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

'Hindu Al Qaeda training suicide bombers in Nepal'

A band of former soldiers, ex-police personnel and victims of Maoist guerrillas have united in Nepal to form a Hindu army with suicide bombers to fight Islamic and Christian zealots as well as communists.Called the Nepal Defence Army, the group is headed by a former policeman who says he joined the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist as a schoolboy but has now begun waging war on his former comrades.The ex-cop, who today calls himself 'Parivartan' (change), claims his band has nearly 1,200 trained soldiers who possess arms and have the expertise to manufacture explosives.Earlier this year, the Nepal Defence Army made its debut with a couple of blasts, including at the well-guarded office of the Maoists in Kathmandu.

On Wednesday, a Nepali tabloid carried an extensive interview with the shadowy leader, saying he had walked into the tabloid's city office to talk about his organisation.'Nepal Defence Army has been founded to fight for Hinduism,' Parivartan told Nepali weekly Ghanata R. Bichar. 'Hindus worldwide support us, including the families of top Maoist leaders. Our soldiers are being trained across the border in India and we get the ingredients for manufacturing explosives from India.'However, the new revolutionary said his group had no links with King Gyanendra.'We are not funded by the palace,' he said. 'If the palace had tried to promote Hinduism and Nepal as a Hindu state, we wouldn't have to wage our war. We don't dabble in politics. Our sole aim is to form a Hindu state.'

Parivartan told the weekly that his party didn't want bloodshed. 'The bombs we threw at the Maoist office were intended as a warning and not to kill,' he said. 'I stopped plans to assassinate Maoist chief Prachanda and Maoist minister Dev Gurung.'But if the warning is not taken seriously, the eight-party ruling alliance can suffer serious losses.'The shadowy leader held Maoists as their main enemy.'During their 10-year war, the Maoists destroyed and desecrated temples and attacked priests,' he said. 'But they never destroyed any church or mosque.'However, he added that Maoists' families still remained devout Hindus.'During the civil war, Prachanda's mother would wake up early in the morning and offer water to the sun god to pray for her son's safety,' he said. 'It shows they are Hindus and would support Hinduism.'Parivartan ended with a dire warning.'The Maoists had also begun in a small way,' he said. 'We learnt how to make bombs from Prachanda's teachings. 'Now, like the Al Qaeda, we are training suicide squads.'We have trained five suicide bombers who can go anywhere, including Singh Durbar (the heart of administration in Nepal, where the prime minister's office, key ministries and parliament are located.)'

Source: Malaysia Sun, June 20, 2007

Something still rotten

Corruption, nepotism and impunity threaten the peace process

IN SEPTEMBER last year a warrant was issued for the arrest of Sitaram Prasain, who was accused of stealing $4.3m from his own bank. This plunged the partly state-owned outfit, set up to lend to small businesses, into insolvency. Yet somehow the police could not find him. He seemed invisible, even when many of the country's top politicians attended his son's lavish wedding. For many Nepalis, this was all too typical of a system where the rich and privileged are above the law.

When the Young Communist League, a squad of thugs run by Nepal's Maoists, kidnapped Mr Prasain this month and paraded him in front of the press before handing him to the police, there was an almighty row. Girija Koirala, the irate prime minister, called them the “Young Criminal League”. The Maoist leader, known as Prachanda, retorted that it was Mr Koirala who consorted with criminals. Ashish Thapa, of Transparency International, an anti-corruption watchdog, points out that Mr Prasain had given generously to various political parties.

The Maoists, whose ten-year insurgency ended in a messy truce last year, are now partners in an interim government, while the chaotic country pursues a permanent peace. Yet the Prasain affair suggests that peace needs at least some integrity in public life. Aside from short-lived, politically motivated episodes, no one can recall anybody important in Nepal ever being punished for anything.
The Supreme Court itself is bound up in the culture of impunity. Earlier this year an unsuccessful litigant released recordings of his efforts to win a property dispute through bribery. No action has been taken. Yet the judiciary has a vital role in the peace process, both in hearing important constitutional cases and in a planned “truth and reconciliation” process over the many human-rights abuses committed by both sides to the conflict.

