The five R's of constitutional democracy

-Professor Anand ADITYA

It is only in the course of centuries that a day arrives in a people's history, which becomes their day of destiny. The year 1768 for Nepal, for instance, was one such day when this nation was born. Another type of day comes, as it did in 1990, after decades of struggle, when people became free and sovereign. Then, there also comes a moment where one freedom has to be restricted for awhile to render another freedom secure. On 26 November, when the Emergency was clamped, it hardly was news. But, unlike in 1961 in Nepal and 1974 in India, it drew wide support and that is what made it different.

The controversy surrounding Emergency and the debate on democracy have both left us questioning the values that guided our decades-old struggle for democracy. The ancient Greeks are said to have been afraid of because they feared "rule by demagogues". We are afraid of our new freedom because we failed to deliberate deeply enough about the challenges our second liberation would bring. In a way, the situation hardly differs from what Robert Dahl sketched a decade ago.

"Disorder, civil strife, guerilla activity, acute polarization, continuing economic crisis, the prospect or actuality of government by leaders or movements ideologically unacceptable to the military, all may help to trigger off a military takeover".

We have at present virtually every one of these preconditions in Nepal. We have disorder, we have civil strife; we have guerilla activity to quell which the first three months of Emergency have already claimed 1504 lives; we have acute polarization, we are at the bottom of our economic crisis; and, as if this were not enough, the distance between the rulers and the rebels could hardly have been larger. In addition, all the three causes of disputes are now present weak assimilation and hostility to the ruling elite, tension between the groups, and insurrection by armed political extremists-rather than just one of them, as claimed by one group of observers of the scene.

In the midst of all this chaos, we can also see two Nepals emerging: rural Nepal of the remote and mid-hills where people live day in day out in mortal fear in the midst of curfew, patrol, ambush, search and seizure, and encounter killings; and urban Nepal to which people are now fleeing for their life and livelihood.

Straitjacketed between these two Nepals, the press now faces a cruel dilemma. If it follows the government line, it risks becoming and official propaganda tool. If it highlights the other side, it will be accused of "making saints out of sinners". It can do neither, but it can't also forget that muted coverage may not only veil off the reality, it can also allow the bottled up anger of the rebels to explode even more violently in the future apart from aborting the needed reforms.

While enough thus seems to have happened over the past six years, the events that have transpired during the last one year stir profound anxieties about the future ability of the political order to cope with the crisis and what may follow. Coping with the crisis, in fact, is today the major preoccupation of the government and the people at large. This not only because of the political violence that is threatening to escalate into ever newer forms, but also because of the rapid erosion in the social and political capital which could rock the very foundation of the constitutional order for which the people sacrificed their lives and the media fought its long battle. Defiance has replaced deference to the sacred cows of yesterday. Disbelief reigns supreme over the traditional beliefs. Icons are missing from the public mind. Ideals have evaporated. Opportunities have been squandered. Habits have been seduced. The unanticipated and the unthinkable has become daily fare. And, virtually everyone is found talking about the day of reckoning.

The impact of all this is distinctly visible by now:;; on the ad market of press, radio and TV as elsewhere. Circulation has declined by half. Papers have been seized. Fifty-nine journalists are under arrest, twenty still in jail, some under the 90-day charge without knowing how much secure they would be during transfer. Some of these detentions are alleged to have been made retroactively. Zones of silence have expanded because news collection and dissemination face serious obstacles. In the course of a visit to 12 districts, every political party representative is reported to have noted obstacles raised by the security forces in reaching the mass raising the question:; Is the role of the security forces clearly defined and, is it operating properly?

That after the Emergency dozens of journalists have been arrested and questioned without legal charges shows the press has behaved responsibly. Still, the overall outcome remains depressing and disturbing to say the least. Granted that neither the power of prior restraint nor the censoring mechanism has been activated. Yet, an element of fright and panic is visible on the face of the press. The coverage is shy, inhibited and over-restrained with information on development and people's life noticeably reduced.

Against such a perspective, to do justice to the effort, however, a holistic, interdisciplinary approach is essential. An effective resolution of the issues at hand would, moreover, solicit a long-term strategic package that is proactive rather than ad hoc, preventive rather than remedial, and anticipatory rather than reactive. Such a solution throws up five curiosities.

