ARE WE A STATE SHORT OF STATESMEN?

By Krishna Prasad Poudel

" A statesman is a politician who places himself at the service of a nation. A politician is a statesman who places the nation at his service"

– Georges Pompidou

It has become evident that we as a nation state are faltering and are in the threshold of being a failed state. We are one of the oldest nation states in Asia, even when the India was a British colony we were a separate state, and we were librated from Rana oligarchy in early 1950s when many nations, which are now developed, were in inception phase. We have tried almost all of the development paradigms, from economic growth to basic need to right based model. Yet we reached nowhere. Poverty, illiteracy, ignorance, diseases, exploitation, and deprivation have remained as obdurate as they were half century back. The change is far from being substantial and satisfactory. In lieu, we became a food deficient nation from a food surplus nation, and we have won the booby prize in the global race of progress and development. Despite its manageable size, despite the abundant natural endowment, and despite the honest and diligent people, why are we in such a miserable condition today? Probably a single answer doesn’t satisfy this question.

While there are many other factors, for this sorry tale of our nation, a complete deficiency of statesmen is one of the major factors. Among the four elements of a modern nation state namely territory, population, sovereignty and government, the population is the most important element for without it the nation state can’t be imagined. The nation state, which otherwise would be mere an abstract concept, is embodied in its people, more practically in those leaders and the representatives of the people, the charioteers of the state. The course a nation has to traverse and its destiny is very much contingent on these Charioteers- their individual and collective wisdom, visions, dreams and idiosyncrasies. There are many paragons of statesman in the world history like Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Jawaharlal Nehru, Nelson Mandela etc who led the country through the ups and downs and got it to the destination. In fact, every country that has touched the zenith of prosperity or is on that path has been endowed with the statesman/men be it Malaysia, or Korea or China or any other nation. In our case however not any such statesman led or got the opportunity to lead the country in last 150 years or so. Before democracy could root in this soil, the system as worse as the oligarchy itself was set up. About his nation, Franklin P Adams once said ‘the trouble with this country is that there are too many politicians who believe, with a conviction based on experience, that you can fool all of the people all of the time’. The state chauffeurs in the Panchayat era made it the working principle. Egregiously! After the restoration of democracy in 1990 too, the self-claimed nation saviors clung to the same working principle and pushed the nation further in the predicament. Definitely, there were some personas like late BP Koirala and Madan Bhandari who could have proved ideal statesmen but they were not subjected to the ultimate taste of heading a state and power management (BP got so for a short period). Here we need to discern the nuance between a politician, a leader, and a statesman. In the light of aforementioned quotation of Pompldou we can say that statesman and politician are entirely different breeds, though statesmen emerge from among the politicians. While morons, mediocres and opportunists often make up politicians, a person without unparalleled wisdom, ingenuity, and patriotism can’t prove a statesman. Besides, a real statesman needs to own leadership qualities, though even a good and devoted leader may not necessarily be a statesman. Hardly is there any person, in today’s Nepal, who can be deemed as a statesman (not even a true leader), albeit ‘politicians’, ‘just leaders’ and the ‘power mongers’ are a plethora.

The dictionary gives the meaning of statesman as ‘ person taking an important part in the management of state affairs’ and that of ‘statesmanship’ as ‘skill and wisdom in managing public affairs’. Plato in his work ‘statesman’ distinguishing a statesman from the kings and tyrants mentions him as the ‘herdsman of humanity’. Aristotal says "What the statesman is most anxious to produce is a certain moral character in his fellow citizens, namely a disposition to virtue and the performance of virtuous actions." It will be certainly difficult, if not impossible, to stipulate what exactly makes up a statesman. From the attributes and characters of those considered as the true statesmen, probably, we can generalize certain traits, predispositions and qualities of a statesman..

