“To Have A Federal Structure Or Redefine The State Boundaries Based Upon Janjatis Is A Dangerous Situation” - Sona Khan

Senior advocate of Supreme Court of India SONA KHAN is a well known lawyer of the region. As Nepal is in the process of constitution making, Khan addressed a gathering at CONCOI. Khan spoke to KESHAB POUDEL on various issues regarding federalism and constitution making process. Excerpts:

How did India come up with pluralistic constitution?

Without the presence of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar in the constitution committee of India, I don’t think the preservation of pluralism would have been as effective as it survives today. The role of Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru with vision cannot be ignored. But the master were not the people but were these two elite gentlemen who had the opportunity to be educated in the western system and they brought the concept of justice and equity along with them.

Why is the state so important?

One of the purposes of the existence of the state is to deliver equity and justice in an equitable fashion. There is the crux to preserve the dignity of the individual. How do you go about it is the frame work whether that is parliamentary form of government or presidential form of government is immaterial. The ultimate aim of the state is to deliver the dignity to individual in just and equitable manner.

How is it possible to have absolute pluralism in a country with so many castes, and so many people with different persuasion of culture?

That is the craft of the constitution. Various constitutions have been tried and western society has found just an easy way out. They conceptualized the secularism minus religion. They thought they have created a civil society and they have brought everything out of the religious sanctity. But, this is not so in south Asia. In South Asia religion and culture is the way of life. We cannot live without religion and culture. I am talking about the concept of pluralism in the South Asian constitution.

How would they like a society to consider and explore the possibilities of preserving the common heritage and common culture?

Here it is very important to understand that the ownership of the pluralism belongs to no political section of the society, religion, castes or creeds. It is a collective property of the nation and that collective ownership evolves upon all of us the possibility to preserve it with the state duty.

How important are pluralism and harmony?

I would humbly, with great respect to all of you, say that pluralism has to be recognised but at the same time the harmonious aspects should be respected to survive as a sovereign republic democratic notion. One would need to generate harmony. That harmony will come by bringing to preserve your individual rights by recognizing the pluralistic culture. In the case of India, for political appeasement purposes often pluralistic constitution is very handy. The supreme court of India has been playing very important role to sustain the constitution by interpreting.

How do you see the impact of globalization in all this?

The globalization which will determine the global forces determines their own equity, I don’t know what can happen in Nepal but in India very soon our politicians will be irrelevant. Why? Because the economic forces will generate another dharma and that dharma will be superior than the political agenda. Political agenda so far has been only catering to the narrow vision of the political parties. They have not gone above the party politics. They interrupt the country which is the paramount Dharma. In my opinion globalization and gender issue are undergoing a very definite change. Since the globalization will convert the burden of state into a social capital. The hunger and poverty which is the burden of the state will be harnessed into the social capital by the economic forces.

What about the effects of migration?

The migration of labour forces from one part to another would provide employment and access to economic resources. May be standard differs from one place to another. But at least, it takes care of hunger and poverty. The importance of that part is recognition of that pocket. Road, water, housing, health care and education are primary role of the country. Any regional and national party which is unable to provide this will not last for too long. Now the water cannot be pursued by the concept of Janjatis solidarity, religious solidarity or regional solidarity. The consumers set the condition for globalization. The availability of goods and comfort change the mindset. That is the phenomenon and no one can stop it.

How do you see the WTO in the context of globalization?\

The WTO norms which are part of international federalism are alluding to it. These elements are more important legal tool including the convention of international law and various other protocols which the governments of today have necessary to agree and enter. And the moment they agree and enter, the country is part of all these laws. Once the concerned government signs such protocols and conventions, they are the part of law of particular countries. But there are certain aspects which cannot be changed. For example, the fundamental rights cannot be amended, new rights may be added. Preservation of pluralism is important. The guarantee of pluralism is the guarantee of understanding and delivery to the constitution.

How do you see the concept of federalism?

Indian experiences are different. For example, the Sri Lanka and France have different federal structures. Indian federalism started with unitary federalism. The federalism has two forces - there is gravity towards the center or gravity towards the autonomous state. Both have their own merits and demerits. In my opinion, the interest of the country is paramount. The purpose of federalism is to deliver the mandate of the people and others. Functioning of the government should be proper.

How do you see federalism under the basis of caste and ethnicity?

To have a federal structure or redefine the state boundaries based upon Janjatis is a dangerous situation. You are abdicating your responsibilities or state to bring them to mainstream. It is easy for politicians but it is not conducive for the country. Because they will be happy for the moment for the autonomy but what are they going to do with that autonomy. The reason is not driven by patriotism or nationalism or regionalism but reasons are driven by economic forces. Each country has to craft and fascinate its own system. But however the ultimate key will be to make sure that you are able to be around the mainstream of development. Supposing Nepal wishes to exercise its national identity as Nepali. If you start to say, I am just Janjati and not Nepali, it may come down to people. It is not in the larger interest. What cab the Janjatis autonomy deliver in today’s context of globalization. It is only going to deliver psychological satisfaction.

What is important then?

The important thing is delivery of dignity. Janjatis are after all the citizens of Nepal. Do you think they are going to be happy with the identity without any education provision made for them or without any job provision made to them, surplus of land or reclamation of land, local sustainability, without fertilizer or without water for irrigation? Identity serves very limited purposes.

How do you satisfy all?

For example, schedule cast and schedule tribe banks have purpose to deliver the loan as micro credit banks did in Bangladesh. The purpose remains same whether you give name of schedule cast bank or micro credit bank. The description has to be differed. However, the identity base is a very dangerous thing.

If ethnic federalism will not work, what federalism is going to work?

You can list the Janjatis in constitution itself so that identity is preserved. Recognize them in constitution which was not recognized in earlier. Have a separate commission to look at them but not an ethnic commission. You have to clothe it and you have to find out your own wordings. For example, justice at door step. You have to make temple of justice. Like the case in Philippines and Indonesia, they have their own system. In South Asia, all the countries have various castes and ethnicity. Don’t encourage them to destabilize the government. You need to allocate fund to generate the goodwill. We have divided the states on various models. For instance, the Uttar Pradesh is a very big state and there is now Uttaranchal State. Jharkhand comes out from Bihar. I want to share with you the case of Punjab. For instance, Haryana was never a state as it is today when India became independent. There was referendum to see who is Punjabi or other speaker. Many people said they don’t speak Punjabi so they created Haryana. It is actually the economy which determines the state.

