“Can this forward-or-back theme work for US Democratic Party?” Dionne asks. Apparently, Democratic Party is under attack as the party of more waste, more debt, and more taxes. Dionne implies that Democratic Party may, nonetheless, prevail in the mid-term elections next November if, indeed, it hones in on the forward-or-back theme, since many believe that Republican Party is conservative and backward-looking, meaning anti-change.
BACKWARD-LOOKING NATION
Ask any ordinary person on the streets of Kathmandu why the country has been in so much mess and, very likely, seven out of 10 will place the blame squarely on our leaders: That they are a corrupt, self-serving, unprincipled, and a power-hungry bunch. Indeed, our politicians rarely have behaved like leaders – leaders who choose to sacrifice their own self-interests for the common good. Most would agree that none among Nepal’s politicians – past or present – qualifies to be a leader, measured by the level of selflessness they have shown, to promote public good. The most recent example of this is late Girija Prasad Koirala (GPK).
Everyone in the country knew about GPK’s repeated failure as prime minister, his reputation for nepotism and corruption, and his intolerance for democratic opposition of any sort. In the judgment of many, GPK, more than anyone else, is responsible for the crisis that we have today.
But, ironically, thousands lined up the Kathmandu streets – many crying openly – to pay their last respects when he died last March, regardless of his political failures. Among the past failed leaders, former prime minister, KP Bhattarai, continues to attract wide appeal and is considered worthy of reverence, despite him making a false start with democracy at a critical juncture in the country’s history in 1990. And, lastly, people have started to amend their feelings toward the former king, Gyanendra, and show up in large numbers at his gatherings, probably to express their guilt for supporting his ouster.
In the midst of all this doom and gloom pervading the nation, there seems to be little risk in trying something new – giving chance to Maoist-Madhesi alliance. The risks associated with this choice appear minimal.
With such level of tolerance, forgiveness, even forgetfulness, there is then no wonder that failed leaders and failed parties have been brought back to power and assigned public responsibilities – not once but many times – in the hope that they have learned something from their past mistakes; that they would use their experience for improved performance; and that they will try harder for redeeming their battered reputation. However, in almost all of the cases, such attempts at redemption and rehabilitation have brought back deeper disappointments.
With this much of background, we can now view more clearly why Madhav Kumar Nepal and his CPN-UML party was able to get the post prime ministership and the reigns of government last year and why Ram Chandra Poudel and his Nepali Congress (NC) have a fair chance at it this year. No one had believed that Madhav Nepal or his party had the mandate for leadership. The same will be repeated if Poudel gets elected prime minister since neither him nor his party is recognized for leadership and, certainly, there is no record of any solid achievements. Indeed, NC’s public image is much more soiled than UML’s, which, at least, has a reputation for running a clean administration during their sort time in office, in 1995, and is much less prone to other public vices, like nepotism and opportunism.
NEED TO LOOK FORWARD
In the midst of all this doom and gloom pervading the nation, there seems to be little risk in trying something new – giving chance to Maoist-Madhesi alliance. There are several reasons for exercising this option and risks associated with this choice appear minimal.
The first obvious reason is that these two groups are new – and hence forward-looking – and so it would be worthwhile giving them a chance to get tested. Of course, the Maoists have had a stint at governing at which they failed. However, this failure does not disqualify them from a second chance if they are allowed back under different circumstances and, we can add, under a different mandate. A Maoist-Madhesi alliance will provide substance to their second-coming.
Second, with Maoists out of favor, the old but losing parties in the election had a chance to regroup and isolate the Maoists to form a shaky coalition to get a majority. However, there was never any hope that this coalition of losers will accomplish anything of significance or will last for a long-term and, certainly, no one believed that it can provide leadership in the drafting of a new constitution. A Maoist-Madhesi alliance will do much better.
Third, a new grouping with different actors – first Jhalanath Khanal and now Poudel – is being tried to form yet another government which, however, is proving more difficult than had been the case last year. However, even if it comes to pass, it is bound to be more shaky and short-lived than its predecessor. This is so because a NC government led by Poudel has got no firm political base, is viewed as lacking democratic convictions, and is seen being less enthusiastic for the drafting of constitution due to the reason that it remains emotionally tied to monarchy.
Fourth, and finally, continued political uncertainty and instability of government may justify seeking extreme solutions, including a presidential rule, army takeover, reinstatement of monarchy, and even inviting foreign forces to help ‘stabilize’ the situation. If that happens, peace and prosperity will be gone forever.
MADHESIS FOR THE RESCUE
In the midst of the emergence of apparently a hopeless situation, there are indications that some miracles might occur which I will not hesitate to call a divine intervention. I would characterize the second miracle to be a Maoist-Madhesi alliance, which provides a new and forward-looking alternative for the nation, similar to the choices presented for Australian and US elections noted in Dionne’s piece above.
Some progress has been made that gives the hope that events may, indeed, be unfolding in this direction, looking at the evidence of a growing sense of unity among Madhesi parties in recent weeks. Admittedly, this unity is still very shaky and can melt away at the first sign of stress. However, for the time being, let us assume that this unity is for real and will prove to be less fragile than it appears now.
The next forward-looking step, then, will be that Madhesi group aligns with Maoists in the background of informal understandings but without pre-conditions. With Maoists holding 237 seats in the Constituent Assembly (CA), and Madhesi parties’ 82 seats, a simple majority in the 601-member CA can clearly be established.
While the point about numerical legitimacy is obvious, moral authority is less so and let me explain this. Nepal has existed, from the time of the Ranas up until the democratic change in 1990, basically as an ethnic enclave of pahades, in which the other half of population, ethnic Madhesis, were excluded from government participation. After the political change in 1990, democratic reforms were made through equal representation of all population but the extent of Madhesi participation in state affairs remained basically the same, reflecting, in part, attempts by the mainstream parties – NC and UML – to safeguard their political base in Madhes and also the inability of Madhesi parties to put up a united front.
We can then say, without much exaggeration, that political disarray and economic decline in the country as we witness today is the direct consequence of a policy of exclusion – not by design but more of it reflecting the tolerance level of people who have been excluded.
A Maoist-led government, backed by unflinching and unconditional support from a united Madhesi front, will basically mean an opportunity to unite a divided nation and a segregated society. In any situation, it would be hard to conceive of political stability and economic progress ushering in a nation so divided as Nepal, for the main reason that exclusionary policies tend to obstruct the full utilization of country’s human and physical resources and it imparts a sense of despondency among the segment of population feeling excluded.
Finally, to the advantage of Maoists, Madhesi support will give credence to their claim that they would follow democratic norms. What this means is that Maoists’ alliance with Madhesi parties will force them to democratize, since Madhesi population, no matter how deprived they may be, cannot vote communists. A durable alliance then will require both sides to make difficult adjustments but in return for huge potential benefits – government stability under the alliance’s rule and an enabling environment that would foster prosperity.
sshah1983@hotmail.com
Related story
Give them love and respect
