Nepal's monarch is competent enough to prescribe for himself what role best suits Him

-Shrish S. Rana, Journalist

Shrish Rana is basically a journalist who after the reintroduction of the multi-party system in the country served as General Secretary of the now defunct Rastriya Janata Parishad. At the fag end of the erstwhile regime, Rana served the government owned Gorkhapatra Corporation as its Chairman for almost two years or so. Rana began his career in journalism through The Rising Nepal and later edited a newspaper "The National Star" for a couple of years. Shrish Rana is a gold medallist in Political Science from the Tribhuvan University. He could be seen actively participating in Kathmandu seminars. Rana's political analyses regarding contemporary national and international events are being carefully read and admired by his colleagues.

Last week we approached this versatile political scientist for an exclusive tête-à-tête to which he readily accepted. Below the results-Chief editor.

TGQ1: Prime minister Girija Koirala ousted his senior colleague K.P.Bhattarai and assured the nation that he would implement a three point agenda, namely, good governance, curb corruption and contain the Maoist threat. Given the set of declared corrupts and known non-performers in the cabinet, how, in your opinion, the prime minister could be able to fulfill his declared objectives? Looking at the past two months of the performance of the Prime minister lay men now doubt his ability in achieving the objectives. How do you react to these conclusions?

Mr. S. Rana: There is reason for the overall sense of skepticism among the population on the ability of government to perform. It is based on the mal-governance of the past ten years. It is based on the non-delivery of promises made during the people's movement for the restoration of the multi-party system by way of which high expectations lured participation from a sizeable section of the population at time when the country was engaged in negotiations crucial to a historical assertion of its sovereign rights. It is based on the widespread realization that preoccupation with political power and crass partisan interests have prevented good governance, encouraged rampant corruption and the flaunting of excessive authority as a result of which negative participation from radical sources have been encouraged.

It is seldom realized however that non-performance within the political parties is also a result of indoctrination and early activism that prevent the accurate policy analysis essential for problem solving. Both Congress and the communist parties derive their strength from a cadre body indoctrinated early in political myths far from Nepali reality and the heavy compromises made when it comes to policy making in real terms have for cadre consumption to be conveniently glossed over as political expediency. This has served also to cover up for the excesses. Political reality dictates that Girija babu need not fulfill his promises so long as his grip in the majority party in parliament remains. It is enough that the corrupt provide him the majority on grounds of political reality. Here lies the irony.

TGQ2. Congress party is conflict ridden and so is the main opposition. The smaller parties have practically no voice. All these leave a very bad impression upon the population who now conclude that the system has some defect that needs immediate corrections that go in favor of the common men. Do you think that the fault lies in the system or the men manning the system? Your comments please.

Mr. S.Rana: I have said above that early indoctrination and activization of cadre in the majority political parties have prevented accurate political analysis. This is one of several reasons why successive governments and parties have not been able to evolve a coherent political program on the basis of which modern political organizations are built. Both Congress and the Left subscribe to Marxism as an ideological base which made it possible for them to rally and recruit cadre by identifying traditional Nepali institutions as the source of exploitation. This was made easier by our education system where lack of proper analysis on things Nepali make it easy to shun them on grounds of modernism. The fact that political organizations exist demands analysis on its own. The continuing presence of "democracy" as grounds for recruitment is as much a revelation now as it was in the early Fifties.

As much as it is convenient for predominant loyalty values to be shed through the condemnation of previous systems, it is also convenient on highly traditional terms for such condemnations to serve to profess

loyalty to the successive systems and their leadership for a population that for reasons of survival have little option other than to stake a claim on the shrinking economic pie that politics is increasingly
claiming a monopoly to. These are hardly systemic defects nor are they leadership faults. These
are real political values reflecting on the polity behaviorally. One does not see a Bill Clinton coming to power through elections on the strength of an innovative social service bill in Nepal for quite sometime to come.

