(Courtesy: Dipak S. Sah - Originally published on www.newsfront.com.np)
Nepal is a country in the throes of radical, political change. On the one hand, there is a much hoped-for transition to a liberal democracy. On the other, there is a cosmetic democratic process of power consolidation at play. It is becoming increasingly likely that the latter of these competing forces will prevail. Explained below, is why.
In essence, Nepal's liberal democrats have experienced a pyrrhic victory - they won a tactical fight against the Monarchy only to lose the strategic war against the Maoists. The country has transformed into an ideological battleground between a liberally educated elite and those who have risen to power through the most illiberal means - violence, intimidation and coercion.
The liberal democrats - abroad and in Nepal - are an ultra-minority. The Maoists' and their supporters, are the overwhelming majority. Given that democracy is a system where the rule of the majority (theoretically) is meant to undermine the "tyranny of the minority," the prospects for Nepal's transition to a liberal democracy in the foreseeable future, are nil.
The establishment of a liberal democratic framework is an end-goal in a process - a process that has taken Western democracies, decades. Such is the logic that is regurgitated in response to criticisms of Nepal's liberal democrats. But as the noted Economist John Maynard Keynes once said, "In the long run, we are all dead" - so what of the consequences of Nepal's current trajectory over the short-to-medium term?
The tragedy here, is three-fold. First, Nepal is "re-writing" her own history; not "making" history. At a macro-level, there is little by way of fundamental differences between King Mahendra's policies and those that are being forwarded by Nepal's Maoists.
King Mahendra's system was a one-party polity. It was at clear odds with the global democratic movement. The Maoist framework includes multiple parties and as such, qualifies as a system under the larger umbrella of "democracy." For all practical intents and purposes however, the system the Maoists are implementing in Nepal is designed to consolidate State power within a single, dominant entity - the CPN-M (Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist).
Second, the Maoist agenda is one that concentrates on "immediate" improvements; the focus of Nepal's liberal democrats is on "continuous" improvements. When resource constraints are injected into this equation, these agendas become mutually exclusive. The argument forwarded by Nepal's Maoists' is for State resources to be allocated to address the peoples' most immediate needs. The logic is unassailable - it does little to consolidate a liberal democratic polity but will work wonders when it comes to consolidating Maoist popularity, just in time for parliamentary elections.
Third, Nepal's liberal democrats have no legitimate political representation. If by default, the NC (Nepali Congress), with its antiquated leadership is Nepal's only hope for a liberal democracy, there is no hope at all. Because at the grass-roots, it matters not that the NC has always stood for democracy. What matters is, that which works; the NC does not work and the Nepali public, through universal suffrage, has made its verdict clear.
The position that the NC and other liberal democrats find themselves in, is exactly where the Maoists want them to be - in complete and utter disarray. It is widely rumored that the NC's southern interlocutors have advised the party's leadership to "allow" the Maoists to run the government and ultimately fail. The MPRF (Madhesi Peoples' Rights Forum) is apparently at the same southern interlocutor's beck and call - they will supposedly pull out of the coalition when told to do so.
However, the efficacy of such conjecture (if at all true), is grossly over-exaggerated and severely counter-productive. The question that needs to be asked is this: "Is the consolidation of Nepal's democracy served or undermined if the Maoist-MPRF-UML coalition is permitted to fail?"
Answering this question places advocates of liberal democracy in a catch-22 situation - an unenviable position that more rational observers had warned was bound to emerge. And, contexts such as these are where liberal education systems that rely on "shades of grey," falter. If the liberal democrats encourage the failure of the current coalition, they stand to incur widespread, public condemnation; if they endorse the continuation of the current coalition, they undermine their own long-term agenda.
Further, based on electoral results, the international community has endorsed the Maoist-led government in Nepal. Implicit in this endorsement is legitimization of the controversial methods used by Nepal's Maoists' as a means to power. Given this position, the liberal democratic community and their international benefactors are equally liable for institutionalizing the very culture of impunity that these groups claim, continues to mar Nepal's progress.
These are but some of the glaring contradictions that are inherent to the "New Nepal." To borrow from Michelle Obama, Nepal is a country where the "current of history meets a new tide of hope." It is utterly disheartening however, to find that in Nepal, it is the same "current" under a democratic disguise, that an incapable (and falsely progressive) "tide" is set to meet. It is shattering to find Nepal's liberal democrats wake up to the realization that they, like others before them, have served as nothing more than stepping stones on the Maoists' path to power.
Related Posts:
Paradigm Shift - Where Does Nepal Stand?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/05/paradigm-shift-where-does-nepal-stand.html
Asian Centre for Human Rights Report on South Asia - A Cursory Examination of Reporting on Nepal
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/08/asian-centre-for-human-rights-report-on.html
3 comments:
NC and other liberal democrats already started to cry out about their mistakes. They have now realised that they will have to pay heavy price to regain its political history. The NC who had supported the moaist to reach this point now accusing them for plotting to set up a totalitarian communist regime in Nepal.
"I will remain faithful to the nation and my countrymen" - Prachanda at his swearing-in.
The nationalism, patriotism instead of communism/socialism, have become the major political slogans upholding the rule of the communist regime. The maoist are following almost the same footstep in Nepal by giving these slogans. Almost universally accepted reports of the death of socialism are being positively exaggerated in Nepal with high propoganda. They are being successful to fool not only NC and liberal democrats but also intellectual of Nepal.
I agree with the write up. The so-called- liberals in Nepal are nothing but morally corrupt, intelletually deprived, and financially rich (paid turn coats). For the life of me- I do not understand the uphoria they had when they supported Maoist every move, tricks and traps. Can anyone be so blind if there was no booty for them at the end of the road- I think not.
Nepal is a country that has no hope, future or shortly nationhood to be proud of. Dixits, Korialas rejoice, you have done the unthinkable yet you are proud.
NC, UML and so called intellectuals of civil society and human right members are trapped in their own built nest.Whereas RPP and other madhesi parties went themselves to be trapped in that nest. The history is going to be rewrite with 14,000 innocent peoples' blood.
Post a Comment