Source: Spotlight, VOL. 28, NO. 24, March 20, 2009

Mockery Of Democracy

Narayan Prasad Wagle

The new threat to democracy does not come from tyrants as they can be fairly distinguished and removed from power by the people. It comes rather from the political groups that pretend to be democratic and keep sucking on the blood of the people. This is a new trend all over the world. As we could see in Pakistan, Musharaf ruled Pakistan in the guise of democracy, which many Pakistanis detested as a military democracy, and it was clearly manifest in the defeat of his allies in the recent election. The Bhutanese government has begun to exercise pseudo democracy to further strengthen the grip of the royal regime over the freedom loving people. TyrannyNepal, as one of the least developed courtiers of South Asia, has shown symptoms of the same disease. With the fall of the Rana regime in 1951, every succeeding ruler claimed to be democratic. Even the tyrannical Panchayat rulers feigned to be democratic, holding some sort of election periodically. They claimed that the democracy it expounded was in consonance with the soil of Nepal. Fortunately, it was dismantled after almost three decades of rule. With the restoration of democracy in 1990, people hoped that their quality of life would improve in a real democracy. However, it is confined to a closed set of elite people, and the benefits of the so-called democracy could not reach the oppressed, the marginalised and the poor. The political parties used democracy to enjoy power. As a result, the country got bogged down in conflicts.With the hope of changing their status from being victims to the sovereign, people came to the streets and defeated the king's ambition of establishing a dictatorial regime. They came to the streets pursuant to the promises of the political parties and the Maoists to correct past mistakes and renounce violence. Nearly two years have passed since the April uprising. The daily lives of the people have become extremely difficult and painful. Violence continues to be perpetrated in the name of the people. The INSEC year book on human rights reports that violent groups in the Terai killed half a thousand people while the government killed nearly three dozens during the period. The government could not prevent the violation of the basic right of the people to live. Rather it became a part of such violation. This clearly shows that the interests of the political groups are very different from those of the people. Otherwise, how could they kill so many people without much hesitation? The senseless general strikes have been a routine feature of the new Nepal. The sufferings these strikes incur on the people are intolerable. They are virtually made prisoners without access to health care, education and other basic needs. Of course, the political groups have the right to demonstrate peacefully for their cause. But do they have the right to kill people for their benefit? It is crystal clear that a group's demands may be supported by a portion of the population. But how can they violate the rights of all other people? In recent times, people have had little access to such basic needs as cooking gas, petrol and kerosene and services like electricity due to the inefficiency of the government compounded by the blockade and senseless general strikes in violation of the basic norms of humanitarian law. As a consequence, essential services like hospital services have also been affected. People who expected law and order, rule of law, better employment opportunities, a favourable business environment, social justice and stability are being hit hard daily. They are being exploited by the political interest groups, some of which are even more accountable to external powers. Some groups are relying on racialism to further their interests, which is clear from the fact that class is not tied with ethnicity while making provisions for the enlistment of the marginalised people. As we know, it is racism and interests of the great powers that create an unending cycle of violence.Compare these developments with the peace loving people of Nepal with so much religious and ethnic tolerance. Some political groups are hell-bent on destroying the assets of the Nepalese people while bringing down their standards of living. As everyone accepts that democracy is for the people, by the people and of the people, the present scenario of Nepal shows that it is against the people, by the elite and feudals and of racism and great power subservience. This is a mockery of democracy, which is more dangerous than tyranny.Illegitimate interestsTherefore, the responsible political parties must act lawfully to reverse this trend if they really want to consolidate democracy in the land of the Buddha. They must refrain from making it just an instrument to legalise their otherwise illegitimate interests and prevent others from doing so. The immediate step in this regard is to hold the Constituent Assembly election, which is a benchmark of democracy

Source: The Rising Nepal, February 25, 2008

Nepal's polls shrouded in doubt

Dhruba Adhikary

KATHMANDU - Nepal's bid to end the current political transition through an election on April 10 is fraught with pitfalls and doubts persist among Nepalis as to the viability as well as usefulness of the exercise in the present climate of insecurity and deep-seated mistrust between important players. The Election Commission has been told by the interim government to make preparations to conduct the poll aimed at electing a 601-strong Constituent Assembly which is to write a new constitution. Leaders of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) are enthusiastic about the election because they think their objective of transforming Nepal from a feudal monarchy to a republic will be achieved within months.

They have even projected their supreme leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal (aka Prachanda or "the fierce one") , as the first president of the republic. The assembly, they expect, will endorse Prachanda's name once the constitution is promulgated. Maoists' impatience is visible in public forums organized to encourage the 17 million-plus voters scattered across the country of 25 million people. Another reason behind this newfound Maoist zeal could be their concerted effort to removed doubts that they will not be blamed if the election is postponed for the third time. The previous postponement, in November, was caused by them after they placed two demands as a precondition to the poll: that the interim constitution be amended to declare the country a republic and to change the traditional election system to a proportional representation method. The amendment was accepted, saying that its execution would be done by the assembly once it is elected; a compromise deal was made on the second demand by adopting a mixed method.

April 10 was chosen because the interim government, which has representatives from seven parties including the Maoists, decided to complete the task before the Nepali year 2064 is out - on April 12. And after a six-month extension of the United Nations mission in Nepal was approved, the UN Security Council on January 23 expressed continued interest in a smooth democratic transition for the country. However deep-seated mistrust among the seven parties about possible sabotage is the a major indicator of possible disruptions and violence. Then there are 50 other registered parties, some of whom are obviously pro-monarchist groups, that have been deliberately left out by the alliance of seven parties who claim that they alone worked to make the April uprising of 2006 successful. The uprising came to a climax on April 24, 2006, when King Gyanendra announced he was ending his 15-month autocratic reign, following 19 days of protests in the streets of Kathmandu and around the Himalayan nation. At least 18 demonstrators died in clashes with police during the "People's Movement".

The minister responsible for internal security, Krishna Sitaula, has issued a three-phased security scheme. However, the government is not mobilizing the 95,000-strong Nepal Army (NA) because the peace accord signed between the Maoists and the rest of the coalition partners requires NA soldiers to be confined to their barracks and Maoist combatants to UN-supervised cantonments. The combatants, whom the Maoists prefer to call members of the People's Liberation Army, number about 20,000. Despite preparations, people at large are not confident about the poll, primarily because of past betrayals and secondly due to lack of a general atmosphere of security appropriate for such a major democratic exercise. The law and order situation is precarious. Media reports of killings, abductions, beatings, looting and disruptions of traffic on highways are coming to the capital from all directions and imply that state authority in outlying districts is non-existent. Some of the district-based law enforcement officials even complained that Kathmandu often sends them orders to release criminals detained on homicide charges, because they happen to be workers for one of the coalition parties.

An election conducted in a security and authority vacuum can have neither legitimacy nor ability to institutionalize democratic polity," analyst Devraj Dahal told Asia Times Online. Conspiracies to abort the CA polls are another issue of concern. There is a strong suspicion that the "suspended" king is sure to use his courtiers and resources to thwart the poll - the outcome of which is not likely to please him and his 240-year-old monarchy. While fears of a palace-induced conspiracy grip all in the coalition, six of the partners are apprehensive about the seventh, the Maoists, as well. The Maoist commitment to competitive politics, they think, is little more than window-dressing, especially if Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong are Prachanda's role models. Other relevant questions include: Can small Nepal afford to have an assembly of 601 deputies to write a new constitution? Similarly, how can Nepal with its limited resource base create and sustain provinces and provincial legislatures - and all on ethnic lines?

Isn't the proposition of autonomy with the right to self-determination to the provinces an outright prescription for the disintegration of Nepal? These are some of the points being discussed by the country's intelligentsia; but neither Maoists, who sowed the seeds of division and inter-communal conflicts, nor leaders of other political parties, offer any convincing answers. One of the other hot subjects of debate was raised from the southern flatland, called Terai, which shares a porous border mainly with the Indian states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Some of the Terai-based analysts see these separatist tendencies as the negative outcome of the interim Parliament's ill-conceived decision to declare Nepal a secular country, in May 2006. "Why wasn't Nepal allowed to retain its Hindu identity when over 80% of its inhabitants are Hindus?" wondered Chandrakishore, editor of Terai Khabarpatrika, a Nepali language magazine published from the southern border town of Birgunj. In his opinion, the bond of the Hindu religion had played a significant role in keeping hill-plain harmony intact and the elimination of that bond threatens its unity. The trouble in Terai is believed to have been fanned by elements deriving political support from New Delhi. This might seem to be a response made on the basis of an Indian perception the Napali Maoists, if not checked at Nepal's plains, could cross the porous border and enter Indian territory to assist Maoists (also known as Naxals) in India.

As voiced by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, communist extremism has already become the biggest threat to India's internal security. If that is the case, it was sheer foolishness on New Delhi's part to assist Nepali Maoists to be a part of this country's establishment. Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala is said to be irritated by such signals, which are essentially based on inconsistent policies. In any case, the bulk of Nepal's external challenges come from India. In its report released on December 18, the Brussels-based International Crisis Group summed up New Delhi's approach in these words: "India ... appears to be using its influence in the Terai to pressure the parties and underscore its capacity to shape events." That Nepal must deliver the CA polls on time to complete the ongoing peace process is not disputed by anyone. Parties outside of the seven-party alliance also subscribe to the understanding that there is no alternative to the democratic exercise. UN representative Ian Martin told the media in New York last week that he was still optimistic, even though the security situation in districts of central and eastern Terai are not conducive for elections.

