EXPLORING CIVIL SOCIETY IN NEPALI CONTEXT
Are We Causally Donning Another Hat ? - 2

II. THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC STATE: In recent years, the term "civil society" has been loosely used in various senses, which illustrate the tendency to jargonize, causing much confusion. It has been vaguely conceptualized in political terminology and it is not a well-defined concept. It lacks conceptual clarity among political thinkers who use it to describe democracy and the democratization process. Though some critical defenders of representative democracy try to give some kind of shape to the concept of civil society, in ordinary practice it has come to signify some kind of a civilized way of life achievable through certain processes. It supports good governance, which in reality is a means of reaping numerable advantages generally conceived in a functioning liberal-democratic state with welfare policies. As partners to state functionaries, the people in a civil society actively participate in various democratic structures and institutions and contribute immensely to the strengthening of democracy. About its goal, it can be perceived through both narrow and defused lenses. To illustrate: civil rights, free enterprise, welfare policy, privatization, public finance, foreign policy, mixed economy, etc, are incorporated in a defused sense, whereas gender equality, old age pensions, unemployment benefits, poverty eradication, etc, are less defused and technical. Civil society is an ideal state (with a just, free, and developed society) that every nation, community, group, and individual strives to achieve through democratic actions.

Analytically, the concept of civil society is more pronounced in liberal democratic tradition than in totalitarian tradition. The former stands on the foundation of democracy where the people actually rule. Between these two schools of thought there is the authoritarian state, which many third world countries had adopted during the cold war period, particularly after being liberated from colonialism, and have largely abandoned in favour of democracy. Another variety is the `welfare state' which has succeeded in blending both the liberal and the authoritarian governance. The distinction between the liberal and the welfare states has faded as the cardinal virtues of the two systems --liberty of the former and welfare of the latter -- have been incorporated by most democratic states in order to overcome the deficiency of laissez faire of open system and regimentation of justice of closed system.

In a liberal democratic state, the entire focus is on the rule of the people. It is the people who choose their representatives to form the government. All policies and actions emanate from the representatives who are held accountable to the people. Broadly, there are three political models in this type of democratic state -- the Athenian model (direct democracy), Anglo-American model (representative government) and Swiss model (the mixture of the two). About the Swiss model, it is a unique system as it also has the feature of direct democracy which is expressed through initiative, or referendum, or town parliament (landsgeminde). According to S. E. Finer, the government in a liberal democratic state rules "not in the interest of any one group or alliance of groups, but in the interest of all." (Finer: 1970, p 65). The following are some of the assumptions which may be treated as common denominator for liberal democratic states: # Realizing the principle of "the greatest good of the greatest number;" # Limited government with laws formulated by representatives; # Supporting pluralism with free play of private voluntary associations; # Protection of minorities and tolerance towards dissidents; # Rejecting state religion and practising secularism; # Free and fair elections regularly held to choose representatives to form government; # A neutral civil service; # An independent judiciary; # Market economy; # Exercising checks and balances based on the principle of separation of power between three organs of government -- executive, judiciary, and legislature; # Political parties as instrumental in aggregating and articulating public interests; # Civil liberties; # Free media; and many more.

Apart from these features, the welfare state has appealed to many liberals who give lesser importance to the state and believe in the welfare of the people as public responsibility. Civil liberties are fully cherished in such a state. The state is said to have minimal role in providing security and social services but not at the expense of individual liberties. It supports equal opportunities for all but rejects the Darwinian theory of survival, where only the fittest survive. It believes the state to be service oriented for public good and not adhering to power for power's sake. There is a guarantee of minimum decency and security of life for all. In no way does it restrict private enterprises. There is a mixed economy where both state and private individuals work together in harmony, without killing each other but compete with one another for the benefit of the community. Advocates of welfare societies believe in social justice and equity as imperative forces for effective representative government. Some of the assumptions in a welfare state are identified as following: # Guarantee of minimum subsistence; # Distribution of income through progressive taxation; # Provision of social allowances for people who are sick, old, unemployed, widowed, invalid, and others; # Minimum wages; # Ensuring social insurance; # Defending citizens' security; # Abiding by international law, etc.

