When multiple actors hold power, they check each other, ensuring accountability

-Mahendra Lawoti

Mr. Mahendra Lawoti is writing his Ph.D. dissertation on inclusive democracy based on the Nepali democratization process. He is a Ph.D. Candidate at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh, USA and is enrolled simultaneously in the graduate program in the Political Science Department at the same university. He has obtained a Master's in Urban and Regional Planning (MURP) from the University of Hawaii, and the East-West Center Master's Certificate, both in 1997, as an East-West Center Graduate Degree Fellow, and the Advanced Certificate in Asian Studies in 1999 from the University of Pittsburgh. Before pursuing graduate studies he worked as an architectural engineer in Nepal for five years.

Last week we approached this scholar for an interview to which he agreed. Below the results- Chief Editor.

TGQ1: How you Mr. Lawoti as a qualified citizen of the country have assessed the functioning of the past ten years of the multi-party system in the country. A section of the scholars opine that it is a multi-party system minus democracy. Do you agree to this theory or have any thing else to comment in this regard.

Mr. Lawoti: The problem with the Nepali democracy is that it has failed to deepen and get strengthened in the last decade. Democracy has benefited only the elite, be it political, economic or cultural. Power was taken away from the King, but instead of diffusing it to the people it was transferred to the political parties and party bosses. Power is concentrated in the political parties and leaders. Once power is concentrated, it does not promote democracy. Instead it introduces discrepancies and abuse of power, such as corruption. Due to concentration of power, even the democratic institutions that were introduced in 1990 have begun to erode because the powerful people (the leaders and other elite) have abused them. Instead of strengthening democratic institutions in the last decade, we have seen erosion of them. Hence democracy has come to the political parties and leaders, and not to the people. It does not mean that there is no freedom at all but that it is minimal. The only benefit people are enjoying is freedom of speech and writing.

One of the reasons for lack of strengthening of democracy is that political leaders in Nepal equate democracy with multiparty system. Multiparty system is one of the necessary conditions for democracy but not democracy itself. Democracy means political rights, civil liberties, social, cultural and economic equality and justice to the people. This is seriously lacking in Nepal.

TGQ2: Political scientists of international standing maintain that for a democracy to thrive, strengthen, effectively function and consolidate demands people's participation. Is it that our system is not functioning well because it lacks people's participation or in other words it is not an "inclusive democracy". Do you agree to this set of version or possess some different views in this connection?

Mr. Lawoti: One of the reasons the Nepali democracy is failing is because it is not inclusive. For example, political alienation or exclusion is partly responsible for the Maoists to begin insurgency. Our democratic institutions are favorable to the big parties. That is why despite participating in the first and second elections, the Maoists went to the jungles. They discovered that the electoral and other democratic institutions were set up to favor the larger political parties. It did not envision equitable space and voice for smaller parties, or in other words it was not inclusive.

Likewise, Nepali democracy has failed to include the social-cultural groups, such as the indigenous-nationalities, dalits, women, Madhesi, non-Hindu religious groups. Despite ten years of democratic practice, they are still excluded from the governance of the country.

The reason for exclusion of social cultural groups is because we have adopted democratic institutions that work in homogenous societies instead of adopting institutions that have contributed in deepening democracies in multi-cultural societies like Switzerland, Austria, Holland etc. Democratic institutions in homogenous societies largely address the class cleavages whereas those in established plural democracies address class and cultural cleavages. In multi-cultural societies, unless cultural cleavages are addressed, cultural groups cannot be included.

One of the reasons for the dramatic increase of the Maoist group is because the current democratic institutions have failed to include substantial population, the poor and socio-cultural groups. If you do not include some one, it is natural for them to look elsewhere.

TGQ3: Powerful donors have started airing their reservations regarding the poor state of governance and the deteriorating law and order situation in the country. Only recently U.S Ambassador hinted at the same. Apparently, I think, this to be the collective voices of the donor community based in Kathmandu. Under such circumstances, what you would suggest the constitutional monarch so that the nation takes a sigh of relief from all the ailments that have gripped the nation of late. What would be your comment in this regard?