But Nepali leaders do not appear to possess the ability and vision needed for the task and most of them, including Koirala, have not been able to sacrifice their personal agendas for the sake of greater national interest. By appointing his daughter, Sujata, as the minister to look after the prime minister's office, Koirala has sent a message to the masses that he, like several other South Asian leaders, is keen to build a political dynasty. But if a dynasty was something that the Nepali people were looking for, they already had an established dynasty of the Shah kings. Or do they need a new dynasty, one for the "New Nepal"? New Nepal is a slogan handed down by the Maoists. Socially conscious citizens and Kathmandu-based diplomats also feel that Nepali leaders have one last opportunity to prove their worth. But each of them knows an election in the existing security atmosphere is not possible, but they all want that fact to be stated by someone else. The alternative to an election, informally floated, is to pass a resolution transforming the present unelected Parliament itself into the Constituent Assembly. But will such ingenuity be acceptable to the people at large? Are Nepal's friends and donors likely to approve this method as a medium to gain legitimacy? Doubts persist. Amid these speculations comes the idea of a coup. Maoist leaders have alerted the people about an impeding "democratic coup" , involving a group of civilians (not the king ) with the support from the army. Apparently, Maoists have a better alternative model in the shape of a "nationalist coup". Ultimately, it comes down to a choice between two types of military takeovers, in other words, Hobson's choice.

Source: Asiatimes, February 1, 2008

Republican State And Democracy

Lakshman Bahadur K.C.

Modern states or govern ments have been classified under various forms such as monarchy, republican, dictatorship, democracy, unitary federal and presidential, parliamentary. It does not mean that the various forms of governments which are practised presently in various countries of the world are of recent origin. In fact, forms of government with different names have been in existence since the days of Aristotle in ancient Greece 2,500 years ago.

Classification of governments

Aristotle's classification of government has been considered as authoritative among the early classifications. In modern times, several eminent western political writers have made attempts to classify governments. Among them, Dr. Stephen Leacock's classification of governments has been accepted as being more comprehensive and the best.At first, Leacock divides states into two classes - despotic and democratic. Despotism is another name for dictatorship. In a despotic state, the ruler enjoys absolute and supreme power totally disregarding the wishes of the people. In a democracy, the sovereign power is vested in the general people who exercise it through their elected representatives in the parliament.He further subdivides democracies into limited monarchies and republics. In a limited monarchy, the monarch doesn't enjoy real political power.

He or she is just a nominal or ceremonial head. It is the elected parliament responsible to the people which exercises the real authority. In a republic state, it is the elected representatives headed by an elected president that govern the state for a fixed term.Each of these types of states is again subdivided into unitary and federal forms of government on the basis of concentration on the distribution of powers. In a unitary state, power is concentrated in the central government whereas in a federal state, the government's powers are divided between the centre and the units. The federal system is based on the concept of a dual set of government.The unitary and federal states are further subdivided into parliamentary and presidential forms of government on the basis of relationship between the legislature and executive. In the parliamentary form of government, the executive headed by the prime minister is responsible to the legislature. The head of state (a monarch or president) has only a nominal authority in such a system. Whereas in the presidential form of government, which is based on the doctrine of the separation of power, the chief executive, i.e., the president is not responsible to the legislature and is independent of it though the president may be removed by the process of impeachment.

Thus, we can put the formal classification of governments into broad categories as monarchy, dictatorship and democracy and their subsidiary forms like constitutional monarchy, republics, unitary and federal, parliamentary and presidential governments or a mixture of them. Any form of government may be practised on the basis of the political requirement of the country. No form of government, therefore, can be described as pure or exclusive as well as static.The political system of a country represents harmonisation of the different forms of government. For example, the political system of Great Britain is based on the concept of constitutional monarchy, unitary and parliamentary democracy.

On the other hand, India is a republic and a federal state. It has an elected president with functioning parliamentary democracy under the leadership of an elected prime minister, whereas the USA is a federal republic and democratic state with a presidential form of government, which is based on the doctrine of separation of powers.Another form of government is monarchy. It is the oldest form of government and is prevalent in several states of the world. In fact, the monarchial system having hereditary succession symbolises autocracy, feudalism and exploitation. But with the growth of democracy, which is based on the universal concept of liberty, equality, fraternity and welfare state, the system of absolute monarchy declined in modern times and was replaced by the republican state. But some European countries like Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands have retained the monarchial system as ceremonial heads under a democratic set up.Thus, we find that several countries of the world have removed monarchical system and established a republican system through violent political change. The republican state is now the prevalent system around the world. But the establishment of republicanism does not automatically usher in plural democracy. Republicanism is practised with different forms of government with or without plural democracy.

There are several countries which have adopted the republican concept with different principles of state governance. Just take the example of Korea. The divided Korea - North and South - though they are republican states, the principle of governance for their respective countries is fundamentally different from one another. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North) is governed by a single party ideology of communism whereas the political system of the Republic of Korea (South) is based on the concept of plural democracy with presidential form of government. The president in South Korea is elected by the people in free and fair democratic competitive elections.There is also another form of republican state, which is related to religion and the army doctrine.

For example, Iran proclaims itself an Islamic republic, which means its whole system is guided by Islamic law. In the case of Iraq, it was ruled by military dictator Saddam Hussein for a long time though it was a republican state. Thus, several countries practise dictatorship under the banner of a republican state. The establishment of a republic state is, therefore, no guarantee that multiparty democracy would be established unless it is backed by full commitment to the functioning of constitutional democracy based on the rule of law, periodic competitive elections among the political parties, liberty, equality, fraternity and a welfare state.Nepal is now on the verge of great political change. The successful popular uprising of April 2006 in which millions of people had participated against the autocratic royal regime under the leadership of the seven party alliance and the CPN Maoist opened the door for a change of great magnitude in the political, social and economic fields.With the introduction of the interim constitution 2063 B.S., an interim government and an interim legislature, the Nepalese people have now started to experience a new wave of political change.

One of the basic features of this change is that Nepal is positively heading towards the achievement of new multiparty democracy based on the concept of federal republic with the aim of ending the centralised feudal monarchical system. But Nepal's march towards establishing a new Nepal through state restructuring and creating a new political set up based on political pluralism, rule of law, inclusiveness, fundamental rights, freedom of the judiciary and the press and the welfare state cannot be materialised unless and until we sincerely realise the imperative of framing and introducing a new and stable constitution by the elected Constitution Assembly.The constitution of the elected Constitution Assembly will certainly be a major and historical step towards institutionalising the achievements of the April movement and ending the political transition of Nepal, which will guide the new political set up based on democratic values.

But contrary to the arrangement as provided in the interim constitution 2063 for holding the Constitution Assembly elections, the postponement of the CA polls twice has raised doubts about the sincerity of the political stakeholders of the present political set up. The postponement of the CA polls due to the controversy raised by the CPN Maoist leaders on the methods of the CA polls at a time when the CA polls were scheduled to be held on November 22 is itself a breach of the provisions of the interim constitution, which is a common and legal document of the eight political parties.LegitimacyThus, inability to hold the Constitution Assembly elections means maintaining the status quo and prolonging the transition period, which is definitely not in the interest of Nepal and the Nepalese people. So without wasting time, the political parties and their leaders must come forward to create a conducive environment throughout the country for holding the CA polls successfully and peacefully within this year, otherwise the legitimacy of the present interim set up will be questioned.

Source: The Rising Nepal, October 31, 2007

Erosion of our Democratic Values and Unconcern of Political Parties

Chaturanan Mishra

Despite the fact that more and more downtrodden people have begun to exercise their right of casting votes and there is a new consciousness among Dalits, tribals, women and Other Backward Castes which deepen the roots of our democracy, this in itself does not result in strengthening the rights of the people. More Dalits are killed in India than what happened to the Blacks in South Africa during the apartheid period. Even elected Dalit Presidents of village Panchayats in Tamil Nadu are not allowed to function. Untouchability persists. Now the OBC people are launching more offensives against Dalits. Something new has happened in UP: Brahmins accepting the leadership of Mayawatiji; but it is too early to assess how far the Brahmins in general agree to end untouchability and give social respect to the Dalits. This has to be watched. More girl children in pregnancy are killed. There is no political movement for social reform though the society itself is reforming slowly. Gandhiji mixed political movement with social reform also to some extent.

