e-Democracy For New Democratic Paradigm

Kranti Bir Chhetry

The innovative use of new media to significantly enhance democratic governance by facilitating more direct participation by citizens in the political decision-making arena is known as e-democracy. Utilising communications technology to promote more effective democratic politics is an entirely new concept. But the more recent potential of the Internet to place greater power in the hands of individual citizen vis-୶is their political representatives, institutions of entrenched interest and even the policy decisions of global corporations has led some to suggest that e-democracy offers the prospect of an entirely new democratic paradigm.

Certainly the capabilities of the new technologies have spawned a worldwide variety of experiments and innovations designed to reinvigorate democratic politics। However, the established institutions of power are, thus, proving far more resilient to change than would allow us to proclaim the arrival of new electronic polls.

Tele-democracy
The notion of tele-democracy precedes e-democracy and relates to earlier experiments conducted with TV technologies. A more important distinction, however, can be made between e-democracy and the related concept of e-government. While the former is more focused upon the emergence of new political cultures where technology enables the empowerment of the people (demos), e-government refers to the attempts to use ICTs to restructure the existing institutions of government. Thus e-democracy developments can be viewed as attempts to challenge the limitations of traditional representative models of government and replace them with alternative repertoires of democratic expression and activity emanating from the citizen. In contrast, many e-government initiatives have been concerned with re-energising public administrations through improvements in electronic service delivery, organisational change and cost cutting. Although valuable for most situations, not all developments fall neatly into this categorisation between e-democracy and e-government, and it is, perhaps, the outcomes arising from the tensions between these two approaches which will have the most significant impact upon democratic governance in future.

The reason for the discovered enthusiasm for democratic renewal through the use of ICTs is due to a number of related factors. First of these is the widespread dissatisfaction with modern liberal democratic politics, which is being witnessed in most of the mature democratic nations. In Europe and North America, electoral turnouts have been decreasing, party membership has fallen and disenchantment with dislocation of the politicians, particularly among the young, is a common concern. This dislocation of the political process from the everyday interests of many citizens is further widened in many countries by the decline in ideological political discourse and a related breakdown of class-based political organisation. Second, this disillusionment with the political system has been further reinforced by a perceived weakening of the nation-state's ability to represent the interests of citizens in the face of emerging forces of globalisation. For some commentators, political power has shifted from elected politicians and is increasingly in the hands of global corporate executives whose decisions often have direct significance for the life experiences and opportunities of most of the world's populations.

Yet governments increasingly seem to be impotent in the face of such corporate power as a consequence of their desire for inward investment. Thus, together with a largely privately owned mass media, nation-states are often regarded as colluding with corporations to satisfy their business interests rather than the interests of their citizens. Issues of child labour practices, environmental damage or threats to human health and welfare are sidelined in the competitive race between governments to provide tax incentives, deregulation policies and diminished employment protection in order to attract corporate investment.Third, the disenchantment with existing democratic systems and politicians has, in part, stimulated the emergence of a new political culture based upon new social movements and activity loosely formed around universal values and moral principles such as environmentalism, animal rights and a range of human rights issues. Sceptical of current political rhetoric and the will of politicians to tackle these important political issues, activists have rejected traditional highly organised, institutionalised, class-based politics. Instead they have sought democratic expression through the new social movements that observe lifestyle politics and politics of affinity which reaches beyond nation-state borders. e-Democracy initiatives may manifest themselves in a variety of forms which may be regarded as reactions to the disillusionment with the democratic politics outlined above.

The new media are increasingly becoming a significant feature of national and local elections. Political parties and candidates are becoming rapidly aware of the potential of the Internet or canvassing voters, fundraising and motivating supporters. However, web-based communication technologies have also been used to challenge the 'sound byte' media campaigns and make candidates more directly responsive to the voice of the electorate. In the USA, for example, websites such as DemocracyNet and RedWhiteandBlue have attempted to provide neutral sites where citizens can obtain information about the candidates and interrogate them on issues which may influence their voting preference. Furthermore, the technology can be used to verify statements made by political candidates and provide almost instantaneous refutations where appropriate. Tactical voting has also been a feature of web-based campaigning.As a means to engender the more informed public deliberation so essential to strong democratic politics, electronic forums have been utilised. Again, these 'citizen forums' may take different forms such as locality-based citizen forums. For some enthusiasts, the new networked structure of the Internet heralds a return to the direct democracy of Ancient Greek city-states. Citizens connected to an electronic forum are able to have informed debates and make decisions online without recourse to the institutions of representative democracy.

