This includes the sudden transformation – by magic – of the political parties into democratic, transparent, accountable, ethical, and governance-oriented agents.[break]
Analyses have revealed that both the Communist Party of Nepal – United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) and the Nepali Congress (NC) were historically trained in anti-establishment movements, and operated in a highly centralized manner. Lower units of the parties continue to function to relay messages and party commands to the people, as opposed to acting as sources of articulating and championing their needs. This of course also applies to the other dominant political party today, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal – Maoist (UCPN-M).
Following the initial euphoria of having the “most representative body” in Nepal’s history, it has become clear that novices as well as old party hands are being forced to tow party lines and hierarchy within the Constituent Assembly (CA). For all their initiatives, the caucuses (Janajati, Dalit and women) and party wings of excluded groups, remain peripheralized.
The question remains as to how to transform representation beyond just physical presence.
This has consequences beyond what has become evident in the constitution drafting process. If the parties remain as centralized and if their lower units continue to look towards Kathmandu, to what extent will provincial and local demands and needs be allowed to be articulated? Janajati groups, for example, may obtain their demanded ethnic-based provinces. However, they will have to continue to work with, and depend upon, the same political parties who have shown little interest – beyond the token and the instrumental – in taking up the issues of marginalized groups.
That the dominant political mindset of the parties is tilted towards the autocratic is made clear not only by their internal working structures (nepotism, cronyism etc), but the rules and regulations instituted in the new Nepal. The issue of party whip aside, it is telling that someone or some people thought it appropriate to divide up speaking time according to party votes won, as opposed to seeing each individual CA member and their viewpoint as equally worthwhile and valuable. For example, as noted by the October 2009 Martin Chautari Policy Brief, “Update on the Constituent Assembly,” while the UCPN-M with 238 members received a daily time allotment of 142 minutes in which to speak, members of six parties and two independent candidates had a total of three minutes to speak on any one of the five days allocated for discussing the drafts of different committees.
Hangovers from the feudal past are manifest in many ways. For example, while citizens as well as journalists are allowed to sit in on CA proceedings in the “balcony” section, certain rules are strictly applied. This includes not being allowed to cross one’s legs as this is “disrespectful.” Public surveillance and policing of “respect” and hierarchy at this level of minutiae was big in the Rana and Panchayat periods.
That this culture remains in the post-1990 era is amply demonstrated by the dignity/decorum roll of the State. Debates over this emerged in 1991 when it was discovered that the royal family continued to hold the top positions on the roll – the democratically elected PM came in tenth. This roll exists today, with only the first five positions amended by a ministerial meeting following the election of the President in 2008: the President, VP, PM, Chief Justice, and the CA Speaker round up the top five.
That this dignity/decorum roll of institutionalized hierarchy and “respect” by decree remains a living document for many political actors and citizens was highlighted recently in the media. Some CA members walked out of an information sharing meeting organized by two NGOs because “hierarchy was not maintained.” The crux of the issue was that CA members present were not invited onto the stage, whereas the Home Joint Secretary was. According to the Dec 16, 1991 roll (which remains the referent point in the absence of a full and official update), people’s elected representatives are much higher ranked than the secretary, let alone the joint secretary. Hence the umbrage.
Rendered irrelevant in this was the fact that this was a meeting to share information about disaster management, and the CA members were not “experts” to be called to the dais, and that calling the 24 odd CA members present to the stage was not physically feasible. Interestingly, an official of one of the NGOs interviewed later stated that while the manner in which the issue was raised was inappropriate, the issue itself (i.e., hierarchy and its maintenance) was not.
Thus, respect continues to be bestowed from above and need not be earned. New ways of doing politics as people’s representatives need not be even tried. And new political actors, instead of bringing in a fresh, democratic political culture, serve to police the old one.
Political analyst Taylor-Robinson had noted “When a traditional party had undemocratic internal procedures in the past, deepening the current democracy is likely to be hindered by the party bringing these undemocratic internal procedures into the new regime.” Old parties may fulfill a vacuum during the transition negotiations, but if they continue old behavior that denies people participation, they will hinder democratic consolidation.
For Nepal, writing the new Constitution is crucial. But it is also essential to apply pressure and demand for reform of political parties and political culture – before all the oxygen of change possibilities of new political actors and new political spaces is inhaled by the old system.
(Seira Tamang is a political scientist.)
Related story
Hospitals stop admitting COVID-19 patients as govt sets quota o...