Elementary psychology tells every action is motivated for a certain need gratification. From an extremely wide spectrum of things humans derive sense of gratification- from biological necessity to power, authority, wealth, flattery, appreciation to sacrifice, altruism, and patriotism. A politician/leader/king will derive gratification from, power, command, wealth, aggrandizement, sycophancy etc but a statesman will do so from sacrifice, altruism, patriotism, responsibility, devotion etc. It’s not that the statesman doesn’t/shouldn’t exercise/manage the power and authority but he does so for the betterment of humanity not for deriving the sense of pleasure. If a state leader is after wealth, false aggrandizement and power, he can never be the nation redeemer. Plato, in his concept of communism, must have prohibited the ruling class from acquiring the wealth, on this or similar grounds. Politicians/Leaders, as much as other humans are inscribed in the multiple layers of interests, personal interests, family interests, class interests, party interests and the national interests. For a statesman the preference order will be top down, that is, from national interests down to the personal interests. More than revealing, in this country party interests are secured at the cost of national interests and the individual interests are secured at the cost of party interests. Can we name a single leader who has risen up the individual and party interest for the national interest? A statesman lives for the ideal/principles and demonstrates the unflinching valor for its sake especially when the history calls for it. It’s worth to quote Nelson Mandela here "I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal, which I hope to live for and to achieve. But, if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die." Every one knows that when Nepal witnessed a nightmare in the form of Royal Massacre, no leader, of ruling or opposition party, could show even a bit of courage remembering their responsibility to the nation and the people. Should we call them statesman? A statesman is also a dreamer. He has an unambiguous dream, of taking the nation to the certain destiny. It’s not a daydream, neither mere ‘goals’. He dreams, he lives up to the dreams and involves everyone in that dream making it their dream and finally gets it materialized. Martin Luther King said ‘I have a dream for the USA’ and now the USA has become what he dreamt. Perspicacity and far sightedness are other inevitable attributes of a statesman. Among other things, myopic vision, supercilious attitude and lack of political will to solve the problems on the part of party leadership are also the causes for this mangled and moribund condition of this nation. If they had had needed perspicacity to detect the sensitivity and the scale of the conflict and if they had, with integrity, tried to solve the problem, we might have efficacious breakthrough by now, at least the insurgency wouldn’t have exacerbated to this extent. Regression and militarism both would have been nipped. Well said ‘to err is human’. But those who don’t accept and learn from the errors and mistakes are likely to commit that again. The mistakes and faux passes of a layman will bear on him or some people in his circle but if public figures and the pioneers of the state and society do so, the entire nation and society has to forfeit. South African writer Andre Brink wrote abut Mandela; it seems that every night, after retiring, he would summon his three secretaries to his bedroom where he would ask them, "Now tell me what I have done wrong today, because I don’t want to make the same mistakes tomorrow." No politicians in Nepal have been reported to admit their mistakes/misdeeds while they, like all Nepalese, very much know that due to them the nation is suffering.

Disowning trivial ego, credibility and consistency in thinking and deeds, resourcefulness and art of management, skill of arbitration, refraining a way from opportunism, sharp intellectuality, accountability to the people, un-compromised patriotism, the list of ‘should be’s for a statesman is myriads. Pity on us! The person that can be contemplated as a (prevalent or prospective) statesman is almost nil. May be we will have statesmen in future generation of leadership. All we can do is only hope!

The author can be reached at krishna1380@hotmail.com

The Human Rights Situation to the Conflict

By D.B. Gurung

Over our land towers the history of tyranny and atrocity, exploitation and discrimination. Nepal perhaps has among the worst cases of human rights violations since its establishment as an independent state: the conscription of the indigenous peoples into foreign military service, suppression of native voices, and the elimination of the indigenous languages, cultures, and homelands. We have been going through a deplorable state of human rights situation in the country. Not only the right to life of the ordinary people but even the King together with other royal family members could not be protected. The cold-blooded assassination of the Armed Police Force (APF) Chief Krishna Mohan Shrestha, along with his wife and bodyguard, is another case in this regard. No serious judicial probe has been made to inquire into such criminal and extra-judicial killings.

In the center of this war and chaos, we have a number of national and international humanitarian organizations dedicated to the cause of securing the human rights protection of the people. The Maoist rebels have been notoriously violating human rights, and also the state forces by the same token. However, in whichever form the violation of human rights may be occurring, both the forces have appeared to be somewhat committed to the principles of human rights, and claim to respect the statute of the Geneva Convention. The incidents of abuses in terms of executions, extra-judicial killings, rapes, tortures, arbitrary arrests, disappearances, the use of civilians as human shield, and child soldiers in the conflict are shockingly enormous. Although the comprehensive data to confirm the actual level of human rights abuses is not available, the presence of humanitarian bodies, such as the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Informal Sector Service Center (INSEC), Human Rights Organization of Nepal (HURON), along with the United Nations (UN) system agencies, Amnesty International (AI), the Human Rights Watch and others, has been significant and their role has been conspicuous in monitoring, cautioning, and even warning the government and the rebels, which have substantially contributed in scaling down the degree of human rights violations. Without their engagement at this crucial time of civil strife, we would have had to live in obscurity about the abuses of human rights in our own country.

In the final analysis, while evaluating the actions of some of Nepal’s friendly western countries, especially the United States and Belgium, what messages did they want to convey to the world and the Nepalis by supplying arms to a conflict-wrecked nation Nepal? Probably not the slogans of democracy, human rights, and peace this time?