However, the practicalities of the modern world make it highly unlikely that we will see the early demise of our political representatives as a consequence of the Internet. More important may be the questions raised by such electronic forums and virtual public spaces for improving our existing institutions of democratic governance.

Experiment in ICT use

To date, there have been several 'experiments' in the use of the new ICTs to facilitate e-Democracy. Limited in number, it is also, perhaps, too early to draw firm conclusions from such experiments about their capacity to renew interest in democracy and bring governments and public services closer to the people. Research by some scholars has challenged the idea that electronic forums foster more deliberative democratic activity. Instead of reasoned argument, a picture emerges either of like-minded people seeking political solace for their views online or of a few dominant voices taking over discussions.

Loktantra Day

THE first anniversary of Jana Andolan II or Loktantra (Democracy) Day is being celebrated throughout the nation with greater enthusiasm and commitment to translate the spirit of the people's movement into action. This was the day last year that forced king Gyanendra to relinquish absolute power he had seized three years ago by disbanding the popularly elected government. The establishment of Loktantra made the people masters of their own destiny. Perhaps, this is the first time in the history of Nepal that Nepalese people were made sovereign in the real sense. The people of Nepal went to the street overwhelmingly at the call of the political parties against the king's authoritarian regime. The people's power restored democracy within 19 days of struggle. The Jana Andolan II not only restored multi-party democracy but also laid the foundation for a democratic republic. Now the process for transforming Nepal into a democratic republic has been underway, albeit at a slow pace. However, the process is moving ahead steadily.

The last one year has seen epoch making changes in Nepal. The decade-long conflict that ravaged the nation came to an end following the signing of the comprehensive peace treaty between the government and the Maoists. This has not only made the people feel safe and secure but also has sent a message to the international community that Nepal and the Nepalese people are capable enough to solve their own problems. With the restoration of multi-party democracy and peace, economic activities have revived which have created new confidence and a sense of greater optimism among the people of Nepal and also the well-wishers of Nepal. After the success of Jana Andolan, plenty of things have been done to institutionalize political and democratic achievements. Most importantly, the CPN-Maoist that had been waging an armed insurgency for the last one decade was brought into the new political system that has heralded a new phase in Nepal's political history. Similarly, the nation is in the process of holding the election to a constituent assembly election for writing a new constitution.

This is the process of writing the constitution by the elected representatives of the people?the issue that had remained unresolved since 1951. But the election to a constituent assembly seems to be delayed as the Election Commission has expressed the inability to hold the election in June this year. Early constituent assembly election is a must to complete the political process and institutionalize the achievements of the Jana Andolan. The eight political parties now need to arrive at a common decision on the dates and process for the constituent assembly election. This is the need of the hour and political parties and the government must express commitment for this. This alone would make the celebration of the Loktantra Day meaningful.

Source: The Rising Nepal, April 24, 2007

Loktantra Day : The Message Is Clear

Bishnu Gautam

TODAY, the Nepalese people are marking the first Loktantra Day across the nation. It was the same day last year when the Nepalese people ushered in a dawn of complete democracy in the country through a peaceful movement. In fact, in spring last year not only new leaves grew in the trees but also new hopes among the Nepalese people. The old leaves fall and new ones grow in the spring; it is the law of the nature. But the springtide last year also swept away the old values and institutions like the old leaves of the trees, and probably like the fallen leaves these values and institutions will never get new life if the agents of the changes proceed ahead cautiously.