One must accept that this reality was not given due cognizance by those who reintroduced the multi-party system in the country and one cannot but hold them suspect for it on grounds that they benefited from equating political parties with democracy. Yes, for society to acknowledge the right of the individual to organize politically and respect it is democratic. But even more developed democracies of the West preserve the right to individually subscribe its role for their particular societies. The reason for the above elucidation has also to do with the latter part of your question. In this highly suspicious zeal for multi-partyism, our leadership has ensured that by manipulating our inherent cultural faults the only remedy for changing the leadership has been kept away from the public. The amassment of political wealth and the retention of the capability to abuse authority is so designed as to encompass all avenues of political organization which is the only means by which to incur change by means of democratic electoral gains. This is one reason why radicalism as a cure all appears as the option - the enemy is the system and its beneficiaries who can be easily targeted as a political program with the booty to serve as capital to nurture cadre. For those opposed to radicalism, the choice being given is the frying pan and fire.

TGQ3: Madhav Nepal only last week floated the idea that the nation now needs an all party government to do away with the present malaise that have gripped the nation. His assertion has come at a time when a sizeable section of the people including some influential leaders have been voicing for a distinct role of the constitutional monarch. A dormant monarchy, they say, must change its posture and acquire some role that gives a direction to the nation and also disciplines the indisciplined and corrupt leaders. Should the monarch act as suggested by this section of the leaders and the intellectuals or let the country go its current way? Your exclusive comments please.

Mr. S. Rana: This is the point. There is nothing exclusive but there is every common sense in insisting that our political masters, for sake of the nation, recognize our behavioral strengths and weaknesses and introduce inbuilt mechanisms that prevent very human weaknesses towards excesses. Western democracies do not demand saints from their politicians and so prescribe the mechanisms that allow demands for Bill Clinton to be debarred from practicing at court upon retirement for lying to the public or for Helmut Kohl to be tried for undeclared funds received from Francois Mitterand. Just goodwill on part of our leaders to refrain from excesses won't do. In an environment where the lay public who are the ultimate judges of democracy have been effectively distanced from their capability to act the judge at time of elections, who, what or which institution in Nepal is powerful enough to discipline those who, at snap of a finger, can summon mobs on the street and have the international backing to do it on plea of democracy.

The fact is that national interest in its broader terms, particularly for soft and vulnerable states such as ours, is non partisan and we are so vulnerable that even this need not be recognized for partisan interest with none of it reflected electorally. Madhav Nepal is hardly the first person to recognize this need. That too, after so much of national interest has been compromised. As for the monarchy, consider that the bulk mainstream parties are ideologically committed to the notion that it is the epitome of exploitative feudal institutions and cadre have been built on grounds that any compromises made with this institution have been on grounds of political expediency. Consider also the fact that this is among the sources of such unreal issues that were raised in course of framing the new constitution as that to do with a 'Constitutional' monarchy or an 'inactive' or dormant, as you put it, one. The surrealism extended to a degree when the constitution shifted 'sovereignty' to the people. One would submit that the absence of a magna carta in our history does not prevent our Monarchy from swearing at time of coronation that he will rule with popular consent and so the bharadari . Consider carefully the theory that this independent, sovereign country has been ruled unconstitutionally ever since time immemorial until only a decade ago and one can conclude the crying need for a little more exercise on part of the Nepali intelligentsia on sources of constitutions. Consider that democracy demands duties on part of every citizen including the monarchy and the notion of inactivism on part of the monarchy becomes redundant and even the British Queen and her subjects would attest to this.

Consider then that if the people are sovereign now is the King less sovereign? Or, consider for that matter, the suggestion that we who have always been of a sovereign independent country were never sovereign because our king held sovereignty. If these issues are not frivolous, they are definitely filled with dangerous designs but we do not dare talk of it.

And so one would suggest that regardless of whatever his sovereign citizens would want - active inactive - whatever, the monarch in Nepal is competent on his own to prescribe for himself what role best suits his constitutionality and the need for democracy. That is, mind you, very much imbibed in the culture of Nepali monarchy as a little empirical digging in into Nepali political culture will allow to surface.

TGQ4. Economists say that the country's economy is fast moving towards RIM, which the government denies. Some even say that a newly born child in Nepal has 10000 rupees on his head as national debt which during the erstwhile regime stood to the tune of less than half that amount. Tall lectures apart, the national economy has gone down. Who is to be primarily blamed? The men manning the system or the system itself? Also tell us how the nation can become self-reliant and survive without the donors' assistance that is unfortunately swelling over these years. Your comments please.

