Don't Dissociate

The Nepal Sadbhavana Party (Anandadevi) has called back its representative Minister Rajendra Mahat from the government, arguing that the grievances raised by the Madhesi people could not be redressed by being the part of the government alone. In a statement issued Monday, Nepal Sadbhavana Party made it clear that the organisation will remain committed to the eight party alliance and extend support to the government even though it has formally withdrawn from the government. There may be several excuses for the Terai-based party to quit the government. But the question is whether it was the right time for the party to dissociate itself from the ruling dispensation because it is a time when a united and associated approach is necessary to address the problems faced by the country. One must mention that the Nepal Sadbhavana Party (Anandadevi) has always been apart of the national democratic movement in the country.

It has always thrown its weight behind the democratic movement in the country and allied with the forces ranged against authoritarianism. Take the instance of the democratic people's movement accomplished one-and-a-half years ago. The party was at the forefront raising revolting against autocracy. When the citadel of authoritarianism collapsed, it was an important architect in the process of conflict resolution and political transition in the country. When the issue of Madhesh was raised by other actors, including the Madhesi People's Rights Forum, more articulately and vehemently, there was an impression that the political monopoly of Nepal Sadbhavana Party as the singular representative of the Terai issue was being challenged. The party sought to project a bolder image as the sole, democratic and legitimate agent of the Terai people. Its representative in the government, Hridayesh Tripathi, had also resigned from the government, citing explicit displeasure with what was alleged as the indifferent attitude of the government towards resolving the issues of Madhesh. However, the present announcement regarding the dissociation of the Nepal Sadbhavana Party has come at a time when the country is nearing the elections to the constituent assembly. The party should reconsider its decision and be part of the government to add more weight to the resolution of the problem.

Source: The Rising Nepal, August 8, 2007

Immature democracy : What good will it do?

Ganga Thapa

A clear preference for democracy is evident in its acceptance and expansion around the world. While democracy is a multi-faceted concept, sovereignty calls for competent citizenry, responsible state and proper resource allocation mechanisms. Following the April revolution, concern for legitimacy, accountability and participation in the democratic process is gaining ground, but there has been no compatible progress on the democratic front, or in political and institutional reforms to increase direct participation of citizens in policy and decision-making process. Even positive aspects of the democratic process have been undermined by party leadership.

Strengthening democracy entails going through a long and complex process of building state institutions. Democracy, by its nature, is supposed to reflect disagreements and conflicts. But the failure to develop a conceptual framework for citizen participation by institutionalising ties between state and non-state actors has left Nepal with “partial” or “undemocratic delegative democracy”, particularly in the absence of actors who can transform policies and institutions into political resources.

Nonetheless, Nepal has never enjoyed Nonetheless, Nepal has never enjoyed quality governance, which consists of three dimensions: system persistence, inclusiveness and effectiveness. An accountable government responsive to its citizens can be set up through electoral process; its absence only exacerbates the lack of adequate institutions, excessive legislation and formalities, patron-client nexus, and other cultural bottlenecks and characteristics.Democracy leads towards inclusion, enabling citizens to participate directly and indirectly. By any measure, people now have an opportunity to engage in a constitutional mechanism which can dampen aristocratic values and discriminatory social practices with distinctive changes in ground rules. This should be done to make the mechanism vastly different from the old ‘stakeholder democracy’.

In the absence of strong state structures, social constructivist understanding and institutional credibility, democracy post-royal regime has at best been a mixed blessing. Some believe that democracy in an ethnically diverse society can indeed be fostered by broad-based, aggregative and multiethnic political parties. But the fragile institutions of political parties are endangered by excessive clout of their leadership. As a result, they are not successful in bringing about attitudinal and behavioural changes among the people. The issues of power, politics and ground realities can be comprehended by the way the electoral process is progressing. Democratic ideal is essentially about a core set of values such as political autonomy, equality of interests and reciprocity. Although the quest for freedom is universal, it is not the top priority when people have to fear for their very survival.It is too early to draw conclusions on long-term effects of the CA elections. If it acts as an instrument of democracy and can help institutionalise peace and democracy, it can be assumed that there is a link between citizens’ choice and their participation in policy making. Even if the CA polls succeed in achieving and maintaining peace, its ultimate outcome would not be evident until second or third general elections under a new system. Free elections are a prerequisite for instituting legitimate power flows and making the state adhere to the rule of law. This will, in turn, bolster state capabilities through administration, market and civil society and permit broad participation. These three sectors are crucial to building sustainable political and economic networks that help shape the state and enhance justice and political legitimacy.

While there is no consensus on what constitutes free and fair elections, Mackenzie puts forward four prerequisites: a) independent judiciary to interpret electoral laws, b) competent and non-partisan administration to conduct elections, c) well organised political parties that can present their policies, traditions and candidates before the voters and d) general acceptance of rules of the game. Many have argued that in addition to free and fair election and counting, the political parties must get an opportunity to compete on equal footing, all people should have equitable access to media, political environment must be free of intimidation, and public grievances must be settled promptly and justly. Another key element is monitoring of elections by national and international observers who can play a significant role in boosting public confidence in democratic transition.Consensus should not only be directed at acquiring political goals. CA elections must be viewed as an instrument of citizens’ influence associated with a vision for building legitimate political system rather than to reward or punish incumbents. Until the old structures that reward vested interests are dismantled and replaced by new ones, neither a “democratic society” nor “free and fair elections” can be realised.

Source: The Himalayan Times, August 8, 2007