It is important to remember that the capitalist system of production is not discarded in a welfare state despite the guarantee of collective social security by democratic government. The concept of welfare society is said to be well adjusted in liberal democratic states whatever the type of society they may have -- ancient, feudal, medieval or modern. Today, some of the successful examples of modern welfare state are Great Britain, Scandinavian countries, and many other countries of Western Europe. Even the United States of America has increasingly felt the burden of introducing various welfare programmes to ameliorate the social and economic standards of its pluralistic society. India which is our next door neighbour, and familiar to many of us, has adopted a democratic state with a mixed economy and is committed to certain welfare policies in order to meet the need of its growing vast population. Since independence from British rule in 1947, it has undertaken various welfare programs in the public sector. Nepal too after 1990 has followed this liberal tradition.

III. THE SUBSTANCE AND THE RHETORIC: Given the preceding discussion on liberal democratic states, it is important to know if the concept of civil society carries any critical weight. Does it simply complement the democratization process, or strategically intervene to accelerate this very process? On what premise does civil society operate? Are there any specific objectives, which can be achieved through certain mechanism? Are the goals of civil society different from that of representative democracy, which emphasizes liberal values, welfarism, and citizens' participation in community affairs? What are some conditions noticeable in its evolution? These are important questions which can help us to understand the concept in terms of its usage and limits. However, it is not the intention of this short paper to look into all the answers. Briefly, it will explore its substance and the rhetoric behind its usage.

Every society has political and non-political dimensions characterized by cultural heterogeneity. The boundary between the two is somewhat fuzzy, and it is analytically problematic to separate them politically. In the Nepali context, this is even more so and difficult indeed. The boundaries of civil society are highly flexible. We often acknowledge that the concept encompasses the entire spectrum of voluntary groups and associations, families, business enterprises, local bodies, religious congregations, charitable trusts, foundations, and thousand of local/national/and international networks of various kinds. Since the advent of democracy we have started to hear and imitate the rudimentary features of the term without probing into its root in our body politic and what our national public philosophy is really made of. What we have done is borrowed values and beliefs from Western societies and transplanted them into Nepali society in order to cultivate and sustain them for the simple reason that it may help to strengthen democracy. We never question whether they fit within our caste ridden multi-cultural society which has different historical and cultural roots. We hesitate to answer if civic institutions have performed the type of functions that build individual character for democratic exercises. We do not want to see if Nepali democracy contains the seeds of its own corruption and decay. The crux of the matter is, will civic institutions help build democratic cultures, values and beliefs? Indeed, I am convinced we are entering a stage of rapid change where civil society may not be able to cope with new challenges that democracy is likely to face when we examine how civic institutions are operating. There are larger issues for politicians to combat.

In Nepal, there is a multi-party political culture with major political parties positioned at three points of the political spectrum. The communist parties on the left have reservation on the constitution itself and they do not conform to the democratic spirit of parliamentary democracy and free market economy. The other political parties to the right claiming to be liberal and democratic have contradictory positions on matters related to socialism and globalization. It is the Crown at the centre that enjoys the active symbol of national unity, tradition, and culture. Hence, in such a situation, it is not sufficient to affirm that the role of civil society can serve as the guardian of the constitution. Equally, the space for it as a popular movement can be misleading and superficial.

It is important, therefore, not to exaggerate civil society in Nepal to be all encompassing when there are larger issues of nation building as conceived within the perspective of small state that is landlocked and situated between two populous and competing nuclear powers with divergent ideological systems, and that have important bearing on the security of the state. How we invigorate the civil society is important, and definitely so in terms of our conditions that help to foster individual confidence and security and the positive psychology of what it is to be a Nepali citizen. It is true that the general well being of the common people stands on top of the national agenda for civil society which can redress prevalent inequality and injustice by dismantling structures that have been exploitative and thus inculcate a new spirit for democratic action and development.