The bureaucracy is uncontrollable. The colonial tradition of bureaucrats as the rulers and people as the ruled is continuing. Corruption even at the local level of administration has increased so much that people do not get even one-fourth of what is budgeted in Parliament and Assemblies for them. Rajiv Gandhi said people get only 16 per cent of what is allotted in the Budget for them. People are unable to check it. It has spread even to village Panchayats. The police has become more tyrannical. Lathicharges and shootings by the police are quite common. Even the Left Government of West Bengal is now no exception after what happened at Nandigram. In 2005 alone, 44 persons were killed in police firings. Between 1990 and 1999 the police opened fire 5994 times resulting in 1753 deaths and 6886 injuries. The same police is unable to check criminals who rule in cities also. Children are kidnapped and killed if firauti is not paid to them. Even in the central Capital of Delhi women are not safe. The days of Pattam Thanu Pillai, when he was forced to resign for firing, are gone. Politicians are party to it. There is a general feeling that all politicians, barring a few, are for making money. The old respect for politicians is no longer there. Similar is the feeling about political parties since now they don’t go to the people to solve their problems. This is the most dangerous feature since healthy political parties and politicians are a must for the strengthening of democracy. Members of Legislatures change parties for personal benefit. Politicians behave in such a manner as to prove that they have no ideology.

Though in our Constitution every citizen has the right to be elected to Parliament and Assemblies, as the election now costs a crores of rupees ninetyfive per cent of our citizens can’t think of contesting elections. Our janatantra is becoming dhanatantra. Though the Election Commission has recently taken some strict reformist measures, political parties are voicing their protest. Due to casteism, fear and communalism more and more veteran criminals are elected to Parliament and Assemblies as candidates of political parties. It is not safe to oppose such criminal candidates. Parliament is helpless in the case of Gujarat where thousands of Muslims, including women and children as well as even pregnant women, were massacred and so our janatantra is becoming gun-tantra.

Courts can help to provide some remedy and in fact the Supreme Court acted sometimes but courts are so much overburdened with a number of cases that it takes years to have a final judgement. It is so time consuming and costly that the mass of people don’t go there. Rich people use it to harass the poor. It is happening since the days of British rule and continues till today.

Political parties are a must for democracy. The old national parties are getting weakened and caste based regional parties are coming up. This gives us coalition governments. Though the formation of regional parties take democracy to so far unawakened people, the absence of a national party can weaken the Centre. This danger is there. However, so far regional parties have helped to strengthen federalism.

National parties failed to understand the new feeling of the caste people. Different castes of people want their development through their own caste or group of castes. National parties are dominated by high-caste leaders and they run the government. Backward castes united to change this and this they did through caste or group of castes organisations. While Hindu castes were earlier based on religious faith, now they are based on politics and they are changing their position from time to time. This may lead to weakening of the caste system. This problem needs to be tackled in the national interest. Now Dalits strongly protest and what happened in Rajasthan for reservation of Gujjars as tribal people is a serious warning. The tribal people’s position is worse than even the Dalits and poor Muslims. All over India except the North-East they are coming under the influence of Maoists. Very often policemen are killed by them. Terrorised government officials, contractors, truck owners pay them levy. They are equipping themselves with modern arms. They are spreading now in the plains too. Farmers are also paying them do kathia, that is, the produce of two kathas per acre. With its present policy towards the poor the government cannot stop this development.

The poor people are unable to maintain themselves in the rural areas due to the agricultural crisis; they are coming to cities and get shelter in slums making jhopris. Now the government and even the courts are evicting them without giving shelter. No political party takes up their cause and ultimately they may go over to the Maoists. Farmers are in a serious crises. According to 59th National Sample Survey, a majority of small and marginal farmers are unable to make both ends meet. In the post-liberalisation period and after India joined the WTO, production and productivity of agriculture has been heavily reduced. The growth of agriculture has reduced from 3.08 per cent in 1980-90 to 2.65 per cent in 1991-2000 due to reduction of the Plan outlay in agriculture and also in public sector work in agriculture like irrigation and scientific research etc. While the input price of agriculture has heavily increased, the price of agricultural produce has been reduced. Because of this condition, 40 per cent of farmers have desired to leave agriculture if they get an alternative job. As many as 48.6 per cent of farmers are debt-ridden; of them 42.3 per cent are indebted to moneylenders at high interest and forcible realisation. We are again dependent on import of food at higher prices. Starvation and malnutrition have become commonplace for a long time. Now thousands of farmers commit suicides every year. No political party takes up their cause seriously to force the government to act. On the nuclear agreement with the USA political crisis has been created but on the issue of peasant suicides or for unorganised workers or against price rise no such political crisis was engendered.

There is a vast and big population in the poverty zone of Bihar, Jharkhand, UP and Orissa etc. Despite our high national GDP growth, they are becoming poorer. Every year floods from Nepal destroy them. Nepal being a foreign land it is the Central Government’s constitutional responsibility to tackle the problem but it does not. One can be certain that a time will come in the near future when this poverty zone will rise against the Centre and the Centre will be unable to suppress it.

Our people have deep faith in democracy but such issues as mentioned here are fast eroding that faith. It is time that political parties reform themselves to restore the people’s faith in democracy. At present people are highly frustrated and angry. Frequent spontaneous violent outbreaks are taking place. The police is the target. This has no backing of any party. If these violent outbreaks are coordinated which the Maoists can, then it will result in a countrywide or Statewide violent attack directed against the democratic set-up.

Source: Mainstream, October 16, 2007

Sustainability of Federalism in Nepal

Shirish Bhat

Abstract

Ethnic, linguistic, racial and religious conflicts have become the dominant issues facing the world order today. Nepal is not an exception. While many Nepalese politicians look on federalism enthusiastically and involve themselves profoundly on the process, many others are in ferment over the federal idea. Federalism provides no “one size fits all” type of solution. Each Country has to examine and adopt arrangements conducive and suitable for individual needs. Nepal too needs to explore the federal idea intensively and fully before deciding whether to accept or reject it or adopt it with appropriate innovation. We need to explore the federal idea and have an informed debate about its pros and cons and also on deciding whether we adopt or reject it.

Federalism

To date, many countries in the world including Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Comoros, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico, The federated states of Micronesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, St. Kitts and Nevis, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, and Venezuela have federal and/or quasi-federal structures of government. Though federal, none of these countries share exactly the same system. Each country has different administrative arrangements and internal structures. They also vary greatly in size. Russia has republics and many types of regions within; India has states and union territories; Switzerland has cantons while Germany and Austria have landers. Belgium has three regions and three cultural communities while Spain has autonomous regions; the USA has states, unincorporated territories and Native American domestic dependent nations. Canada has provinces, territories and aboriginal organizations. Venezuela has states, territories, federal dependencies.

The proponents of federalism argue that adopting it will strengthen unity and territorial integrity. Switzerland, India, Malaysia, Belgium, Germany, Spain etc are cited as examples. But it cannot be denied that federalism has failed to prevent secession too. The disintegration of Soviet Union and Yugoslavia are well - known examples. The Malaysia - Singapore and Pakistan - Bangladesh splits in the past as well as modern break-ups of Czech and Slovakia, Serbia and Montenegro are also lessons. In Canada, separatism flourished in Quebec despite federalism. Britain devolved power to Scotland and Wales but secessionism seems to have gained ground there. Nigerian federalism did not prevent the Biafran civil war. There are, however, many nuances to take into account when analyzing the countries in question.

