Enough has already been written on the reasons and solutions of the present crisis from the political angle, from Marxist perspective to Maoist thought to liberal democratic values. I personally believe that using Western political theories to explain the current situation in Nepal is not going to help much in coming to a true (or close to it) understanding of Nepal’s political mess. Political analysts in Nepal, for the most part, look at politics as if it is totally independent of the society and instead of analyzing politics vis-à-vis society and societal expectations, use Western theories, some of them quite obsolete, to reach conclusions and suggest the way forward, and naturally, it doesn’t work.
Let’s face it. Nepal is not Europe. Nepal is Nepal and the wholesale application of Western ideas and concepts in Nepal is not going to yield desired results. Discussions and debates on the effective political model that takes into account not only the numbers of ethnic groups in Nepal but also their cultures, and how the cultural traits reflect in our political culture as a whole, has become necessary to make sure that we don’t have to go through Janaandolans and general strikes time and again. I personally believe that politics is the reflection of the society, and it is high time our analysts think about it from this angle as well and suggest the politicians accordingly. Maybe the failure of the CA to come with the new constitution on time has to do with our culture too. Maybe the majority of us is not really concerned about politics and does not have the real understanding of our “rights” and “duties” and, as a result, the political leaders find it easy to take us for a ride. And maybe the intelligentsia that’s supposed to connect the people and politics is so alienated from the common Nepali that it tries to find the answers to our mess by looking at the political theories developed in Europe and the US.
If our present form of democracy (?) allows three leaders to hijack the country and hold it to ransom, then isn’t it time to think about another alternative model?
If one is to look critically at Nepal at present, one may come to the conclusion that Nepal’s present system—democracy?— is quite elitist that has totally ignored the majority of rural Nepalis. Elitist in the sense that our democracy centers around the top three leaders of the three main political parties, who think they can get away with anything. If the CA chairman is to be believed, 80 percent of the new constitution is complete, the remaining 20 percent is not complete because the leaders of the main political parties do not agree on the contentious issues. If he is right, then one is compelled to ask: If our present form of democracy (?) allows three leaders to hijack the country and hold it to ransom, then isn’t it time to think about another alternative model? And shouldn’t the leaders be taking the debate to the public and ask for its opinion on what remains unresolved?
Democracy has various models and the rural Nepalis so far have not been asked in a fear-free environment what model of democracy or the political system they want. Some may argue that the Maoists represent the rural Nepalis and the Maoist model is what they want. It is true that the Maoist party made the rural Nepalis politically aware but the problem with the Maoists is that they are not democratic, and their followers are although aware of their rights do not believe in pluralism. They even want the provision to ban the political parties with different ideologies banned in the new constitution. And it is an open secret how the Maoists got the majority of its cadres. When someone asks us what we want at gunpoint, most of us would, without any second thought, agree to what the person holding the gun wants.
After the restoration of peace in the country and the election of CA, no political party made efforts to reach out to the rural folks who constitute the substantial majority of Nepal’s population. Instead, the parties engaged in interaction programs, seminars and worskshops in 5-star hotels of Kathmandu, and rather than listen to the majority of Nepalis and their aspirations, spent time listening to foreign or foreign-returned experts totally out of sync with Nepal’s rural conditions. Of course, the CA tried to find out what the people want included in the new constitution, but the majority of the CA members didn’t go to the rural areas with the questionnaire. Moreover, the questionnaire was so difficult that the majority of the rural population that is illiterate didn’t understand it and the whole exercise at making “janamukhi” (people-oriented) constitution proved to be a costly failure.
Although it may sound blasphemy to some democrats, I believe it is about time we started a debate on the shortcomings of our democratic model. My understanding of democracy is that it is an evolving system and the beauty of democracy lies in being able to question it, debate it and make it more in tune with the country’s conditions. It is not some religious scripture that is sacrosanct and above and beyond any discussion and or criticism. However, in Nepal, democracy is considered sacrosanct and its “adherents” so dogmatic that they themselves are killing the spirit of democracy in the country, and, as such, sometimes it feels like instead of living in a democracy, we are living in a theocracy. This has to end if we are to have a democratic model that really works for us. Maybe by engaging in a real debate in a fear-free environment with the rural folks we will come to a better understanding of what the majority of us really wants. Maybe then we will be able to come up with our own Nepali model of democracy that is in sync with Nepal’s ground realities. And maybe the majority will in one way or the other feel connected to the political system.
In Chinese, crisis is written with two characters, wei ji. Individually, the character wei represents danger, and ji represents opportunities. Crisis presents us with the opportunity to find out what’s best for us. Therefore, let’s use this political/constitutional crisis as an opportunity to find out what really works for us and come up with our own model of democracy that is inclusive in every sense.
trailokyaa@yahoo.com
Related story
Apple to use Google’s AI model to power improved Siri