About its operative mechanism, three negative pointers are clearly visible: these may not contribute to healthy democratic growth and consolidation. First, political parties have deeply intervened in civil society. Many "voluntary" organizations do not freely work the way we expect of civil institutions to behave and perform. Nearly in all fronts civic institutions have been politicized, and it is apparent that without political patronage many of these so-called voluntary organizations can neither compete for resources nor enjoy the liberty of being free. The question of autonomy arises in many civil institutions too. Several instances can be cited to illustrate this. Student bodies, women organizations, professional groups, and ordinary NGOs have become party stooges. Even human rights activists and "intellectuals" are not free from the clutches of political parties. If one were to count the so-called "intellectual organizations" and "human rights organizations", there are as many in number as political parties that have entered Parliament. There are many organizations which operate as sister organizations of major and minor political parties. The disease is widespread in education, media, and legal profession.

Second, NGOs have mushroomed like private companies but without individual private investment. Everyone knows there is "easy money" given to NGOs as handouts by external agents which far exceed the amount one normally earns through regular jobs, including positions that are enjoyed by senior-most salaried civil service personnel. Furthermore, there are high level civil servants and political appointees (tied to family members and friends) who have their pet NGOs for additional income. This kind of situation has undoubtedly bred parasites and has hampered the healthy growth of work ethic in every profession. This strange phenomenon has grown to epidemic proportions, degrading the larger section of genuine working class people in the country.

Third, the external flow of money to NGOs is beyond governmental monitoring, control and regulation, though there are laws to this effect. Who does what from which sources and for whom is not answerable. The electronic gadgets of international communication via internet has become even more convenient. What has emerged over the past one decade is a parasitic class with colonized mind that is affected totally by a mute dependency syndrome. Individual initiatives and collective self reliance, the bedrock of progress, are almost non-existent. It is an open secret to all that, without external funding, NGO activities will, by and large, cease to function, virtually stripping the civil society landscape of any greenery. It is also true that external donors would not like to see their `crony' NGOs to move towards self-sustaining status, but rather tied to them permanently.

The bottom-line is that the rhetoric about NGOs and self-help organizations as catalytic agents of change is more than their actual substance based on opportunities to bring genuine progress. As one critic has rightly pointed out, "In the aggregate, however, the NGO sector has not been able to graduate to a movement which can become a countervailing force to complement the role of the government in development, and to establish checks against anti-democratic, anti-people policies, tendencies, and actions." (Pandey: 1999, p 135) Three key attributes of democracy -- accountability, transparency, and autonomy -- are clearly absent in the working style of NGOs. Furthermore, he adds that "there is little or no tradition in Nepal, domestically, to financially support civil society engagements in social and civic causes." (Pandey: 1999, p 135). Apparently, the impression one derives is no more than a hope for a process to evolve where committed volunteers bring the required reform.

IV. TOWARDS CONSOLIDATION OF DEMOCRACY: In Nepal, the process of transition from Panchayat "party-less democracy" to multi-party democratic rule has been surprisingly smooth with almost no obstruction from authoritarian rulers. The issue of national unity has not been a problem during the transition because of the strong recognition that the Crown enjoys trust of the general people. Through regular elections, various political parties have emerged on the national scene, and the consolidation phase of democracy, in the true sense of the term, has not begun. There are many democratic institutions and laws that are yet to take roots in the society, and elected representatives have to learn to change their behaviour that would meet the requirements of democratic culture. Interestingly, in many of the major political parties, there is a lack of inner party democracy.

It is also argued that the consolidation process, which is a very long process, goes hand in hand with social and economic change; and, if this does not become possible, the democratic regime will lag behind, and the question of system legitimacy will arise, de-legitimizing elected representatives themselves. The issue of minorities is another fundamental element that political actors through democratic process are able to deal with in a multi-lingual and multi-cultural society. This problem has recently started to surface though in a subdued form.