The Maoists, while posing as the party of justice, also look shady. There are many reports of their involvement in illegal logging. (A Maoist, as it happens, holds the cabinet portfolio covering forestry, traditionally seen as a lucrative sinecure.) And there has never been a proper accounting for millions of dollars in finance-ministry cheques payable to Krishna Mahara, a Maoist leader. The money was intended to pay for disarming and demobilising the Maoists' fighters. Transparency's Mr Thapa thinks the Maoists in fact have more ways—legal and otherwise—to raise revenue than any other party, and have amassed large sums of money.
The police, too, have a big role to play in establishing law and order before and during elections due this autumn. Yet listening to a group of mid-ranking officers discussing their hopes for juicy job postings does not inspire confidence. The luckiest among them might end up with a casino on their beat, with attendant opportunities for kickbacks. Since Mr Koirala, from the Congress Party, became prime minister last year many officers with Congress links have been promoted.
“It goes to the feudal character of our society,” says Devendra Panday, a former finance minister who is now a campaigner for peace and democracy. “In the patron-client system there is no incentive to clamp down on corruption.” Nepotism and party bias in appointments undermine institutions. “The country is full of incompetent people as well as corrupt ones.”

Cynicism about the way things work is all-pervasive—and extends to foreign aid. International donors are big providers of good jobs for the local elite. Many able young people in Kathmandu, who lack the connections, have concluded that only the upper classes need apply. In the unhappy villages, where most people live and development is yet to come, peasants are quick to assume, rightly or wrongly, that money intended for them has been stolen higher up the system. Others contend that it is simply wasted by people too rich to understand their problems. Such resentments fuelled the Maoists' “people's war”. Yet the system that breeds them shows no sign of changing.

Source: The Economist, June 14, 2007

Transitional Maoist Diplomacy

Having come to the conclusion that they are unlikely to succeed to attain power solely through the "barrel of the gun" given the geo-strategic, economic and political realities of contemporary Nepal and the world, they now want to have relations with the regional and global powers whose policies and power-play they have all along termed objectionable to their radical ideology or interests.

Dr. Som P Pudasaini

The Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M), led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal "Prachanda" and supported by his second in command Dr. Baburam Bhattarai and their foreign policy czar C.P. Gajural, has been attempting to streamline its foreign policy and diplomatic relations with two key objectives of largely contradictory nature. Understandably, they are in a difficult transition by both the design and default given their internal party dynamics and external ground realities.
First, as a "revolutionary" insurgent outfit that followed a bloody trail with a high pitched outcry of nationalism and radical transformation they want to continue to appear standing firmly against the so called "expansionist" and "neo-colonialist" regional and global bullies as has been done by many insurgents across the continents in the last five decades to sustain general public's attention.

Secondly, having come to the conclusion that they are unlikely to succeed to attain power solely through the "barrel of the gun" given the geo-strategic, economic and political realities of contemporary Nepal and the world, they now want to have relations with the regional and global powers whose policies and power-play they have all along termed objectionable to their radical ideology or interests.

The compulsion resulting from the second objective probably explains why comrade Prachanda played to the gallery during his visit to New Delhi several months ago with his lavishly India-friendly pronouncements and was showered with frenzied media coverage and a wide approval from a broad range of intellectuals and businessmen. The CPN-M and Indian relations appears to be cooling in recent months given the Indian realities of having to deal with their own fast expanding Maoist threat, its democratic polity, politico-economic interests and narrow margin of cozying up with the Nepalese Maoists under its present state of troubled transition.

