In my last article (Bad Excuse, 18/03/2012), I was critical of the Maoist party and their recent ‘politics’. Even before the Everest scandal, Dr. Prakash Chandra Lohani’s write-up (Doom and destiny, 07/03/2012) provided a succinct and powerful synopsis of the current predicament in which the Prime Minister finds himself.
However, as I alluded to in Bad Excuse, the problems with Dr. Bhattarai and the Maoist party at large are not an exception. In fact, one of the main reasons the Maoists have ´failed´ as leaders now is because they have emulated all that the other political parties stand for and have ended up ‘delivering’ more of the same. The experiences of the Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML are instrumental here. These parties have had their fair share of political opportunity in the last 20 years and remain key players in determining Nepal’s political future. Yet, despite their ‘experience’ in governance, it is extremely difficult, if not outright impossible, to locate their ethos and their agenda. The culture of intolerance and hypocrisy among the Maoists and increasing trust deficit towards them that Dr Lohani rightly points out is just as applicable to the other political parties.
The PM finds himself in the middle of a triangular bubble in a fractured system, and his loyalties to the party affect his potential to effect change. Yet, these fractures are not exclusive to the Maoists. Throughout the short history of multi-party democracy in Nepal, the aura of personality politics has been extremely powerful and numerous strong factions have competed among themselves. The power tussle in between Deuba and Poudel in NC on one hand, and between Khanal, Gautam and Oli, among others, in UML on the other hand is quite evident. The Madhesi leadership has also been quite fractured and a lot of these leaders have come together at this juncture after failing to garner the same influence in other parties in the past. Every political deal, be it inter- or intra-party, appears to have only short-term gain as its basis and not any engaging, pragmatic principle. We need to contemplate the alternative actors to the government as well, but the ´establishment´ nexus of political parties does not inspire much confidence. In other words, we may change the characters, but the plot remains the same.
Still, Dr. Lohani is right that the Maoists should be held accountable, particularly as they are the ´governing´ coalition at the cusp of history, with a major role to play in laying out Nepal’s future. However, political commentary is often restricted to critique. But there is a clear need to propose a way forward. What is the ideology that can bring us together to build a system that is fair, just, and equitable? Who is to provide the political acumen and will that are necessary to negotiate such a sensitive phase of Nepal´s nascent democratic growth?
I believe the answers do not lie outwards but inwards. For far too long we have talked about democracy, the return to democracy, or multi-party democracy as the means out of our political quagmire, and yet our flirtation with the concept appears to be at an extremely superficial level. Our democracy appears to be limited to sporadic elections where people get a ‘say’ by means of a vote, and the political actors bicker among themselves thereafter without regard for those that put them there in the first place. Democracy must mean rule of the people, but it seems everyone has forgotten the core essentials in our quest to establish Naya Nepal.
Naya Nepal has now become synonymous with irony and disappointment instead of hope and positive energy. Historically, given the bloated expectations garnered first by the Panchayat development state and then ‘democracy’ and when the country could not move forward and change peoples’ lives for the better, particularly in rural areas, there was extreme frustration that served as fertile grounds for Maoist recruitment. Now that the Maoist party has been unsuccessful in catering to its own cadres, let alone the Nepali populace at large, the next astute political move has to be for politics and power to return to the people.
The alternative to this mayhem has to be political parties taking democracy to the grassroots and getting in touch with the emotions and aspirations of the Nepali population. Ever since the CA election, the political dance has been performed only in Kathmandu, with all political parties losing touch with those at the margins. Political actors should hold meetings and consultations with local stakeholders to facilitate passionate but constructive discussions about the issues that people hold dear, and design ways to deal with them. It is time to set things right, and if any political party or actor finds the strength to return to the basics, they are bound to be rewarded richly—both by the people and by history.
The philosophy of returning to the people would go a long way in addressing Nepal’s major political debacle that the political parties seem completely incapable of fixing. It will take a miracle for these political actors, most of whom seem driven by lust for power, to come to a meaningful compromise that brings together the multiple paradoxes that have delayed the new constitution. Returning to their bases could infuse some life into the political parties that have rapidly lost both loyalty and credibility. At the same time, public consultations would allow for real political engagement. So for perhaps the first time in Nepal’s nascent democratic history, the people will actually know what’s going on in their polity. Largely unaware of the finer details of what the new constitution entails, the Nepali people are unlikely to either engage meaningfully with the political system or hold their representatives accountable, should their hopes and expectations not be met. As it were, the constitution has become just another leviathan that is supposed to be the elixir to all of Nepal’s problems.
The constitution is not a panacea to all of Nepali society’s problems; instead is a reflection of it. It will be but a living document that we will continue to engage with, debate over and fight about. So it is in all our best interests that we are engaged in its drafting process and understand it well in its execution. Instead of placing it on a pedestal as our only hope and a panacea to all problems, let’s at least give our constitution a fighting chance by making it inclusive and participatory.
I agree largely with Dr. Lohani’s assessment of the failings of the Maoist party and the PM, but these failings are not unique to them. They represent the malice that is pervasive throughout the political spectrum. For a budding democracy, the logical next step has to be a return to the power of the people, where they are both informed and consulted to create a more conscious and engaged society while also breathing new life and confidence into the faltering party mechanisms. While such a move would not necessarily fix all problems that haunt our polity today, such an approach would be a powerful first step in the right direction, leading to a shift from political bickering to democratic engagement. It is idealistic and perhaps even far-fetched to expect the same political parties that have created and sustained this mess to clean it up but perhaps, the promise of electoral gain and political power could spur them into action.It is time for the Nepali people to reclaim democracy and hold their representatives accountable so that the parties work for the people, not against them.
Are there any takers among our political parties for this idea, revolutionary or otherwise?
The author is D. Phil. Student in International Development, University of Oxford, UK and can be reached at shrochis@gmail.com
Related story
Bringing back the basics