Current Political Shift in Nepal

Ideas cannot be ‘killed’; these can only be defeated by greater or better ideas. Another truism is no force can stop an idea whose time has come. Nepal can be a perfect example of this truism.
A recent policy shift of a major political party, Nepali Congress, from ‘multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy’ to ‘federal democratic republic’ has created ripples in fluid politics of Nepal. Now, it seems supporters of federalism have increased in Nepal. The main supporters of the federalism are the Maoists and other communist parties. But none of them have started open and meaningful discussions for and against the system they want establish. There are both supporting and opposing arguments to federalism; however, the real issue is the desirability and sustainability of a federal set-up in a small and landlocked country which is diverse both religiously and ethnically. Many people think that in Nepal’s deeply polarized society, federalism can be worse. At one end there are the “unitarists” who are adamant that the unitary structure of the country should not be changed. At the other end are the “federalist” who want the country to make several “autonomous states with right to self-determination.” On this ground, one sees the federalism as a conspiracy to break up the nation while the other views it as a quest for “new Nepal.”

Can Federalism Bring Peace in Nepal?

Many questions raised by opposing to federalism are: can it bring lasting peace? Can it save our territorial integrity? Can it save our “unity in diversity”? Can it save our ages-long tradition of tolerance, harmony and brotherhood? As all the political leaders and interest groups haven’t done enough exercise or enough study on these questions and there has not been proper explanation on the suitability of federalism to the ordinary citizens, the answer is still uncertain. Many proponents of federalism may argue that a utopian devolution mechanism will cause things to happen in favor of bringing peace. But the causal connection is too remote to rely on. The bitter reality is that there can never be any practical devolution unit/mechanism/degree that all stakeholders can agree upon. Suppose a federal structure was put in place; then what? If the Maoist armed forces continue to remain thereafter, many fear a jobless army can be more dangerous. More complex issues exist about the police force. Therefore, federalism may not bring peace. For peace to hold, firstly, unlawful armed groups should be disarmed and lawful armed groups should uphold the law. Above all, rule of law and total end of impunity can secure us from socioeconomic disaster and political instability so deeply rooted in the nation.

Is Federalism a Sustainable Solution for Nepal?

The international communities (it is said) pressurize the political parties and the government to agree to a federal set-up, the question arises how sustainable would it be? Assuming a federal solution is put in place after a lot of haggling, pressurizing, etc. If it cannot bring about economic and political betterment in tangible proportions, the opposing forces will amass votes to bust it and that’s exactly what they will do when elected. Therefore, federal systems will not be able to be sustained unless they can add sizable amount of value to the aspirations of the majority. It is regrettable that most ‘political solutions’ disregard the aspirations of the majority in our country. It is apparent in Nepal that most of the political leaders and their ‘political solutions’ are guided by foreigners, specifically Indians. Moreover, it is very unlikely that the international community suppress the opposing forces forever and they continue to sustain the fragile ‘yes’ vote in favor of it.

Economics of Federalism and Conflicts over Water Resources

Who should benefit from the economic benefits of the natural resources? Should it be the residents in these regions or the nation as a whole? These are the questions that can cripple any federal set-up. Regional leaders and national leaders will have widely opposing views. It is easy to say the whole country will eventually benefit, but practically it is very difficult as evidenced from around the world. Matters will get even worse if foreign parties enter the fray, which is very likely to happen. A classic example on conflict over water resources is the Murray- Darling Basin development program of the Australian federal government. The basin drains roughly three-quarters of New South Wales, half of Victoria, a substantial portion of southern Queensland, and a small part of eastern South Australia The basin development program is not supported by states amidst a severe drought that has hit Australia. Victoria has repeatedly and decisively declined to cooperate as it has enough water resources. Nepal is not too far away in getting into such inter-region conflict once it is federalized. It will be unimaginably chaotic in a federal set-up and the army will have to be called-in to settle the matter given the fact that water is as important as gold in the dry zone. Prolonged and persistent conflicts can take a heavy toll and things will surely escalate when political forces interplay with them.

Diplomacy

Should the regions be allowed to formulate their diplomatic priorities or should they follow the central government? If they do not have such powers, the regions will surely demand it. It is no secret that Nepali Congress wants much closer ties with India, USA, Japan, and UK. Maoists want closer ties with China, North Korea, and Cuba. Other communist parties want to be closer with socialist countries around the world. Hindus want closer link with India, similarly Muslims would want closer link-ups with the Islamic world. These situations would heighten diplomatic importance to the various regions. Apart from obvious conflicting interests, how can Indian interest, for example, be managed by the central government and the regions? These conflicting interests may lead the nation into diplomatic anarchy under federalism. On the other hand, if the regions’ rights to diplomatic interests are curtailed, would federalism achieve its desired targets?

The Risk of Outside Interferers

Another big risk for the country and the regions is the risk of heightened outside interference.

NGOs and even the UN may run their own zones within some regions. In the absence of an acceptable regulator to both the regional and the central governments, these issues are likely to take the centre stage in any federal setting in Nepal. A ‘racial-federalism’ can be considered much more dangerous than federalism itself in Nepal. This doesn’t sound well but that’s exactly what most politicians in favor of federalism demand. A separate Muslim unit within the Hindu territory? Separate ‘Pahaadee’ unit within ‘Madhesi’ area? ‘Rai/Limbu’ area within ‘Newari’ territory? How ridiculously racial? We are likely to fall into a bigger ‘ethnic’ trap if we try to solve the ‘ethnic’ conflict by federalism. We should be moving in a different direction that can integrate the ethnic groups. We don’t differentiate ethnic celebrations, ethnic foodstuff and ethnic attire. We need our fellow citizens who run them to live and thrive in our nation among……

Final Remarks

Ethnic, linguistic, racial and religious conflicts have become the dominant issue facing the world order today. Wars after 1945 have been as much within countries as between them, with disastrous consequences for peace and security. While many Nepalese politicians (not silent majority of Nepalese people) in Nepal look on federalism enthusiastically and involve themselves profoundly on the process, the rest of the world is in ferment over the federal idea. There was a time when federalism was seen as the ideal remedy for many of the world’s political maladies. It was perceived as the universal device to achieve unity in diversity. Experience has shown that this is not necessarily true in all situations.

Federalism provides no “one size fits all” type of solution. Each Country has to examine and adopt arrangements conducive and suitable for individual needs. Nepal too needs to explore the federal idea intensively and fully before deciding whether to accept or reject it or adopt it with appropriate innovation. The federal idea is dynamic and constantly evolving. What we in Nepal need to do is to explore the federal idea and have an informed debate about its pros and cons and also on deciding whether we adopt or reject it.

Federalism will create new and never ending conflicts and confrontations on the issues of:
# Fixation and safeguarding of borders between states.
# Distribution and utilization of natural resources
# Rights to majority and minority in political, racial, religious, cultural issues (we should remember ill-fated Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal); Madhesi and Pahadi; backward and forward etc.
# Unlimited and unbearable economic burden to the nation ( for example, expenditure to one federal govt and ten state govts; one pm and ten chief ministers; one president and ten governors, one federal parliament and ten state parliaments etc …..)
Nepal, small in size and population, can be managed and governed by inclusive, constructive and cooperative system of representation. Let many ideas play. Let different parties contest and compete with a spirit of “rule of the games.” Let the sovereign people decide freely. Decentralization of power to the local governments with zero interference of the center can make a magic change. Living peace, political stability and the rule of law (good governance) are the basic conditions to flourish and strengthen democracy. Socioeconomic development is possible only in an atmosphere of national unity and mutual confidence among all stakeholders.

Source: Spotlight, VOL. 27, NO. 9, October 12, 2007

Is Nepal's democracy in danger?

Rabindra Mishra

A political crisis in Nepal is set to worsen after the postponement, for the third time, of elections for a Constituent Assembly (CA) that has to draw up a blueprint for the country's future.

Many analysts are doubting if the polls will be held at all.

They also say the latest postponement of the polls will only benefit the monarchy, which is ironic given that all the major parties have agreed on the abolition of the monarchy. The Maoist rebels have been blamed for the postponement of the elections for coming up with two new demands:

• That the monarchy be abolished immediately by the present, interim parliament
• That the CA elections be held on a fully proportional voting system

Both the demands contradicted their earlier agreement with seven political parties who they joined in opposition to King Gyanendra. The postponement of the polls should be viewed against the wider Maoist strategy.

