“All men are enemies. All animals are comrades.” George Orwell, Animal Farm
A discerning political analyst friend, P.S. Kunwar, recently suggested to me that there is a lot of confusion in political discussions in Nepal these days due to the unfortunate fact that the same words have different meanings for democrats and communists. Right off, this statement implies that a communist is not a democrat. In fact, our communists consider Jana Andolan II as only a ‘democratic revolution’ which is to be followed by the real revolution on 10th April 2008 when the CPI-M will win and transform the country into its own image. Consequently, the term “Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal”, being bandied about so haphazardly, already has a built-in contradiction since this term has been endorsed by the communists in the SPA.
“Democracy”, to democrats, stands for a pluralistic form of governance where all views have the chance to be endorsed or rejected through elections by the majority and, once accepted or rejected, is binding to all. To communists, democracy is a tactical move leading to a form of governance whereby a communist party, which is supposed to represent the voice of the “People”, rules. Hence we have the tiresome repetitions by the CPN-M and its leaders on how they are fighting for the “people”, while the “people” seem unaware of this uncalled for championing on their behalf. This is inevitable since, to communists, “People” are the recipients of the Party’s benevolence who need to be directed and taught. Democrats consider “people” as the ultimate deciders of the direction of the state.
The “State”, to democrats, is a permanent framework that governs society, and the parties which have won popular approval can steer the state for a limited time. The state is an instrument of the party for communists. If the state does not follow party lines then parallel institutions will be created. We in Nepal are very familiar with this parallelism. There is a dichotomy even on the definition of “Political Parties”. Is it a vehicle to formulate and articulate views or, as the communists would have it, a vehicle to usurp and maintain power?
The CA Elections are only about a month away. Democrats consider “Elections” a periodic impartial event. For communists, an election is an event which endorses the rule of the Communist Party. That is why we have these events - the proclamation that 200 YCL cadres will be present at each voting booth; the statement by a top Maoist leader that should the CPI-M not win the election it will not be an election; and the numerous instances of YCL ruffians employing scare tactics to prevent candidates from rival parties from campaigning. It should also be increasingly apparent that parliamentary democracy is anathema to communists. “Parliament”, to democrats, is an effective arm of governance providing checks and balance to the executive. Communists consider parliament an instrument to rubber-stamp the activities of the executive.
“Equality” to democrats is equality of opportunity while, to communists, it is equality of outcomes. How the outcomes are achieved is up to the wisdom of the Communist Party, with all ends justifying the means. Simplistic definitions mired in outdated doctrines are also the monopoly of the communists. For them, “Underdevelopment” is caused by the oppression by the feudal classes. Democrats see underdevelopment as being caused by a myriad of socio-political, economic, domestic as well as international factors.
The SPA has just agreed in principle to the autonomy of Madhesh, to be endorsed by the CA. It will be interesting to see what happens, since the communists view “Autonomy” as the principle of de jure federalism with de facto centralization through the Communist Party, while to democrats, autonomy is the principle of decisions being most effective if they are taken closer to the ground. Again, “Social harmony”, to democrats, means that no group or segment of the population is left unfairly behind. To communists, it is the elimination (physically in most cases) of all “anti-people” elements.
“Development” has largely been ignored in Nepal while a divided government is preoccupied jockeying for power. Even here, democrats consider that the establishment of a framework and conditions for all to prosper leads to development. Communists want to achieve development by allocating resources as per political needs. Finally, and most strikingly, “History”, to democrats, is facts from the past while to communists it is interpretation for the future. Of course, the interpretation is the purview of the communist leadership.
So we stumble on with two groups speaking two different languages yet telling us Nepalis that they are united. The question is for how long are we going to be fooled?
Related Posts:
Democracy - Nepali Style
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/12/democracy-nepali-style.html
What is to be Done?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-is-to-be-done.html
State Sovereignty at Stake
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/08/state-sovereignty-at-stake.html
No comments:
Post a Comment