SOME ISSUES OF NATIONAL CONSENSUS IN NEPAL

Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai

With the advent of multiparty political system in the country it has been quite common to hear discordant voices on almost every issue in society. It is logical, too, as the very rationale of such a political system is the acceptance of plurality in the objective and the subjective world. The inherent plurality of this system was, however, counterposed and branded antagonistic against the supposed unity of the nation while imposing the Partyless autocratic Panchayat system in 1960. The lingering doubt cultivated all these years against multi-party polity still persists in the minds of the people. The common questions ringing in the minds of the many are: Can a small country sandwiched between two giant neighbors, India and China, safeguard its national sovereignty and independence under a pluralistic polity? Can a poor nation really afford democracy? Etc.

It is in this context that it is quite timely to try to ferret out some issues of national consensus.

The Current National Context:

All socio-political issues are time and context specific. They can, therefore, be identified and studied properly only in a dynamic frame. Hence it may be imperative to draw a quick back ground picture of the current social formation and inherent dynamics of the Nepalese society.

The basic dilemma of Nepal can be summed up in the words of a foreign scholar who had said way back in 1974: "Nepal is poor and daily becoming poorer". The absolute all-round backwardness compounded by a very sluggish pace of development is the real problem of the country. This is, however, only the symptom of the disease. On close analysis the real cause of this disease can be diagnosed as the retrograde social relations of production or outmoded property relations marked by semi feudalism in the countryside and comparador and bureaucratic capitalism in the cities. Such a property relation results in general backing of the social productive forces by way of wasteful consumption of social surplus by a minority parasitic class or draining away of surpluses outside the national economy through unequal exchange. Though some would like to explain away the general backwardness or poverty of the country on the poor resource base, this is presumptuous, as countries more resource poor than Nepal are much ahead in the development ladder. Hence this internal development dynamics of Nepal marked by retrograde class relations and absolute backwardness should constitute one principal domain of intervention through the political process.

In the present era of imperialism and Nepal’s specific geopolitical case of India-lockedness, the external class relations also constitute a dominant variable in the development dynamics of Nepal. Particularly the dominance-dependence relations vis-à-vis the regional hegemonistic power of India exercises a near deterministic influence on the politico-economic processes in Nepal. Also, the growing penetration of metropolitan financial and merchant capital is fast turning Nepal into a neo-colonial appendage of world reaction.

Apart from these major internal and external processes the ethnic and regional diversities, the specific historical experiences of long political dominance of a centralized and autocratic monarchical state, etc, also constitute important variables in the new political process of Nepal.

Some Issues of National Consensus:

In the light of the above specificities of Nepal, it may be prudent to search for issues of national consensus. How3ever, it must be clarified at this stage that in a class-divided society and pluralistic political set-up it may be misnomer to understand ‘consensus’ in the sense of ‘unanimity’ or ‘universal agreement’. It may be more accurate to understand it in the sense of ‘majority view’.

Thus, with due apology for overt generalisatin, the following could be identified as major issues of national consensus in the present Nepalese context: (i) Democratic Polity (ii) Self-reliant Economy (iii) National Independence. These issues, however, should not be taken as mutually exclusive but closely interrelated with each other.

Democratic Polity:

Despotic monarchy has been the form of state polity ever since the formation of unified state of Nepal more then 200 years ago. The general socio-cultural backwardness and hero worshipping tendency of petty peasantry has been the cornerstone of the autocratic polity. Hence, a democratic political superstructure should be the principal means of overhauling the traditional society and ushering in modernism. Or rather, the progressive restructuration of retrograde internal class relations demands effective intervention at 3eh superstructural level through a democratic polity.

However, there is no universal model of democracy suited to all situation and time. The recently introduced multi-party parliamentary democracy has been a time-tested model of bourgeois democracy. Moreover, this bourgeois ‘form’ of democracy in Nepal is till dominated by autocratic features of traditional monarchy., in a country predominantly inhabited by dependent petty peasantry or in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial set-up, this form of democracy not only has serious limitations of operation but can hardly be regarded as an effective tool for restructuring the backward pre-capitalist social formation. This form of democracy generally controlled by ‘goons, guns and gold’ has so far been serving only the minority privileged classes all over the world. Nevertheless, this is definitely a better political system as compared to the recently overthrown partyless autocratic system.