Change

In their days as a guerrilla force, their fundamental strategy was to gain influence in the countryside before surrounding and entering the capital, Kathmandu, for a final strike. A decade of insurgency left them dominating much of rural Nepal. But when the Maoists realised intimidation and violence were less effective in Kathmandu, they changed their strategy. In late 2004, they decided to work with mainstream political parties to further their goals. The strategy received a boost when King Gyanendra sacked the democratic government and took over power in February 2005. Enraged by the king's action, the mainstream political parties, who had in the past refused to collaborate with the Maoists, decided to accept the rebels into their fold. Together, the Maoists and the seven mainstream parties took on the king in a series of street protests in April 2006 that resulted in the king handing back power. In subsequent months, the Maoists became part of the interim parliament and the government. They also went about gaining as much influence as possible in commerce, the media and other areas of public life in the capital. So having established themselves in Kathmandu, they have one final objective left - to capture power.

Pressure

Most analysts agree that the Maoists have little chance of doing this through competitive politics. They have lost much of their influence in the countryside, and are unpopular in the cities. That seems to be why they wanted November's elections put off. In the meantime they will try to pressure other parties to agree to their demands for the immediate ending of the monarchy and for the CA polls to be held under a fully proportional voting system. They have also shown an ability to outwit their opponents in a way that erodes the authority of much of the state. It was the failure of the democratic parties, the king, the army and other security agencies which made the Maoists' journey to the capital possible in the first place. Now they have reached a point where they seem able to put a break on a national objective like holding elections, something that virtually the entire country had agreed on. This, many say, has severely weakened the public's confidence in its legitimate institutions.

Bloodshed fears

Many people have begun to talk about Nepal entering an era of either ultra-rightist (military or military-backed) or ultra-leftist (Maoist) dictatorship. They are not ruling out bloodshed between the army and the Maoists, who have concentrated a large number of their members in Kathmandu. The coming days and months are crucial for Nepal's fragile peace process. So is the special session of parliament on Thursday which will look into various options to address the prevailing crisis. It is understood that the army has already opposed the idea of the current interim parliament declaring Nepal a republic. Sources say the army is also unhappy about Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala's Nepali Congress Party's recent decision to vote for the abolition of the monarchy when the Constituent Assembly meets. The Maoists have now hinted that they are ready to compromise on the timing of the abolition of the monarchy. But they look far less likely to compromise on the proportional representation issue. Whatever is decided - and other options are up for discussion - the result could well need amendments to the constitution and relevant electoral laws. From all this mess, it is King Gyanendra who is gaining.

From a position of rock-bottom unpopularity, when he had to give up power in April, 2006, his standing has been gradually picking up - thanks to the chaos and discord among the political parties and Maoists. Some leaders now say that democracy in Nepal is in serious danger. They are arguing that a broader coalition should be formed which would also take into its fold the pro-monarchy forces to stop the country from sliding into dictatorship. But the wider held view is that a final showdown between the army and the Maoists in Kathmandu is more likely than ever. If such a situation arises, nobody knows who will prevail. However, one Indian expert on Nepal, retired Gen Ashok Mehta, believes that Delhi would be prepared to give military help to the government in Kathmandu rather than see the Maoists seizing power by force.

Source: BBC News Service, October 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

Nepal's leaders take lessons in democracy

Prominent members of Nepal's main political parties have visited Switzerland hoping to learn about the federalist system.

The visit comes ahead of November's election in the Himalayan kingdom and is seen as part of Swiss efforts to support Nepal's transition to democracy. "Both sides agreed that the exchange has been positive and helped boost cooperation," a foreign ministry statement said on Friday.
During the five-day visit the Nepalese delegation met experts and representatives from the Swiss authorities as well as the Geneva-based United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour.

The foreign ministry said Switzerland hoped to contribute to a solution of fundamental issues, which include a possible federal structure of the country and the different political convictions of the key players. The Swiss authorities have been involved in human rights initiatives and have been providing humanitarian aid to Nepal for more than 40 years.

Prachanda

The delegation from Nepal included the former Maoist rebel leader, Kamal Dahal – known as Prachanda. He told a news conference in Bern that the visit could give new impetus to the peace process in Nepal and create a positive atmosphere between the various political players. Prachanda, a controversial figure who led Nepal's Maoist movement during the civil war, said it was not possible to take over Switzerland's political system without adapting it to the situation in Nepal. "But the Swiss experience can help us establish a new society," he said. A delegation of Nepalese politicians and representatives of the civil society stayed in Switzerland in January.
Some Swiss media slammed the authorities for inviting Prachanda, but the foreign ministry rejected the criticism.

"It was not an invitation to Mr Prachanda in particular. It is not up to us to decide on who takes part in the peace process," foreign ministry spokesman Lars Knuchel told the Basler Zeitung newspaper. But Günther Bächler, a Swiss advisor for peace building in Nepal, welcomed Prachanda's visit to Switzerland. He said there were attempts to shut the Maoists out of the peace process. Several uprisings by an ethnic group in southern Nepal also hampered progress.

Elections

During the decade-long civil war at least 13,000 people were killed, including many civilians, and hundreds of thousands were forced to leave their homes. Prachanda, the leader of Nepal's Communist Party, said in 2001 his goal was to do away with the monarchy and the parliamentary system. However, last year a seven-party alliance and the Maoist rebels signed a peace accord paving the way for an interim government and a constitutional assembly which will decide on the fate of the monarchy. Elections for the assembly, scheduled for November, are seen as the culmination of the peace process.

Source: Swissinfo, July 6, 2007

CA Polls: Definite Direction

FOR the first time since the formation of the interim government, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala unveiled the annual policies and programmes of the government on Wednesday. It was expected as the budget is to be presented in a few days. Now the legislature parliament will hold discussions on it in the coming days.

FocusThe focus was basically on holding the constituent assembly (CA) election on November 22. It will be a landmark for the people and the country. Even Prime Minister Koirala has said that the day will herald a new era. Obviously, the expectations of the people are very high. But the preparations are yet to gather speed for the polls.There are many problems that have to be solved, though. A major issue is bolstering the law and order situation in the country. There are many agitating groups, some of which are involved in violence. On this score, the government has shown some seriousness, and attempts are being made to step up security measures. In this connection, the government is mulling over a new security policy, taking into consideration the situation in the country.Meanwhile, talks are being held with the various agitating groups, and it is hoped that an amicable solution will be reached as per their demands. This must be taken up seriously because without solving the simmering problems, the CA polls cannot be held in a peaceful atmosphere.

For this, the political parties, too, should extend their hands to the government. If they do so, the government will be facilitated in taking the necessary steps to maintain law and order. After a chill for some time, the eight political parties are working together, and there has been increased understanding among them. This solidarity and unity must be maintained till the polls. Though they may be contestants in the polls, the unity ought to be maintained so that the gains made so far does not go to waste.The appointment of envoys is still in a limbo as they were recommended by the earlier government. The main objection has come from the CPN (Maoist). They say that the recommendations were made without consulting them. On this matter, Maoist chief Prachanda had talked to Prime Minister Koirala, and it was agreed that the issue would be resolved soon.

As Premier Koirala mentioned in the government's policies and programmes, the culture of consensus and collaboration for resolving the differences through dialogue and negotiation has become a present day reality. And the country is going in this direction though at times stalemates have arisen.It is based on this that the country has come so far, starting with the agreement of the seven parties and the Maoists. The interim government and the legislature parliament are the result of the collaborative effort of the eight parties. This must not be allowed to break down on trivial pretexts.Whatever is taking place in the country is with the approval of the eight parties. Hence, blaming one or the other leader is not appropriate. Moreover, there are matters that have to be discussed behind closed doors. However, transparency must be maintained regarding the administration of the country. AwarenessNow all confusions regarding the CA polls are over with the announcement of the date. It is the duty of all the political parties to go to all parts of the country to make the people aware of the importance of the CA elections. This is important considering the fact that many people are still unaware as to why a constituent assembly election is necessary for the creation of a better Nepal. The rural parts are where the majority of the population lives and have a greater say in the political setting.