# What is at stake at the hour?

# in the context of reclaiming the role of the media, is enough being done to expose the level of violence and political crimes? Also in view of the pioneer role that the mass media have played so far in exposing the excesses of the insurgency, is the treatment given to them fair? And, given the situation, are they or rather, can they, play a really effective role in today's context?

# Is an Emergency Monitoring Mechanism at work?

# Has the role of the security forces vis-à-vis the media, the civil society and the citizens been adequately defined and vice versa?/ If yes, are they operating properly? If not, what are the risks involved?

# What needs to be done by the government, by the media, and by the civil society, to address the emergency situation and afterward?

While the roles of both Constitutionalism and communication in democracy separately are too obvious to need belaboring at this point, the relationship between the two is hardly so. In a very general sense, freedom of expression and the capacity for the management of information flow are said to constitute the core of political freedom, of civic governance and human governance, of good governance as well as of constitutional democracy. It is equally clear that neither limit to rule nor consent of the ruled-the two core pillars of modern Constitutionalism-are possible in the absence of an effective mass media system.

Nor could one ever envisage the five R's of constitutional democracy- Restraint; Responsibility; Representation; Responsiveness and Rule of Law-in a society where mass media are not effectively functioning. Modern press was thus everywhere in the vanguard of Constitutionalism as Carl J Friedrich noted, and , although, unlike in the West, mass media took their start in this country with official initiative. Political movement and journalism have gone here hand in hand occasionally helped by the neighborhood press. Press was thus at the forefront of the Spring Movement for Democracy in 1990 as it had been earlier in 1950, and even afterward it played a central role in institutionalizing democracy, human rights and formulation of the new constitution.

While a recent study of 123 countries reveals close correlation between public corruption and political incumbency, poor information flow, poor press freedom, lack of mechanisms of public scrutiny, state ownership of media, and complex procedures, another study of 97 countries on media ownership structure suggests that higher media penetration promotes greater responsiveness of public and private agents, effective judicial systems promote media's role in good governance; and monopoly or state control on media induce poor social, economic and political outcomes. To conclude, the logic of media pluralism suggests that since both the state and the market can fail-they often do-in the social organization of information and communication, the role of the third sector-the civil society-in such organization needs support. In strengthening public participation for democratization the mass media can play a vital role by lending such support.

The situation at hand-insurgency followed by Emergency-implies that the conventional roles of neither the government nor the private sector, nor the civil society and the media are likely to prove adequate to the task that the situation demands. The system seems to be facing a three-fold challenge: # for the government, it is an acid test to make the values and goals of constitutional democracy prevail; # for the private sector, civil society, and the public at large, it is to give a strong NO to dictatorship in any form and resist it with all their might; # for the media to reclaim the role that they seem to be fast losing in the deteriorating order of things, and in that process, if needed be, reinvent and restructure itself.

Reinventing role here does not mean reinventing the whole wheel. It rather implies redefining the role, adjusting it, adapting, and redirecting it in the various situations that different environments demand. In the new contexts which are likely to change fast and often radically. If it can under-react, it can also over-react. How does one avoid the two extremes?

Partly at least, what follows is prompted by this curiosity. The issue at stake here is that while almost everyone uses mass media, few bother to understand how we are using it and with what impact. Even more enigmatic remain the roles of conventional, developmental and crisis journalism and the ways to unravel and tap the potentials of each.

Against such a perspective, it is then time for the media in Nepal to brace up itself for the new challenges that it faces. If it is to play a more vital role than the judiciary in deciding the fate of democratic experiment, as one analyst claims, it can, then it must come forward to play the role for the mass hanging in the periphery of the mainstream development process-a role that has long been ignored and forgotten-as a school for the deprived, discriminated, disabled, and destitute mass of millions who have lost all hopes and faith in democracy, and are left without a voice in the current constitutional order. This it can don't only because it is capable of transmitting information to a very large number of people at low cost with minimum distortion, but also a large volume of content at a mush faster pace than was ever possible before.

Excerpts from a paper by the author presented at a seminar organized by Editor/Publisher Federation last week in Kathmandu-chief editor.

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