The alternative model of democracy proposed by the radical Left is ‘New Democracy’ or ‘People’s Democracy’. The essential features of this ‘New Democracy’ or ‘People’s Democracy’ is the simultaneous restructuring of the internal and external class relations in favour of the peasant-worker-national capitalist alliance and at the temporary cost of the feudal-comparador capitalist classes. In other words, simultaneous dismantling of traditional retrograde property relations and introduction of a democratic political system would enable the hitherto deprived majority classes to effectively enjoy the frutis of genuine democracy. Though an effective working model of New Democracy is yet to be practiced, theoretically this should be the best working democratic model in backward set-up like ours.

Of course, the illusion of an idealistic "classless" democracy in the prevailing class-divided society has a definite sway in the present Nepalese context as elsewhere in the bourgeois world. But the need of a functioning and forward looking democracy is more imperative than a seemingly idealistic democracy. Hence a general consensus on the form of best democratic polity, if not present right now, would gradually evolve in Nepal.

Self-Reliant Economy:

Economic basis is the real foundation of political democracy. Best form of political democracy in an unequal and exploitative economic set-up flounders just as a ship in a boisterous sea. Also, politics is a means to economic ends. Hence a just and dynamic economic system suited to the Nepalese national condition should constitute another important issues of national consensus.

The economic scenario of Nepal has been characterised by heavy dependence on the traditional and backward agricultural sector. Low per capital income (160 U.S.dollars), gross unemployment and underemployment of labour, rampant inequality in distribution of property, etc, are some of the principal hallmarks of the principal hallmarks of the national economy. On the other hand, adverse and declining trade balance, heavy dependence on ‘foreign aid’ and ever expanding ‘debt trap’, virtual deindustrialisation of the country in the light of its conversion into a captive market of metropolitan capital (particularly Indian monopoly capital),etc, have been increasingly threatening the economic sovereignty of the country. In other words, internal stagnation and external dependence that have aggravated over the years are the real economic challenges of the country.

Hence, adoption of a proper economic development strategy that would reverse these dangerous trends and evolve a self-reliant and buoyant national economy should become an immediate agenda of national consensus. The main components of this strategy should be: (a) enforcement of progressive land reform measures based on the principal of ‘land to the tiller’, (b) initiation of national industrialisation drive through proper channelisation of indigenous capital so for trapped in unproductive sectors and utilisation of abundant labour reserves, (c) Protection of national economy (including market and resources) against foreign economic onslaughts particularly from Indian and metropolitan capital.

National Independence:

Though historically Nepal has always preserved its political independence, it is more so only in the juridical sense. Practically its independence has been compromised vis-à-vis its relations with India since the days of Sugauli Treaty of 1816 and it has been further aggravated in recent times. A number of unequal and ignominious treaties with India particularly the so called ‘Peace and Friendship Treaty’ of 1950 formalise this semi-colonial relation. The growing expansionist pressure of India reactionary state has been increasingly threatening the very sovereignty of the smaller nation-states in the South Asian region. The India-locked geo-political compulsion and economic dependence of Neap puts its national sovereignty and independence into more vulnerable position.

In this light it is imperative to evolve a national consensus on this vital issue. Particularly, a systematic promotion of national independence and persuance of an independent foreign policy on state matters should remain above partisan politics. A commitment to termination of all unequal treaties and maintenance of friendly relations with all on the basis of Panchasheel (i.e. five principles of peaceful coexistence) should be the agenda of common agreement among different political forces.

Concluding Remarks:

It may sound presumptuous to talk of ‘national’ consensus on such diverse issues among political forces of such diverse nature as in present-day Nepal. Particularly there are strong divergence of opinions on almost all important national issues among the status quoist and progressive forces with tended to pay some lip service to the question of ‘nationalism’ but utterly ignored the question of democracy and economic development have been swept away, at least for now, by the recent prodemocracy uprising. The new ruling combine of Nepali Congress and the bureaucratic Left (i.e. the constitutional monarchists) have successfully rode the ‘democracy’ wave to the seats of power, but exhibit serious weaknesses on the question of nationalism and economic development. Perhaps, Nepal may have to wait for the rise of the genuine Republican democratic and Left alternative to restore proper balance between the three cardinal issues of national consensus, i.e. nationalism, democracy and economic development.

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