Mr. Lawoti: The past decade has shown that Nepali democracy is facing a host of problems. Hence I think it is time for us to review the past experience. Other democratizing countries have strengthened their democracies by conducting periodic review of their institutions and practices, and made necessary changes accordingly. I think the King can contribute positively by initiating a public debate on the need to review the Constitution and the democratic institutions. The review process should be as inclusive and deliberative as possible. It should include all political forces, socio-cultural groups and the civil society. The palace should not be afraid that such a process would reduce its power. In constitutional monarchies, the monarchs derive their power from their pubic goodwill, image and standing. Calling for review of the past democratic experience will not require direct intervention but still contribute towards deepening of democracy. In other countries also the constitutional monarchs have contributed by the moral and public stands they have taken. It will not only deepen democracy but enhance the position of the King as well.

TGQ4: How would you Mr. Lawoti consider the Maoists insurgency: as a terrorist act demanding the use of force or a political issue demanding constructive dialogues? Also tell us the root cause that might have forced these Maoists to embrace the life of the jungle and take up the arms in their pursuit of a different system other than what we have been practicing today. Your comments please.

Mr. Lawoti: Worldwide experiences demonstrate that insurgencies are resolved through dialogue at lesser cost, and not through force. More capable states have failed to crush insurgencies in their respective countries. Attempts at violent crushing tend to give birth to more insurgents because violence increases distrust and animosity, and pushes people towards counter violence.

The Maoists's violent tactics should be condemned, however to think that they are terrorists is to be ignorant and fool oneself. Terrorists do not need to live in the jungles. The Maoists have put up political demands. Political demands should be resolved through dialogue.

The Maoist leaderships believe in certain ideologies. However, the support they have received is not necessarily due to ideological factors. It is because of the extreme inequality in political, economic, social and cultural spheres. Comparative studies of insurgencies have shown that insurgencies occur in open societies with deep inequalities where people can speak and mobilize but cannot influence the decision-making process.

TGQ5: How you rate the performance of civil societies in Nepal. It is said that for a democracy to thrive and deliver goods, the civil societies must remain alert and act in a vibrant manner. Given the fact that Nepali civil societies more often than not exhibit their political biases, nation's media apparently too toe political lines, donors sound their apprehensions regarding the state of performance of the government, the nation continues to reel under heavy debt burden, under such chaotic situation what would be your suggestion to today's leadership both at the society and the political level so that the system continues for long? Your exclusive remarks please.

Mr. Lawoti: Even though, the civil society has grown considerably, it is still beset with problems of partisan ship. Partisanship is occurring at political level as well as in terms of cultural and gender matters. In Nepal, the mainstream civil society has also failed to raise effectively the voices of the disadvantageous groups.

Partisanship in political level, even at the civil society level, is occurring partly because the political leaders control resources. Partisanship in cultural and gender realms is occurring because the decision-makers hail from certain cultural and gender group.

An important cause of all these ailments is concentration of power. Hence my suggestion to political and civil society leaders would be to ensure diffusion of power. Power diffusion would ensure accountability and transparency. When multiple actors hold power, they check each other, ensuring accountability. Another, aspect of power diffusion is that it will leave only specific responsibilities to actors so that they can concentrate on their jobs more diligently. One of the problems observed among Nepal's decision-makers is that they do not delegate authority. One of the results has been that they have not been able to give enough time to any issues while subordinates and other actors who could have tackled the problem, sit idle.

Power diffusion, on the other hand, will also empower more people. When people are assigned responsibilities, it trains them to think about problems, mobilize to address them and facilitates learning from the experiences. People know more about their needs, and if given resources and space to act, they can better address their specific problems. Hence when more people are empowered, democracy will deepen more, and will begin to deliver. It is the best strategy to consolidate democracy.

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