| Nepal needs to Redefine its Democracy
In Nepal, democracy is being interpreted and used by most political parties from a narrow perspective and for their short-term party benefits, writes Rajeeb Satyal.
In Nepal, democracy is being interpreted and used by most political parties from a narrow perspective and for their short-term party benefits. The only one person that really honored the constitution and the spirit of democracy was late King Birendra. So this is the only paradigm which posseses unquestioned national consensus.
But the more critical question at this point is this: Was what people of Nepal achieved in 2046 (1990), a real democracy for the people or just a shift of power from King to some political leaders who had no political vision for their country. Now, after little more than 10 years, it is suddenly proved that it was simply a power shift and that the gullible voters were simply used as tools and means to access to power and the leaders' own individual prosperity. What did political leaders, and their followers benefit from this democracy? It was like a lottery that changed their life overnight from nothing to prosperity (with some exceptions, of course).
On the other hand, what did the common people really get from democracy? : It is only natural to ask this question since there appear several developments that do not reflect the true spirit of democracy, and where public life is nowhere further from massive dissatisfaction borne mainly of increased poverty, risks of human lives on the street, bandhs, deteriorated quality of education and morality, ever widening gap between the poor and the rich, increased violence, protests and almost everything. Ordinary people do not have any pleasant memories of the last decade. It was nightmarish. There are memories of only unfulfilled hopes and aspirations, tortures and frustrations and feeling of helplessness. People even lost their fundamental right to live peacefully, to work and to earn and to educate their children. The clamor for improving education was as superficial as their promise to lead the country to prosperity. If democracy means all those things that actually make people feel like leaving their country, then it is only natural people loose faith in democracy.
To the commoners, democracy has been nothing more than- empowerment of political parties or freedom to their political workers to do what they want, to gain power on public cost: to declare Nepal bandh whenever they want to by terrorizing people in the name of democracy, closing down schools (surprisingly, even by elected opposition parties), organizing fruitless demonstrations, liquidation of several public corporations/other institutions due to political appointments and interference, and unlimited misuse of fund. Cronyism pervades the administration; however qualified a person may be, s/he could hardly make to any good positions, without any political connections.
If the politicians and their parties were supposed to be symbols of democracy, they did very poor job of it. Even the names of some political parties do not adequately reflect Nepal or her people's sentiment. How can political parties of Nepal claim to represent national interest when even their names and the political philosophies of their parties are burrowed from other countries? How could these political parties claim to be more nationalistic than previous political system before 2046 BS, which reflected at least some originality and dignity of Nepalese culture (though there were some correctable flaws)?
The present leaders and political parties are so ego eccentric that they even fail to see the genuine initiatives of the previous political system. They abandoned some of the most wonderful ideas from the pre-1990 dispensation just because they originated during pachayati era. Anyone who now closely reads projects and ideas then propagated or attempted, such as "Go back to the village" national campaign, Nepal being declared as "Zone of Peace" "Meeting Basic Necessity by 2000, "NDC", "Non-Align Foreign Policy", to name a few, can see that those initiatives appear more mature and pragmatic than the present political stunts used by political parties.
Did political parties and leaders- loose so much confidence in themselves that they, at least some of them, had to resort to terrorism to convince the public? If the political leaders thought there were better ideas than those from the Panchayati times, why could not they come up with some new national development vision that they could directly share with the greater public. People cannot be fooled any longer, especially in today's multimedia world where citizens, at least those who care to explore and investigate, have unprecedented access to information and ideas.
So, if there are any dynamic, sensible or sincere patriotic leaders left in this country, who are genuinely concerned with Nepal's development, they should first review and understand the fundamental needs, unshakable faith and aspiration of the people. Then they should define democracy in more positive terms with stronger commitment towards protecting people's fundamental rights to livlihood, safety and peace, bringing all the divergent ideas, religions, culture and beliefs together. They should understand that strikes and bandhs are not symbols of democracy. Dialogue is key to democratic practice, and there is no better way to express dissent than through mutul deliberation. People want food, house and a life to live, if it is not too much to ask for.
Rajeeb contributed this article to Newslook. He is a management consultant based in Baluwatar, Kathmandu.