Mr. S. Rana: Taking your last question first, it is naive to conceive of an independent, self-relying economy in this age of globalization. Nor is it wise perhaps to fret at the increasing national debt. What should be of concern is our increasing incapacitation on the matter of debt repayment both national and foreign. That majority lay farmer who is the backbone of our private sector economy will tell you that it is sound business to borrow and make money. It is this same uneducated, illiterate 'backward', 'traditional' person who will be the first to demonstrate to you that it is bad business to borrow and not pay. If politics has made the wily among this majority population discovers the means not to pay loans in Nepal, our international politics hardly contributes to such a strategy. Contrary to your precepts, this is far from advocating self-reliance and this may indeed, call for more loans. The latter, especially, would have to fund the expensive technology that cannot but be used to make our produce competitive. If, by self-reliance, you mean our economy to pay back loans and develop, this is the only way.

As for talk of the system, more than the system it seems that there is a genuine dearth policy capabilities. Add to this the tremendous vested interests developed over the years through non-performance and the deterrents are real. A thriving Nepali economy is a competitive Nepali economy, why should anyone welcome competition? An assertive economic policy will demand reciprocation in the political sector, something to think about in the context of our neighborhood and foreign policy. Why annoy powerful international and national interests when serving their purpose can allow one to share the cake through political power? Recall the timing of the movement for multi-partyism and an economic explanation may be found here too. Again, for the entrepreneur, make substantial investment commitments when it is easier to make money by financing politics and reaping million in commissions through political favors? Some would even refrain from competition in lieu of getting good franchises in sales and manufactories that would preserve the Nepali market for foreign products. On an equally vested level is the culture of inept scavengers of the prevailing scheme of things who benefit from the scrap thrown to them by preserving this system of corruption. More than the political system, it is the system that nurtures a scavenging class and prevents opportunities for a real economic system with opportunities for all to emerge that must be deplored.

TGQ5: You being a media man, how do you see the growth of Nepalese journalism contributing to democracy in the coming decade given the crude reality that most of the newspapers have become partisanized. How a partisanized media can assist this democracy to flourish. Instead of informing the people, we are confusing the people I suppose. Also tell me how a small newspaper like the Telegraph can practice independent journalism in the midst of the predominance of the mouth pieces of political parties'.

Mr. S. Rana: I once told a media colleague who came to me advocating a large media project that, having run the Gorkhapatra as a publisher, I have had enough experience in judging advertisement potentials in the country in the environment of advertisement policies of government to question the political independence of large media investments. One major contradiction of the Nepali media is in its continuing advocacy of government dole in the context of the alternative private sector sources being a reluctant participant in advertising. The media colleague, revealingly, is no longer with that large media project which has for some time now been identified with a political lobby of a particular political party.

The Nepali media is still bereft of functioning modern institutions that regulate its functioning on the matter of incomes, expenses and assets as also on matters of ethical and professional standards; this, despite the longstanding appearance of such institutions as the Press Council and the likes. To boot, even that perfunctory requirement of the Panchayat days that called for a sitting or retired supreme court justice to chair the Press Council has been waived for partisan benefit. The Press Council, of course, 'grades' the press enabling government dole. Small papers such as yours can struggle for independence with considerable sacrifice on your part but your role will be handicapped by the limitation of reach and coverage imposed on your enterprise. On the other hand, one positive trend in the larger investments that have come

to the media is that they employ journalists. If and when our professional organizations begin asserting their professional rights in contradiction to the current trend at towing party lines, there is room for optimism that regardless of the investment's political mentor independent journalism need not be a remote possibility. As for the partisan press, it is a fact that even smaller papers tow party lines. In an environment where political parties do not have to declare their assets and expenses and the compulsion of partisanizing the society as a whole is very real to the political sector one is not at all surprised at what exists. Where one must express concern is in its effects on Nepali society, where information can mean disinformation. An informed society is vital for democracy and development. A disinformed one can ruin it to the point of intellectual bankruptcy. Viewed in the context of the excessive partisanization of our academic sector and in the media as well, there is every reason for national concern.

Headline | National | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past |