Source: The Rising Nepal, July 6, 2007

Federal structure: Administrative units on ethnic basis

Shailendra Kumar Upadhyay

Jawaharlal Nehru University professor S D Muni needs no introduction for Nepali intellectuals and politicians because of his long association with political developments in Nepal. Muni is a well-wisher of Nepal and an ardent believer in people’s power and democracy. He believes in the special nature of ties between Nepal and India. For these reasons his observations on current Nepali politics merit serious attention.

During his recent Nepal visit, Muni suggested that the Tarai problem be given due priority to prevent the disintegration of Nepal. The people of Tarai have been raising their voice against their marginalisation since the advent of democracy in 1950. In spite of Tarai’s contribution to Nepali economy, the state has not treated them in a fair manner. Just as a token of gesture some people from Tarai have been picked for high-level posts but not as a matter of their rights. This has been resented by the people of Tarai and particularly after the success of Jana Andolan II, and consciousness of Tarai people has increased manifold.The commitment made by the eight party alliance to restructure the state on a federal basis has been widely welcomed but the question of the basis of the formation of the new administrative units under a federal structure is yet to be answered. At the same time, the question of representation in the Constituent Assembly and future parliament remains a sensitive issue.

While there is a consensus among civil society members that the country’s future administrative units have to be decided, as far as possible, on ethnic and linguistic basis, the political leaders are still creating confusion about the issue. Even the chief government negotiator has publicly denounced formation of future administrative units on the basis of ethnicity and language. This not only diminishes the credibility of the negotiator but also raises severe doubts about government’s intention.The Tarai belt has four prominent language groups — Maithili, Bhojpuri, Awadhi and Tharu, with Hindi as their lingua franca. Now, it has to be agreed that only the people of Tarai have the right to opt for either a single Tarai unit as a new administrative entity or four units based on language.

Similarly the question of administrative units in the hills and mountains has to be left to the wishes of the people inhabiting those regions. Although most of the mountainous districts have mixed populations, a particular ethnic community makes for the dominant part of a particular district. Naturally these ethnic communities would prefer creation of administrative units on the basis of the prominence of a particular ethnic community although the rights and privileges of other minority groups would have to be protected too. But to say that since there is no majority of any ethnic community in any district there is no need for units on ethnic basis is like trying to sweep the problem under the carpet.The fact that culture grows out of a particular language. For the protection of a culture the language has to be protected is a universal truth. It has to be accepted that new administrative units will use their own language and common link language to facilitate the participation of commonfolk in socio-political activities and promotion of their culture. The right to protect one’s identity must be recognised as a fundamental right of the people. Either those opposed to formation of new administrative units have to submit a viable alternative or they should accede to the demands of the Tarai people.

If the government adopts a policy of suppression of the Tarai agitation through force, such measures will boomerang by helping the extremists who want to see the country disintegrate. The same armed forces that assured the King they would be able to quell the Maoist rebellion in six months might try to persuade the present regime that the Tarai agitation could be thwarted by martial means as well. The politicians need to keep this in mind and must open up the vista for mutual understanding.As long as the government does not show its readiness to create new administrative units on the basis of ethnicity and language and discuss the merits of proportional representation, no meaningful discussions can take place with the dissenters and the question of free and fair CA polls will remain in limbo.

For their part, the ministers must learn to hold their tongue on controversial matters which can only be solved through dialogue. They also need to show their readiness to respond to the demands of the people of Tarai, indigenous groups and ethnic communities, dalits and women. The age of imposition of one’s idea on others has passed. The new awareness among people of their legitimate rights and privileges must be respected. There is no alternative to dialogue and discussion. Use of force is undemocratic and will create bigger problems. Recognition of the sovereign right of people is the only way out of the present crisis.Upadhyay is ex-foreign minister

Source: The Himalayan Times, July 5, 2007

Leadership And Democracy In Nepal

Suresh Sharma (Poudyal)

Nepal's economic development and democracy continue to be in the doldrums even after the country having entered a democratic era in 1990. During the partyless Panchayat regime, the leaders of the political parties were mostly engaged in clandestine meetings and delivering speeches from their hideouts to prevent themselves from being caught and put behind bars by the royal administration and its henchmen. During this period, the political parties were prohibited from mass gathering and carrying out political activities. People hardly dared speak against the royal regime, lest they faced prosecution or even punished without a chance for a bail or release on parole.

Leadership qualities

After the country was liberated from the king's authoritarian rule in 1990, the party leaders came out of their hideouts and celebrated the glorious victory of the people. Majority of the not-so-literate citizens of the country were perplexed by the new developments taking place around them. They didn't really understand what democracy meant. They were just carried away by the well-crafted speeches of the leaders, and majority of them just remained mute spectators.

Slowly, they started voicing their concerns and understanding the changes taking place. The whole country was ushered into a new era of multi-party politics, guiding Nepal's development into the 21st century. On the positive side, during the 14 years of post 1990 Nepal, the number of political parties, non-government organisations, banking and the private sector and businesses mushroomed. The development of the media and telecommunication sector flourished, foreign employment and remittances increased sharply. However, on the flip side, the country's government changed frequently. The Maoist insurgency dominated the country's politics and media headlines for more than a decade. King Gyanendra's direct rule for more than a year caught the attention of the whole world, and the country's image plummeted in the eyes of international observers. Finally, after the mega event - Jana Andolan II in April 2006, King Gyanendra bowed down to the people.The Maoists joined mainstream politics after a lot of deliberations and negotiations with the seven major political parties. Presently, the Maoists have already entered the coalition government with the mandate to hold a free and fair Constituent Assembly Election.

So far, 14 months have already passed since Jana Andolan II, and the country is still brimming with instability, insecurity, lack of political trust, human rights violations, newly emerged ethnic tensions and political uncertainty. There may be many underlying factors or causes leading to this present situation. However, the principal reason for this tumultuous disorder and unrest over the years is a sheer lack of effective political leadership. Now, let us examine what are the attributes of true leadership and why our leaders have failed so far.If we are to accept the basic premise that leadership is the art of influencing, cajoling and directing people to accomplish a given mission or goal, then we must agree that there is more to leadership than merely barking out orders from a personal power base. Wise leadership involves speaking, listening and learning with farsighted vision, planning and action. According to a research study in 1999 by Warren Bennis, professor and founding chairman of the Leadership Institute at the University of Southern California, all leaders share four significant personality traits: vision, passion, integrity and courage.

Bennis also found that leaders share five common competencies ? technical competence, interpersonal skills, conceptual skills, judgement and character. Out of these, Bennis claims that character is the vital element that determines a leader's effectiveness, adding that "leaders rarely fail because of technical incompetence" but more so for lack of character. However, apart from these aforementioned qualities, there are three other hidden qualities of great leaders. These hidden qualities are not easily discernible, but are found in the best of leaders. These qualities are empathy, personal responsibility and an openness to discovering the truth. How many of these personality traits, competencies and qualities do our Nepalese political leaders possess or apply them in their day to day lives and in making decisions of public interest? This is a question which haunts every conscious citizen even more strongly in the present transitional phase. Empathy - the ability to sense and respond to the feelings of others - sets leaders apart from their peers. The leaders use it to form strong relationships, pick up early warning signs and recognise opportunities to influence. The caring aspect of empathy is what inspires people to stay with a leader, even when times are challenging. Empathy breeds loyalty.