(Courtesy: NHRC publication)

Planning Politics in Nepal-I

Dr. Ram Kumar Dahal

Planning even in today’s globalized world serves as the basis of all round development of the nation and functions as a means of utilizing economic resources. It often leads to the centralization of the national economy. Planning in post 1990 Nepal has great significance particularly in the all round development and economic democratization of the nation to match the sprit of the pluralistic polity. For the speedy progress and economic development and for the rapid institutionalization of the democratic polity and stabilisation of economic sector; the planning structures and institutions e.g. National Planning Commission (NPC) and National Development Council (NDC) (the central agencies for planning in Nepal which exercise much influence over the policy making process on planning and economic development) have to play key roles. Central economic planning in most democratic countries and even in immature democracies serves as the means to achieve the end of economic development. Economic planning, according to Dickinson, is the making of important decisions, what and how much is to be produced and how when and were it is to be produced, to whom it is to be allocated by the conscious decision of a determinate authority, on the basis of comprehensive survey of the economic system as a whole." In today’s globalized world, economic democracy could be achieved through planned economic development. The objectives of national economic planning, as most planners believe, are to promote change in all setors, involve the specification of a new set of objectives of be achieved at certain more or less specified future at certain more or less specified future dates and determine course of action between now and the calculated date of new achievement" provide employment opportunities to citizens alleviate poverty and economic inequalities, maximum utilization of nation’s existing resources, encourage all round and balanced development of the nation, develop economic self sufficiency and sustainable development; promote economic stability, social ‘security and justice; increase per capital income (PCI) and gross domestic product (GDP) and stabilize national currency. Political economists and planners have made several attempts in determining the prerequisites and preconditions for successful planning which include a number of factors including the formation of all powerful national planning commission, fixation of the clear-cut objectives, targets and priorities; fixation of the period and continuity in planning; availability of statistical data about the existing economic resources; adequate financial resources; maintaining balance in the various ecological/regional zones formation of development policies; increasing administrative efficiency and handle the planning successfully. More Important to these, mobilizing public cooperation/people’s participation is one of the essential prerequisite of democratic planning in today’s age of democracy.

The real beginning of economic planning in Nepal came in 1950’s when the Kingdom adopted the policy of mixed economy combining the characteristics of both capitalist and socialist economies. The first Five Year Plan was declared in 1956 and till now nine plans have been completed and the tenth five year plan is continuing. With the restoration of pluralistic polity and the implementation of the 1990 Constitutions thereafter, planning in Nepal has under-went considerable positive changes and consequently, changes in the field of planned economic have been witnessed. The National Planning Commission (NPC) in post 1990 Nepal has played effective role in the scientific planning of the nation. The NPC in Nepal, in most cases, works as an advisory body and has emerged as an important planning mechanism in the socio economic development of the country in preparing plans and recommending adjustment policy measures. It has no constitutional status and is established by a cabinet resolution. The NPC, under the current established practice is to promote the general welfare of the people by securing political, economic and social justice and its task is to assess the nation’s resource, draw up a plan to use them with proper priorities and allocation; determine proper priorities and allocation and the conditions, machinery and adjustment needed to make the plan succeed; appraise the progress of the plan from time to time and make recommendations necessary to facilitate it.

Because of its distinctive composition and more importantly its allocative role in resource deployment, the NPC can be often called a supper cabinet. Its role in formulating democratic planning determining and allocating resources is important. Its coordinative role among the various ministries, its supportive role for implementing various projects implemented by various ministries and its role in enhancing human resource development are particularly remarkable.

In post 1990 days, the NPC in most cases remain highly politicized by the various government and was used as tool by the party government to advance their party interests rather than a planning structure devoting their full time for the democratic planning of the nation. It became a powerful means of the party government to implement its party policies and programmes rather than addressing the real problems and grievances of the people. With the frequent changes in government structures, the NPC was highly politicized thus affecting the whole planning process adversely and could not plan properly for the all round development of the country. Plan must be formulated in the light of current international trends including globalization, privatization and liberalization and international economic milieu. It must have to develop economic infra structures, it has to prioritize certain sectors and plan accordingly in order to fulfill people’s real expectations. The National Development Council (NDC) of Nepal, is considered as body obviously superior of the NPC. It is indeed an apex policy making or planning body in the country and its recommendations cannot be regard as the policy decisions. Formed by cabinet decision, it is a high powered body consisting of the Prime Minister as the chairman other ministers members of the NPC and representatives of development regions as its members. It is an advisory body to the NPC, from where it gets most of its administrative support. It meets under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister once or twice a year. The Secretary of the NPC serves as a secretary to the NDC and prepares a memorandum on each item as suggested by the NDC and the government. It reviews the working of the national plan, considers important questions of socio-economic policy affecting development, recommends measures for the achievement of the aims and targets set out in the national plan. The functioning of the NDC in Nepal, is like that of a super cabinet, a cabinet functioning for the government.

(To be Continued)

Headline | Opinion | Dateline | National |  5 Question  | Editorial | Letter | 2nd Impression | International | Past