Debunking the Democratic Dogma

(Courtesy: Chiran Jung Thapa )

In the past sixteen months, Loktantra, democracy, freedom, civil liberties and human rights have become the perhaps the most hackneyed terms in the Nepali lexicon. For, in the aftermath of the April uprising, the victors that took reign of power have jockeyed with these terms as if they owned and embodied these norms. Besides, even the pliant populace was seduced by an intoxicating whiff of democracy. Now, however, there is an increasing realization that such lofty democratic vocation was simply a pretentious ploy to seize state power. In essence, the notion of a democratic setting for the polity has been confined solely to an ideal.

The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) has recently charted a new democracy Index. Using 60 indicators across five broad categories, the index provides a snapshot of the current state of democracy in 165 independent states and two territories. The categories it delves into to provide the gradation are: free elections, civil liberties, functioning government, political participation and political culture. As a result of the assessment, the countries are compartmentalized into four categories: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes.

With a blaring stamp of authoritarianism, Nepal secured the 125th seat. Such authoritarian label will certainly come as a shocking revelation for many as it invalidates all democratic ballyhoos. It may sound even more outlandish but dictatorial states like Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and even Cuba fared better than Nepal in the democratic ranking.

Similar to the democratic index published by the EIU, Freedom House (FH) - a Washington based think tank, releases a freedom index every year too. Prior to EIU's index, the freedom index was reckoned to be the best-known measure of democracy.

The FH survey is categorized into two broad categories and those categories are further subdivided into subcategories. The two categories are: political rights and civil liberties. Political rights category is further divided into electoral process, political pluralism and participation, and functioning of government. Civil liberties category is further sub-divided into freedom and expression of belief, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, and personal autonomy and individual rights. After assessing all these components, countries are categorized into three slots: Free (F), partially free (PF), and not free (NF).

According to FH appraisal, Nepal's grade for 2007 is "partially free". Quite comparable to the EIU's assessment, approximately 130 countries ranked better than Nepal. Nepal's democratic report has for the most part remained a steady "partially free" since FH began releasing its assessment in 1973. From 1973 to 1978 it was rated "not free." Then from 1978 to 1991, it was rated "PF." From 1992 to 1993, however, it was rated as "free." Since 1993, however, the status was relegated back to "PF" and has remained the same with the exception of 2006 when it was ranked "NF."

So is Nepal a democratic polity or are these international assessments erroneous? Is Nepal's current political landscape no different than the Panchayat era? These questions certainly evoke bewilderment given the persistent claims by the transitional governing authority (TGA) about its democratic accreditation.

But in truth, these two international assessments are more precise than the mulish democratic declarations and convictions touted by the ruling alliance. And in sharp contradiction to the glorified embodiment of democracy and liberality, Nepal has yet to acquire a governance system that meets the bare minimum of the democratic appellation.

What actually constitutes a truly democratic system is perpetually debatable. But, despite the divergent assertions, most agree on certain procedures, rules and arrangements that are required for democracy to endure. At minimum, the basic feature of a democratic system includes a government that is based on majority rule and the consent of the governed. Further, it also includes representation through free and fair elections, the protection of minorities and accountability of elected representatives in the public realm by citizens. Democracy also predicates equality before the law.

Given these minimum imperatives, it is apparent why the leading international assessments have branded Nepal as undemocratic. Primarily, the governing authority is not an elected body and has yet to receive the legitimate consent of the governed through free and fair elections. Additionally, Nepal has not had elections for almost a decade. And now, given that the Maoists are hell-bent on preventing the elections from taking place, the prospect of conducting one anytime soon is flitting away.

When it comes to the accountability in the public realm, there is not a jot or title of it. Trumped up fiats are being foisted in the name of popular mandate. Perhaps what accurately illustrates the lack of accountability is the decision to expunge the Hindu identity without the consent of populace. Above 80% of the Nepali population are devout Hindus. And the street mandate acquired from the April uprising did in no way demand the abolition of Hindu identity. Yet, such an important decision was made unilaterally with utter disregard for the consent of the governed.

The messy law and order situation also erodes any semblance of democratic merit. Protection of individual rights and freedom is the most fundamental norm of any democratic system. However, the protection of rights of minorities aside, the overall rights and freedom of the entire population remains unprotected. In such circumstances, to herald a system as democratic despite flagrant absence of a protection mechanism is simply hogwash.

Another oddity that is especially salient is the cult-like culture prevalent within the political parties. Although the political parties constantly trumpet themselves as champions of democratic norms and ideals, their actions portray a completely different picture. The political parties in the current ruling alliance operate as patronage based cults where power is hoarded by one individual as if it was some heirloom. And to unseat these cult-masters even in a democratic manner has time and again proved impossible. Nepali Congress President - Girija Prasad Koirala, the Maoist Supremo - Pushpa Kamal Dahal, UML General secretary Madav Kumar Nepal, Nepal Workers and Peasant Party Naryan Man Bijukche exemplify the cultish culture.

Given these testaments, to proclaim Nepal as a democratic polity is simply perpetuating a fallacy. By nurturing those with the most undemocratic credentials, and concealing their tyrannical conduct with acquiescence is only prolonging an authentic democratic system from emerging.

Following the successful putsch in April, the rhetoric of "Nepal's return to democracy" had splattered the headlines all over the globe, but the two international assessments have dampened that notion. What has truly transpired in Nepal is that certain groups of politicians have strove to label their convictions and practices as democratic. But those practices in no way correlate with the sacrosanct democratic ideals. Rather, the mantra of democracy has become a vulgar instrument employed to promote self-interests and preserve the rule of the kleptocratic coteries.

The international community along with the moolah-hungry NGO/INGOs share the complicity in perpetuating the hogwash of Nepali democracy. By assisting a preferable group that is more compliant to their interests, and attaching a democratic accolade, the international community and the NGO/INGO glut have done a colossal disservice to the Nepali polity.

If the international brethren are so keen on facilitating with the foundation of an authentic democratic system, they would have done so by ensuring that elections were held on time. Instead, the disposition to turn a blind eye to the undemocratic practices and even shroud the tyrannical conduct by a providing legitimacy has, in reality, inhibited a democratic system from coming into fruition.

Moreover, the notion that Nepal has returned to democracy is anything but far-fetched. In truth, an oligarchic group of political parties rule Nepal, hitherto with remarkably little scrutiny and without a proper democratic mandate. And there is scant assurance of Nepal climbing up the democratic ladder anytime soon.

Related Posts:

Apples, Oranges and the Maoist Victory in Nepal
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/06/apples-oranges-and-maoist-victory-in.html

Continued Manipulation of Nepal’s Political Mainstream
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/12/continued-manipulation-of-nepals.html

The "New Nepal" - The Maoist Way or the Highway?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/12/new-nepal-maoist-way-or-highway.html

History, Farce, and Tragedy in Nepal
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/02/history-farce-and-tragedy-in-nepal.html