Success
The then myopic rulers could not understand the power of the people demonstrating in the streets with party flags and tree branches with young leaves and continued to apply different measures to suppress them with bullets, batons and boots. Prohibition orders and curfew were imposed inside the Ring Road to stop the people from demonstrating in the streets but all in vain. Millions of people took to the streets in Kathmandu and other parts of the country for 19 consecutive days with flags and green tree branches. Maybe, the demonstrators carrying tree branches with green leaves were signaling that they were committed to bring new hopes and aspirations among the people like the green leaves. Finally, they succeeded in their endeavor and the authoritarian regime knelt down before them on 24 April 2006.

A new era of Lokatantra ushered in like the green leaves of the branches in the trees in spring. New hopes and dreams arose among the people. At the same times all the dreams of the royal regime and its supporters got shattered. Every oppressive regime crumbles down when they go against the tide of democracy and people's right. The April Movement of 2006 proved this once again.The April Movement, popularly termed as Jana Andolan II, was launched to establish Loktantra in the country and ensure people's sovereignty in the true sense. And this demand of the people was met on April 24 when the king was compelled to restore the then House of Representatives dissolved at midnight of May 22, 2002. Besides, the April Movement of Nepal was a truth in many ways in the history of the democratic movement.

First, it was a movement launched jointly by the democratic parties having faith in the parliamentary system of the government and the ultra leftists who were raising arms to establish a communist totalitarian by completely uprooting monarchy. Among the seven parties that formed an alliance, five were the leftist parties. The CPN (Maoists) which had launched a decade long armed revolt against the establishment, the parliamentary system in the beginning and the Monarchy in the latter days too supported the April Movement by announcing cease-fire in the valley.

Earlier, the seven party alliances and the Maoists had reached a consensus in an unknown place in India in December 2005 to prepare the grounds for the historic Movement. Thus, the April Movement looks unique from this point of view. Moreover, the April Movement virtually brought an end to the armed revolt when all seven parties alliance agreed to the Maoists' demand to go for the constituent assembly elections. Another astonishing factor of the movement was that it remained peaceful despite the participation of the people in millions. Such mass rallies hardly go peaceful but in Nepal they were peaceful. Unlike the democratic movement of 1990, the April Movement was also launched in villages.And like the leaves of spring grow, the democratic activities began to take place on the solid ground after the success of April Movement.

The restored House of Representatives stripped all the powers of the king and declared it all-powerful. A comprehensive agreement was signed between the seven-party government and the Maoists declaring an end to the people's war that claimed 15,000 lives in a decade. Arms of the Maoists were managed and the Maoists militias were kept in different cantonments. Interim statute was promulgated and an interim parliament?Legislative Parliament? replaced the House of Representatives restored in the strength of the people. The 329-member new parliament has 73 members from the CPN (Maoists). The formation of the Legislative Parliament formally brought the Maoists into the mainstream politics. The interim government of eight parties is now working to hold the constituent assembly elections as soon as possible.

Hope

Nepalese people want the April Movement of 2006 should be their final democratic movement. They do not want to launch another democratic movement from April 24. Of course, the democratic movements of 1951 and 1990 remained incomplete and could not last long. Late king Mahendra took power in 1960 through a coup and imprisoned the ever-elected prime minister B. P. Koirala. Again the parties launched a democratic movement in 1990 from Feb 19, 1990 (the same day when democracy was ushered in 1951). But the 1990's democracy too met the same fate. And the Nepalese people chose April 8 (Chaitra 26) when they had achieved democracy for the third time in 1990 to launch the decisive movement of 2006. Hope history won't repeat, instead the eight parties will create a new history by creating a new democratic and prosperous Nepal.

Source: The Rising Nepal, April 24, 2007

Dinner with friends

Unification of like-minded political parties has become a matter of public debate and of pursuit by the parties concerned. This became stronger after the Jana Andolan of last April, and shows signs of gathering greater force in the days to come. The Nepali Congress of Girija Prasad Koirala and the breakaway NC-D of Sher Bahadur Deuba have talked much of their re-unification, though both recently registered themselves separately with the Election Commission. The Nepal Sadbhavana Party (Andandidevi) and the Nepal Sadbhavana Party that supported the active royal regime have been engaged in unity talks for some time, but hitches persist. Neither the NC breakup nor the NSP split had resulted from serious ideological differences, but principally from personality clashes of the top leaders, the tendency to one-upmanship, and opportunistic moves of their top leaders to grab power.