It has been noted by one well known author on small states that the transition occurs in three phases. First, the "preparatory phase" where non-democratic regime collapses. Second is the "decision phase" where democratic institutions are established. And, third, the "consolidation phase" where ultimately democratic culture prevails. (Sorensen: 1993, p. 46) Present day Nepal is in the twilight phase where decisions based on broad national consensus across party line are yet to evolve and efforts toward institutionalizing the new democratic order have not been put to task by political leaders. It is here the role of civil society becomes crucial in streamlining and consolidating the democratic process.

Fundamentally, in democracy it is the people who rule. How and in what form this is possible is a subject of debate. In a liberal democratic state the linkage between those who hold state power based on popular support and the sovereign public active in a vibrant civil society is a pre-requisite for the consolidation of democracy. The relationship between these two elements is complex, and the relationship is emphasized in order to restrict political sphere controlled by government activities so that civic institutions can freely operate at a non-political level. Numerous examples can be cited, such as violence towards married women by their husbands, child abuse, organization of private enterprises, religious practices, etc, which are strictly not state matters that existing laws could handle or should manage.

The rationale for the promotion of civil society is that it safeguards freedom of individuals from regulative state authority which has the tendency to be pervasively restrictive. Often, in the name of social justice and general welfare, the state creeps into civil affairs and attempts to justify its power over citizens' rights and freedom, and thus tampering on peoples' trust and mandate. One of the role of civil society is to check such tendencies. With autonomy for civil institutions, this becomes more possible. It can be more assertive by taking independent stand over issues if not dependent on exogenous funding.

V. CONCLUSION: The discussion about the meaning of civil society in the context of Nepal has raised more questions than it has been able to answer. A number of arguments have been posed. Though civil society is seen as a value in itself, it is yet to emerge as a complimentary factor to the functioning of a liberal democratic state.

In Nepal, the idea of change arouses a sense of awe and disbelief. This is because of a long legacy of a feudal-political culture where individual initiatives have been patronized or discouraged. Every government in power since 1990 has burdened the country with increasing foreign debt without realizing the need for social mobilization. Looking at the transformation of the old state to new democratic culture, there is little to be satisfied with. Today, legalised political parties have failed in their responsibilities to educate the general public. Until they inculcate democratic values and norms, there is not much hope with the new setup, and the people who are the fundamental focus of development in nation building should be taken into confidence.

Also, political parties should restrain from overstepping into non-political boundaries and free public institutions and voluntary organizations from party politics. Educational institutions, public bureaucracy, police, judiciary, to name a few important ones, fall in this category. Though there is a new constitution which recognizes the state as a liberal democratic state, with the crown as symbol of national unity, the process of democratic consolidation taking roots is absent in the body politic of the system. With reforms in NGO organization and activities (by empowering them with autonomy and opening up in terms of transparency and accountability), the civil society could advance beyond abstraction and play a more critical role in social movement. By not relying on the conventional legalistic structures of democracy, it can, as a partner in development, initiate social and economic changes in the interest of common good. It can promote wide ranging services outside the sphere of state authority. It can set examples in self-reliance.

Theoretically, civil society has its limits, dimensions, and features which operate within the larger framework of state, society, and democracy, and it is this aspect we should understand before we try to generalize its utility in Nepali civic community. Surely, we should ask ourselves if we are casually donning another hat to become fashionable. Nepal has had many Western cliches and jargons, in the name of "political experiments", that have been loud in rhetoric but lacking in substance and in reality!

-------------------

* Dr. Pandey is Professor of Political Science at the Central Department of Political Science, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu. Currently, he teaches Research Methodology and Nepalese Studies to post graduate students.

[Paper presented at national seminar on "Role of Civil Society in State transformation and Consolidation of Democracy in Nepal", organized by Central Department of Political Science, Tribhuvan University, in collaboration with Friedrick Ebert Stiftung (FES), held on September 19-20, 1999, Morang Campus, Biratnagar, Nepal.]

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