushpa Lall Shrestha and Madan Bhandari to nourish the process of cognitive development of  their children. The available means for personality growth, inculcation of democratic values, shaping character and integrating youths  into the life-world of  nation are grossly inadequate. If one looks at the behavior of leaders, one discovers that they prefer to look backwards rather than think and plan. Nepal’s eminent poet Laxmi Prasad Devkota laments: “The immediate and the proximate enslaved our spirits and barred the line for our wider and remote visions” If Nepal is to successfully grow democratically, it must, of course, maintain its internal cohesion and plan to secure political stability. A shared vision about the nation’s future also requires effective partnership of the government with the private sector and the civil society.

The stability of democracy is not possible unless sound performance of the polity, especially economic performance, is attained. The right to livelihood, within a framework of democratic autonomy, is a highly valued goal to be attained. Without critical minimum resources, citizens will be dependent on others, unable to exercise sovereign choice granted by the constitution. A culture of dependency converts the political imperative of democracy into a legal, formal one and eats into its soul and vitality. Young citizens’ migration from the rural to the urban areas continues to evacuate the critical change agents of society gnawing its very social structure.   The increasing movement of young citizens abroad in search of better jobs has weakened their aspiration to live together and share the sovereignty of the nation. A sense of political uncertainty continues to expose the citizens to the dangers of sudden, shocking encounters -- hunger, violence, injustice, etc. the things they had never experienced before. Especially in the Maoist-prone areas ordinary people are per force drafted into the struggle by all quarters—police, Maoists and the political parties. 

Nepali leaders have yet  to marshal the support of citizens on behalf of the goals of modern state and transform the people into Nepali. Democracy has implications both for the internal life of political parties and the process of social democratization. The former embodies the representation of electoral process, such as election, rule of law, civil liberties and human rights while the latter includes civic education, mass mobilization and citizen participation in the structures of representative democracy. When the value of state membership (citizenship) becomes lower than the party membership, in no way does it project Nepal’s civic and civilized character. This means the nation’s identity is less inclusive in the minds of those who are deprived and marginalized. An identity which is essentially exclusive  tends to reinforce a culture of aggressive behavior among the newly activated citizens which might serve as new flash-points in society with widespread acts of unrest and feral strife. Some elite acculturated abroad even question the very relevance of national identity while others feel just deprived and alienated. Both these tendencies are the deadliest enemy of democracy.

The question of identity can be resolved only when there is an eventual production of a “public figure” capable of mediating knowledge, ideology, interests, wealth and power in society. Unfortunately, the Nepali political class which has a glorious ancestry rooted in the country’s democratic struggle,  has lost its direction giving way to the birth of a “new class” and its increasing convergence with the bureaucracy and comprador class. The new class has succeeded in bringing the professional bodies, people’s organizations and civil society in general political consensus, thereby undermining the base of wider social representation in politics and any prospects for collective bargaining and co-determination. Nepal still does not have a strong civil society with dense networks of social structures to mediate different interest groups of society. As a result, the gulf continues to widen between the haves and have-nots. No single political formation has been left untouched by graft and nepotism. The partisan press -- aligned with different factions of political parties -- gives virulent expression to this fact. In this context, the bigger issue at stake is how to check the career politicians who equate their voices with the voices of the people and take refuge in a sort of cultural relativism, the justification and judgment of one’s own culture on the basis of its own intrinsic value.

The traditional ideological elements of religion, ethnicity, caste, class, gender, etc. embedded in a Hindu curse theory of karma, meaning fate, had furnished a belief that inequality is a part of natural order. These elements are seemingly becoming assertive and pulling the citizens towards a political culture of conformism, subordination to superior authority, submissive behavior to the leaders and succumbing to a world-view shaped not by themselves but by others. This culturally rooted anti-modernism has subjected the innocent mass more to the forces of conservatism than human rights and democracy, toward resignation than self-confidence and parochial goals than nationalism.

It seems, therefore, difficult to convert the political, business and official leaders’ tendency to a behavior defined by the constitution. The other issue of serious concern is: How to overcome the emerging masculine and ethnocentric perspective of the national leaders that is gaining momentum in their behavior and provoking the indignation of critical minorities, women and the marginalized? Who bears the responsibility for the blind acceptance of elite status quo which in no way is socially and politically neutral?

The survival of democracy in Nepal depends on popular will and commitment to it which, in turn, is the consequence of the affirmation of the integrity of each culture and the preservation of each language to enrich a shared Nepali identity. The sense of trustworthiness in other social groups and parties is a particularly crucial aspect of democratic political culture. Ironically,  lack of interpersonal trust among leaders of political parties in Nepal has led to a danger of ferocious jockeying for political power and frequent alternation of coalition partners. This shows that Nepali democracy is radically diseased by governmental instability and that only a profound transformation of political culture can cure it. Increasing the accountability of leaders towards their citizens and citizens’ confidence in their leaders is one option,  while reform in institutional culture of leaders and citizens is another. Still, necessary correction in the prevailing social conservatism is yet another better option. How to do it? The tendency of homogenization and hegemonization of other identities cannot be a desirable option in an age of democratic pluralism as they evoke sub-cultural distinctiveness, ethnicity, religion, region, language, etc. and unglue the webs of nationalism that so far have kept this nation-state together. The larger question for Nepal then is how to make its social structure, ideology and political institutions appropriate for democratic nation.

Greater economic prosperity  is what exactly so many Nepali citizens hope for their future. A political culture whose civility is in question would be an enormous liability in holding the state and society together. The health and happiness of the citizens are of incomparably greater to make citizens feel “we are proud to be Nepali.” At a time when private money plays an influential role in public affairs rather than “one person one vote,” what is desired is the revival of public spirits and strengthening of the sphere of social justice -- a justice based on social contract, mutual adjustment and sharing and caring for each other. Likewise, a social coalition of citizens with civil society is a necessity to improve the existing set of rules, minimize chronic disparity, eradicate discrimination and overcome estrangement. Exclusionary aspirations along the fault lines of the society, polity and the state are the very anti-thesis of inclusive nationalism that democratic order is anticipated to postpone. But without legitimate recognition of these aspirations, nation-building remains an unfinished project.

As the disquieting enigmas of democracy reveal themselves every one is clamoring for a total cleaning of the hegemony of new class in the system. A positive change can certainly be effected, provided concerted efforts are initiated by public spirited citizens, the press, judiciary and civil society with enough potential for countervailing and correcting the centralization of political power and wealth. As the crisis engulfs the system as a whole, it also affords an opportunity to widen the democratic space and renew its civic spirit so that Nepali citizens are not looked upon as passive recipients of governance but active participants in it. Nepal’s fragile civil society institutions and intellectuals are now speaking out against the unconscionable behavior of the incumbent leaders.

The success of Nepali democracy springs from its ability to marry the citizens’ vast appetite for tolerance caught in a perilous situation and liberate them. National leaders have to take responsibility to restore ethics to politics and build a sense of civic competence among the ordinary citizens. One way is civic knowledge about public affairs, the other is freeing the polity from the sound bite of demagogues and still another is improving people’s quality of life, especially those of the powerless. Only then can the polity reflect citizens’ concerns towards democracy consolidation and postpone their disaffection and apathy to public life. This would also strengthen the base of the nation’s civic culture. 

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