The same is true of the factions of the RPP, the party of former Panchas.As for Left unity, or the re-unification of the various communist parties, some of their top leaders have expressed their sentiment in favour of the idea, and some of them may indeed be doing the homework to explore the possibility in the country’s peculiar and fluid situation. Speaking at a programme in the capital on Sunday, leaders of various communist parties emphasised Left unity to overthrow the monarchy and establish a democratic republic.

Maoist leader Dr Baburam Bhattarai floated the idea of how such unity could be forged — by combining in a single theory the New Democracy of Pushpalal Shrestha, People’s Multiparty Democracy of Madan Bhandari, and the Prachanda Path of the CPN-Maoist. CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal said the Leftist forces would emerge victorious if they jointly contested the constituent assembly elections.It would indeed be better for Left or non-left parties to make ideology-based common formations. Unity may be of two types — working unity or the formation of a single party out of two or more. The parties should not be unified unless there is common ground on fundamental goals and policy issues. Secondly, if non-ideological differences are so sharp, for instance, personality clashes or selfish interests of top leaders, that the cobbled unity might break up at any time over petty individual interests, then, too, it would be unwise to hasten unification.

It would merely create unnecessary problems for the parties concerned, and, certainly, it would do no good to national politics and good governance. Take for instance the various communist parties that have different goals or conflicting strategies and some of them have split up in the past on the slightest of pretexts. Some of the top leaders of communist parties, particularly of the smaller ones, are known to form separate parties if they are relegated from the dominant party positions. But, to achieve common goals, such as republicanism, it should be enough for them to forge working unity, say through a United Left Front. The rightists and centrists could do likewise.

Source: The Himalayan Times, April 24, 2007

Loktantra Day

April 24th is the day for us to bow our heads in respect for all the martyrs and injured of the second people's movement, who braved the batons and bullets of a despot to bring us all freedom and fundamental rights. The country has come a long way in one year. Though there is a plethora of points proving that democratic rule is inefficient, incompetent and insincere, one single achievement of democracy outweighs all its blemishes. The achievement is a significant drop in the loss of human life. From a daily toll of about five dead in the later years of the conflict, we have reached a stage where even five slaps against anyone has become news in the papers and on radio and TV. The resumption of democracy (Loktantra) has taught us to respect human dignity, freedom and the rights of all individuals. We have certainly come a long way, and yet there is obviously a great deal of lacunae that requires urgent attention if we are to consolidate our achievements.

The major eyesore is the unchanged behavior of our political parties. Though the seven-party alliance and the eighth member of the club, the Maoists, have demonstrated unprecedented unity for democracy's rebirth, they have shown unfathomable differences over minor issues of statecraft. The alacrity seen in the appointment of party men to public positions is one major issue that is creating rifts. Similarly, the issue of Constituent Assembly elections is also dividing asunder the partners of the democracy movement. The divergent political ideologies of the various parties are creating problems of their own. The feud initiated by the Madhesis and supported by the Janajati all in the name of ethnic proportional representation is also fracturing the country. Even though the Maoists, the NC and the CPN-UML do not believe in a federal structure based on ethnicity, their lack of guts to say so openly is endangering democracy.
Another major problem is the failure of the Maoists to control their cadres and persuade them to follow the rule of law. If the Maoists continue with their parallel government and

highhandedness in every facet of life, the bridges of understanding with other parties can only crumble. Apart from the political issues, the general public judges the interim government on its competence in providing them services and security. Obviously, regressive forces are creating one problem after another, but the government has to show competence in dealing with these and provide a safe and peaceful environment for the masses. It is sad that many people injured during the popular movement have not received financial support, and their recognition by the state is a fry cry. The people are braving all this, appreciating that the government needs time to consolidate. We urge the government to put in more effort so that the complaints of the people will be less by the time of the next Loktantra Day.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, April 24, 2007