Cultural shift from the "sovereignty of the state" to the "sovereignty of the people"

Civic education has intrinsic links with democratic citizenship for it improves the knowledge and skills of youths to participate in the affairs related to the family, community, and the nation. It links the word to the world and visualizes the real life of the public in the educational process of students. The participatory learning and action (PLA) method enhances experience by including children, women, poor, and others excluded in the process. It can also help in the construction of a rational culture thus making civic education inseparable from society and from a working life. Democracy differs from dictatorship in the sense that in the latter power is centralized while in the former it is diffused horizontally and devolved vertically to the lower tiers of local self-governance.

In theory, a separation of powers means reducing the prospects for its abuse and fostering the three essential aspects of democracy: "one relates to some basic minimum civil and political rights enjoyed by citizens, another to some procedures of accountability in day-to-day administration under some overarching constitutional rules of the game, and another to periodic exercises in electoral representativeness" (Bardhan, 1998: 3). Even this conventional formula is far from sufficient; for it cannot erect a balance among social, economic, and political powers. As a result, the enforcement of laws is subjected to self-interest orientation and arbitrariness. In the absence of a balance, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial elite senselessly continue to promote their corporate interests at the cost of the societal needs. In the new context of globalization, newer types of checks and balances are required among the other instruments of governance—the state, the market, and all the intermediary institutions, organizations, initiatives, and movements called "civil society."

Due to a lack of civic awareness, the political leaders of Nepal are often caught in factional fights, even at the expense of weakening the authority of the political society to mediate and communicate between the state and citizens. And the boisterous behavior embedded in their political culture has often produced a politics of deadlock, confrontation, and mutual paralysis rather than mutual accountability, tolerance, and compromise. The crucial challenge for Nepalese politics thus lies in protecting the rights of minorities (even if its first-past-the-post-electoral system legitimizes majority rule) so that it can help the majority and minority develop a shared identity of Nepaliness and the vision of a common future. Most citizens find it easier to identify with individual leadership, not political parties. Due to the patrimonial nature of political leadership, Nepalese political parties have neither been able to become true representatives of the society nor responsive to the citizens' needs. Factionalism in the political parties has created a weak parliament and a weak parliament in turn has produced an unstable and weak government.

A project for democratization of the political parties is, therefore, necessary to liberate them from the mortal danger of defending "single truth." The mode of civic fellowship creates a public space without imposing any singular way of life. Partnership with civic associations requires responsibility and the acceptance of certain basic norms of ethical behavior. Diversity of thought and action is essential for the growth of individuality and creativity and erect an institutional safeguard so that leaders are held accountable to their promises. Likewise, effective punitive action must be brought upon the self-seeking leadership, whether corporate executives, bureaucratic or political ones, as they are still bound by the culture of clientalism and feudalism and, consequently, are disinclined to accept citizens' equality in the distribution of opportunities. The liberation of civil society from party control is equally central to managing the demand side of the political equation. It is not amazing that Nepal is finding it hard to provide elected governments that are effective, representative of diverse societies, and moderated by a legal system to be trusted by all. It requires building an indigenous civil society to enforce accountability and transparency of leaders' promises and actions.

Nepalese today find themselves in a process of cultural shift from the "sovereignty of the state" to the "sovereignty of the people," from representative democracy to participatory democracy, from equity to economic growth and from public monopoly of wealth to privatization of public property—a privatization that is thought to liberate the economy from democratic control. It was a kind of modernism that sought a break of ideology from the feudal mode of production to science and technology. In Nepal, however, the transfer of state assets to the private sector could not build a sound public economy conducive to either the modernization of mentalities or cultural adaptations. The new economy brought in by "information revolution" requires a new system of tax collection, investments, work and business start-ups, and the ability of the government to govern.

On the economic front, policy failures are manifest. In the face of crisis-prone statistics, the failure of post-multiparty leadership is instructive, because they started with soaring promises of empowerment of the people but with little delivery in poverty reduction, political empowerment, land ownership, and share in industrial enterprise and governmental jobs. The economic condition of Nepalese state is mired in deficit spending, stagnation, high unemployment, and grinding poverty. A large chunk of the government budget goes toward paying off enormous national debts that are mainly aggrandized by a self-seeking leadership with the complicity of the advisors and consultants who have ceaselessly flirted with "rational choice" schools. Lack of accountability in the proper use of foreign aid has also caused a drain of resources put up through donors' cooperation for strengthening "democracy, human rights, and good governance" in Nepal.

Can the democratic system cope with the internationalization of economies and societies in the days ahead? It can if a radical restructuring of politics is possible through effective civic education combined with the training of skilled work force to respond to the demands of the 21st Century. Knowledge about citizenship helps to distinguish the citizens from non-citizens and foreigners. The problems of citizenship and identities of native peoples have to be solved once and for all so that the bona fide citizens are not excluded from the citizenship and the enjoyment of fundamental rights. Both democracy and development are essentially embedded in the interrelationships of conditions both external and internal to a society. If the society is politically stratified with proscriptive and prescriptive norms in the enjoyment of opportunities, it cannot stimulate civic capacities for working collaboratively to create desirable change and even address the security concern of all the citizens. Empowerment needs decentralizing its power, authority, and resources and creating a mechanism by which citizens can leverage their decision-making power through the art of association and collective action.

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