ELEMENTS OF DEMOCRATIZATION
The word democratization of the armed forces can be explained in terms of three crucial elements. They are: (a) the relationship between the army and the state, (b) internal organizational values and structure of the army and (c) the link between the army and the general populace. Let us now briefly discuss each of these elements.
Will the NA be an extension of the Maoist political party that consistently claims the need for “capturing the state” or be a part of the overall democratic process as defined by the norms and values of democratic constitutionalism?
In the 20th century, the relationship between the state and the army as reflected in the writings of Mao Tse-tung and Prof Samuel Huntington remain important. Mao, following the class struggle logic, was clear that the army has to be an extension of the party. The communists took it for granted that the party reflects the will of the people and therefore it is imperative that the army implement the wishes of the people by faithfully following the instructions of the party. Going by this logic, carrying out the dictates of the party was the same as being loyal to the wishes of the people. As early as 1929, Mao stated clearly that the “Chinese Red Army is an armed body for carrying out the political tasks of the revolution” (Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works Vol. 1.pp.106). The fusion of party and the security wing of the state remains a central feature of Maoist thinking. In the case of Nepal, the Maoists have not yet made their views clear on this issue but their confrontation with the president and the army chief makes it clear that they view the army as a political and economic instrument of the Maoist party.A second line of thinking associated with democratization of the army is discussed by Samuel Huntington in his influential book, The Soldier and the State, published in 1957. Huntington starts with the premise that the army, especially the officer corps, faces the twin imperative of achieving functional competence while remaining accountable to society through a commitment to democratic ideology, institutions and values. Finding an equilibrium between the two is not always easy and each country has to learn through experience. However, democracy as an ideology as reflected in the spirit of our age does carry certain specific values defining the relationship between the state and the people. In our case, it is reflected in the preamble of the peace agreement and the interim constitution. Both these documents make it absolutely clear that the logic of democratization of Nepali politics will be based on competitive multi-party system, freedom of the press, rule of law, independent judiciary and a commitment to human rights as it is understood in the world today. A governance structure based on this value system cannot view the army simply as an extension of a political party, which claims to have the monopoly of speaking on behalf of the people.
The debate about the relationship between the army and the state has to be viewed within the two contrasting framework outlined above. In Nepal, political parties have not faced this question head on and are generally beating around the bush with each party playing its own music of “civilian supremacy” with two different models in perspective. Unless there is an understanding on this issue, the conceptualization of a national security strategy becomes almost impossible.
The ideological perspective regarding the relationship between the army and the state affects the overall framework of oversight mechanism, both legislative and civilian as well as coordination of the security wing with other branches of the government. During the era of king’s rule and constitutional monarchy, the army was seen to have special relationship with the monarch; the result was feeble legislative oversight mechanism and weak coordination between the civilian and the military wing of the government. In the new constitution, whether the “fusion” model dear to the Maoists or the democratic model that demands that the army remain loyal to civilian authority and under strong legislative oversight, no matter which party comes to power, remains an important issue that is going to determine the magnitude of authoritarianism characteristic of “New Nepal”.
INTERNAL ORGANIZATION & LINKS WITH THE PEOPLE
The second crucial element of democratization of Nepal Army (NA) is its internal organizational and structure. The major issues to be considered here are: Relationship with the defense ministry, resource management including transparency in the organization, professional and career development path of the officer corps, inclusive character of the armed forces and organizational norms and rules as expressed often in the relationship between soldiers and officers at different levels. Each of these issues will require in depth analysis and understanding in the evolution of an army that is inclusive, respects the dignity of its soldiers, focuses on making the best use of the resources made available by the state in a transparent manner and is committed to improving the functional capacity of its officer corps under the overarching policy framework of the civilian authority in power. For example, take the case of resource management. At present, the defense ministry is totally out of this process acting more as a post office dutifully releasing funds without any questions as to how it is being spent. Is this going to be the future model of resource management? Questions like these will have to be considered carefully in an army that is accountable and professional.
The third important dimension of a democratic army has to do with its links with the people and the image it projects. In Nepal, this point has been ignored consistently both during the Panchayat and the parliamentary era. At times, the NA projects the picture of an island that has very little connection with the outside world i.e. the society that it is expected to serve. For the common people, the army projects, perhaps unintentionally, an aura of mystery and awe to the extent that the need for professional management and transparency of its various organizational functioning is seldom questioned or discussed with an open mind for improvement and reform. This has to change in the future. The army is very much a part of our societal structure and it must learn to communicate to the people its problems, constraints, achievements and procedures thorough appropriate media channels and agencies of the government.
OPPORTUNITY AHEAD
Ultimately, the existence of a cost effective, efficient and professionally functioning army in a competitive multi-party democratic system with constitutional checks and balances demands strong civilian leadership and legislative oversight balanced by an equally firm commitment to functional professionalism in the officer corps. Politics has to provide the setting for civilian leadership and oversight procedures as well as professionalism. However, we must be careful not to confuse framework of political leadership and oversight under a pluralistic democratic system with the “fusion model” of Mao, now being promoted by Nepali Maoists where the army becomes the extension of the party that has managed to “capture the state” under a one-party system. This will be the beginning of a one-party dictatorship in the country. Ultimately, democratization of the army in the present context boils down to one simple question: Will the NA be an extension of the Maoist political party that consistently claims the need for “capturing the state” or be a part of the overall democratic process as defined by the norms and values of democratic constitutionalism? On the other hand, if there is a third model of “democratization of the army”, the Maoists and all other political parties in the Constituent Assembly still have the opportunity to show their creativeness on the basis of reasoned debate based on the fundamental premise that the army cannot be the political and military instrument of one political party.
(Writer is co-chairman of Rastriya Janashakti Party.)