As an alternative as well as a covert threat to the Maoists to toe the earlier line, India seems to be manipulating Madhav Nepal and UML's aspirations and ego and advised the latter to cozy up with the NC as was obvious from the red carpet treatment afforded to Madhav Nepal and his two colleagues in New Delhi recently. This is nothing unusual in international politics and diplomacy. But the wisdom of our leaders, particularly the Eight Party Alliance (EPA) ones, will lie on the choices they make in the sustained national interests that will benefit them as well as the nation in both the short and long runs.

In the aftermath of the Indian diplomatic pilgrimage, the Maoists are continuing their charm offensive towards the powers that matter. It was evident in Prachanda's and Dr. Bhattarai's exceptional courting of visiting former US President Jimmy Carter during and after their meeting to help the Maoists establish communication with the US government "at any level" and lobby to drop the "terrorist tag". Carter's statements indicated that the Maoists will have to wait to be treated as a normal political outfit by the sole global superpower and will depend much on further behavioral change on the part of the Maoists; including its reigning on the YCL.
A person of a former president's status coming from a country with an institutionalized democracy like the US would probably not publicly recognize relevance of communication between the Maoists and the US even at a personal capacity without some perceived receptivity on the part of his government. However, he was honest in expressing his limitations by saying he had no authority to pressurize and would pass his report to the US President. George Bush being a conservative hardliner may take any advice on being soft on those perceived to be less than fully reformed "terrorists" with a pinch of salt as his policies elsewhere indicate.

The Maoists may be wise not to misunderstand the American or the global diplomatic code of conduct and may have been poor in their judgment if Carter was advised not to trust Ambassador James Moriarty but to talk to others for shaping US opinion about the Maoists as first reported and then denied in the local media. It is important to remember that the first person Carter met in Kathmandu was Moriarty. Carter's conditional recognition of the need to open communication with the Maoists that did not figure the word "terrorist" is probably not more than marginally superior to the expressed desire of the Ambassador to shake hand with Prachanda the day the Maoists behavior fully met the norms of a mainstream democratic party. Let us remember other countries neither appoint nor treat Ambassadors as trash as Nepali politicians seem to do most of the time.

Maoists' policy of "equidistance between India and China" is also flawed on two grounds. First, it attempts to court India eagerly at times and wants to move closer to China when that does not work. Secondly, mutual interest between nations, including economic and strategic, constitute the core basis for diplomatic relations in the contemporary world not any concept of a distance. For China, support for "one China doctrine" and some trade with a stable Nepal not inclined to irritate it too much by excessively pro-India or pro-West cacophony may be important. Nepal and India has a lot more areas of mutual benefits and conflicts to sort out.

It needs the West and Japan to enhance development and reclaim its past image of stability, tranquility and panoramic beauty. It hardly presents as a viable option to attempt to play one against the other or unduly please one or two at the cost of the others in the open and globalizing world. Nepali politicians and diplomats, including the Maoists, will have to read the international pulse better and play it effectively in the national interest without being bogged down by jargons. Since the major focus of contemporary world is on economic diplomacy, conflict resolution and anti-terrorism, and democratization, the Maoists' fuzzy economic policy is a big bottleneck. However, its move towards mainstreaming and peace building represents a good opening for improved international relations.

In short, the Maoists’ foreign policy at the moment appears to be in both a confused and pragmatic transition dictated by their past "revolutionary" rhetoric and a new desire to brace the contemporary domestic, regional and global politico-economic and strategic realities. They may have to better shape up their foreign affairs, economic agenda and eliminate their "violent" and non-law-abiding image sooner. The Maoists may benefit by enhancing their contacts and communications with independent and experienced Nepali experts who understand as well as command the respect of international community, including the UN and donors, to further rationalize its foreign policy and firm up its shift to a peaceful competitive politics to build better bridges with the rest of the world. Clearly, they deserve support from all the concerned to cement their commitment to pragmatic diplomacy, sound economy and inclusive democracy.

Source: Nepalnews.com, June 2007