Antinomies Of Democracy
C. D. Bhatta
The successful April uprising of 2006 has brought some sort of relief to the public and hope for a new kind of politics based on justice, equality and honesty. There is, however, a great deal of fear lurking due mainly to the existing nature of political practices, structure of the political parties, extant state of internal democracy within the political parties, their interpretation and application of democracy, and composition of the civil society per se. These are some of the most important factors, among others, which need to be revisited to understand the broader dynamics of democracy and the peace process in the country.
Coming together
Let me begin with the current talkathon on the unification of the professional political forces of different ideologies that is, communists, democrats and (far) rightists. The logic behind the unification, being floated by the respective political parties, is based on the mere rhetoric of sustainable democracy with republicanism in place. And the political parties are proposing their own prescriptions. However, going by the run-down history of political events in the past twelve months, it looks as if the 'conditions' that could provide political stability in the country are still missing.
This is because the current political actors, as in the past, have failed to accommodate all the societal forces in the institutional life of the state. The Nepali state is dictated by the Hobbesian nature of element(s). For example, three factors that have immensely dominated Nepali state affairs after Jana Andolan II are the eight political parties, civil society and mushrooming number of 'interest groups'. These elements, in one way or the other, are engaged in preserving their political, social, economic and, to some extent, even personal interests (power seekers) at the historic political juncture. What has been certainly missing from the current political scene is the 'citizen' - people who cannot or are not in a position to organise on their own. They are mentioned nowhere. The embedded elitism in every sector of governance and mere ranting of loktantrik ganatantra (not exhibited in practice) by the political parties and the civil society indicate that regime change came about through an 'elite settlement' among the political parties.
The civil society, although it played a crucial role in the regime change, has failed to instil democratic values. The convergence between the 'old class' and 'new class' of political leaders is motivated by vested interests as against the cause for democracy. The unstable and mushrooming networks of opposition, the lack of connections between the civil society and citizenry at large and absence of a nationalist agenda from the political discourse are resulting in the resignation of the mass population from elite politics. And this certainly does not herald a prosperous future for the country. The expansion of the political society and the elite shift of the civil society members to the political society have corroded the very notion of civil society. In fact state and citizens have been colonised by the political and (un)civil society. The shift of civil society organisations and colonisation of the public sphere by the political society, especially after Jana Andolan II (like in the earlier Andolan) is not considered a normal pattern in democratic politics. It is rather a somewhat abnormal condition and implies a thin quality of the state of democracy and civil society.
This shift of the civil society from the civic sphere to the political sphere, mere expansion of the political society and the rise of various interest groups are helping to maintain a "revolutionary situation" in the country. The reason behind this phenomenon is that the professional political class has grossly ignored the genuine interest of the citizens, and they are simply treating the Nepali state as their personal enterprise. It appears that the ownership of the state is shifting towards the 'eight political parties' and the Kathmandu-centred civil society members. Perhaps, this could be the reason, among others, why the citizens are forming their own groups and exerting pressure on the state under different themes - a case of citizens against the state. Our political leaders have yet to understand this broader public uprising. In contrast, they have virtually closed the channels of communication with the groups that are outside the purview of the parties and parliaments. The hijacking of the public sphere by the political society, urban middle class elite, official civil society and marginalisation of peripheral civil society organisations also beg some fundamental questions on state ownership, the popular sovereignty for that matter. The fundamental problem, in this regard, primarily stems from politicisation and elite shift of the civil sphere into the political sphere and vice versa; elite domination in the civil society and missing link between members and leaders in the civil society organisations and civil society and citizens; and patron-client relationship between civil society, political society and their masters (donors and foreign powers). These factors, indeed, are contributing towards incivility, and the civic euphoria of 2006 is slowly evaporating.
Turbulence
To sum up, the challenges that lie ahead for the Nepali state are multiple and immense. Nepal is now on the throes of a major turbulence. Changes are already taking place. The wide-ranging upsurge of the marginalised and oppressed strata of society has forced us to think beyond formal politics and tap the deeper dimensions of the reality. The political parties and leaders can create chaos, but no longer can they fool the society.
No comments:
Post a Comment