If the leaders of the Maoist-affiliated Madhesi Mukti Morcha and Madhesi People's Rights Forum (MPRF) had displayed even the slightest common sense and empathy, the Gaur carnage of 21 March, which resulted in the ghastly killings of 27 people could have easily been averted. The loss of so many lives is a purely man-made disaster, resulting from hatred and egotism. It was a blunder on the part of the leadership of both the groups to organise their mass meetings in the same place, at the same time and try to foil each other's stage. With such mean, apathetic and narrow-minded attitude of the leaders, how can one expect them to imbibe morality and ethics? Personal responsibility is the courage and moral obligation to accept responsibility of one's actions ? good or bad. Great leaders do not wait for things to improve, but act to improve things. Earlier, leaders of the eight parties had made public to hold the polls for the constituent assembly elections by June 2007. It has now been scheduled for November 22. After the Election Commission publicly admitted the impossibility of conducting the elections in June, all the political parties started their idiosyncratic blaming game on each other for the setback. None of them took the responsibility for the delay. What does this mean? Our leaders are simply not serious about political commitments and responsibility to the people. They clearly lack foresight, and make decisions on a whim without proper planning and calculations. They also lack planning and team work. Their sluggishness and attitude of taking things for granted have cost the dreams and aspirations of the common citizens very dearly.

Lastly, great leaders are always keen in discovering the truth. They encourage debate and seek truth from it. On the contrary, our leaders seem apathetic in revealing the truth. National and international human rights groups have recently pointed out that more than 900 people are still missing and their whereabouts uncertain. Majority of these disappearances were perpetrated by the security forces during the conflict and the remaining by the Maoists and other armed groups. This week at a press briefing, the outgoing OHCHR representative in Nepal Lena Sundh demanded an end to the culture of impunity in Nepal and punishment to the perpetrators. From the lackadaisical approach of the leaders sharing power in the present government, it is apparent that they are still reluctant to dig out the truth. What a pity for the family of the victims.

Peace and security

Democracy cannot flourish without peace and security. Peace and security will be a far cry if there is no dignity and respect for individual human rights and their lives. It is now high time that our leaders wake up from their dreams and start working responsibly as true leaders, and not as deceivers, to fulfill the aspirations of their denizens. They should now rise above petty politics and deeply think for the greater good of the nation.

Source: The Rising Nepal, June 30, 2007

Democratic practice : Will it be sustainable in Nepal?

Ganga Thapa

Scholars studying the fragmentation of authoritarian regimes and their transition to democracy do not believe that political, social and economic institutions must be strengthened before the regime is strong enough to face future crises. Realists, however, note that transition to democracy is a more delicate issue than stabilisation in war-torn states, hence it is preferable to go about political accommodation slowly and steadily. Since the April Awakening, the problem of governance has acquired prominence. Indicators suggest that the support for democratic institutions is deteriorating due to the lack of reform and political transformation. The challenge of transition to democratic rule is hence formidable.The issues of regime change are closely linked with the state as conceived in the Weberian term: No state, no democracy.

In other words, the process of regime change that leads to state decay or state collapse reduces the prospect of democracy. Nepal’s is a case of systematic failure stemming from inequality, social exclusion, bureaucratic politics and ignorance. In fact, the pressure to democratise in 1990s has resulted in relative political party stability and the emergence of new political and social forces. But the failure to create a new reality has only increased inequality and created chaos. In Nepal’s context, neither the level of social trust nor the number of political parties is correlated with the level of democracy. Even if we consider Nepal a democracy in the aftermath of the royal autocracy, the overall response must come as a revolutionary change of the whole system, particularly by adopting political strategies to combat exclusion, racism, oppression and achieve recognition and legitimacy for the establishment of a free and democratic state. That requires an egalitarian society and large-scale public trust for democracy, political institutions, and system of governance.

Nepal’s is a clear example of what Princeton Professor Kohli describes as ‘two-track’ democracy, involving ‘realistic utopia’ in which common people are needed only at election time. Then they are expected to let the elite run the pro-business show, whether through autocratic or democratic means. Conflict lies at the heart of politics. It might be described in multiple ways like “privatisation of politics” and “new aristocracy” and its magnitude gauzed through the institutional dimensions of democracy, viz representation, participation, deliberation and inclusion. While many casual factors have to be taken into account to determine whether a state is sufficiently democratic, the prospects of democracy are enhanced when opposition demands are amenable to negotiated resolutions, even in “weak” or “failed states”.All post-autocracy regimes focus on developing necessary conditions for successful transition to democracy, but the mainstream politics will still be subject to contestations. Almost all the ruling elites, the principal agents of democratisation, have become inherently non-democratic of late. The end of the Cold War heralded a tectonic shift in international politics and exposed the societies to the challenges arising from cultural diversity and pluralism. Nepal was no exception, with its state apparatus marked with authoritarian centralisation. When the fact that the stability of political system depends on whether or not the elites follow democratic norms is realised, the current deficit of political pluralism will stand exposed. In fact, all efforts to conceptualise democracy should explicitly acknowledge the multidimensional nature of the concept of democracy.

The sustainability of democracy depends on popular sovereignty, economic growth, social inclusion, freedom of expression and freedom from all forms of economic exploitation. When a country passes a threshold marked by deeper problems of citizens’ participation, economic growth, democratic values and education; connivance among political circles, mafia-like economic structures; and lacks serious commitment to address them, we reach a dead-end. Nepal has time and again suffered at the hands of the political leaders who develop vested interests. For example, PM Koirala presents himself as a political moderate, but he has an immoderate mindset, with all its ambiguities and contradictions.There seems to be an unceasing quest for a political system that would bring about stability and peace, yet, according to Immanuel Kant, a republican order is the first condition for peace. Indeed, in a democracy, all social groups should have access to policymaking with the elites actively sharing power. The rise of communist forces – especially those who want Lenin and Mao’s ideology to be elevated to the status of state religion — unwittingly provide a basis for right-wing extremism or ‘crypto-fascist’ tendencies. Democracy entails representation of diverse interests. At present, populist leaders are posing as its major threats.

Source: The Himalayan Times, June 20, 2007

Bottoms up

The units of local self-governance — the 75 district development committees, some 4, 000 village development committees and 58 municipalities — have been without the people’s representatives for the past five years, including one year of the post-Jana Andolan 2 period. They have mostly been run by employees, except sporadically, in some of them, by people nominated to the elective posts by successive governments after the term of the elected bodies was allowed to lapse in 2002 by the Sher Bahadur Deuba government despite the legal provision for extension by a year. This was because Deuba did not want the CPN-UML, the then main Opposition, to continue to hold sway in about two-thirds of them. The failure to fill all the vacancies was due to the Maoist insurgency at that time. Now, at long last, the elective vacancies may soon be filled as the eight parties are reported to have reached an understanding on the matter, including a formula for the distribution of all the posts among them. The three major parties — the Nepali Congress, the CPN-UML and the CPN-Maoist — are to be treated as equals, the NC-D is to get half of any of the Big Three, and the remaining tiny constituents of the alliance will not have to draw a blank.

According to a report, all the local bodies are likely to be constituted in three phases, starting with the coming fiscal year. The government has prepared a set of directives for operating the local bodies in line with Article 139 of the Interim Constitution, which provides for the formation of the units of local government “to create a congenial atmosphere for the practice of the people’s sovereignty from the local level upwards ... to provide services to the people locally and to promote institutional development of democracy right from the local level up...” Decentralisation and devolution of powers have been emphasised. As there has been a national understanding on the question of providing greater autonomy to the local units, the practice of local governance in the interim period should reflect this consensus.

The eight-party look of the local units will inject optimism into the local people, giving the impression that democracy and peace are returning to the villages. The filling of all the elective posts through consensus-based nomination will activate service delivery, disrupted so often in so many places, to its full capacity, and is likely to make it efficient and transparent. In the past, after the elected bodies were allowed to die, most donors, particularly Scandinavian governments, were not pleased and had expressed their serious reservations about continuing aid aimed at strengthening local self-governance on the ground that the shape of the local bodies under active royal rule did not reflect a representative political arrangement. This had severely hampered work. The eight-party arrangements are expected to enhance accountability and credibility of local units, and greater willingness on the part of donors to help with expertise, money and material to promote democracy and decision-making at the grassroots.

Source: The Himalayan Times, June 10, 2007