But for Nepal, the opposite is rather true; although there is no single formula that may structurally consolidate a democratic regime in behavioral terms. The road to democratic peace has always been rocky. But, even ordinary folks feel that a cruel joke has been played on them by populist political discourses from the radical left-right spectrum and political advertisements bombarded with exaggerated claims of understanding of democratic norms, civic virtues, and correct application of the rules. The dysfunction—characterized by uncompromising attitude to set the rules of the game, deceitful tactics to thwart constitution making, and persistent maneuverings for party advantage—is the result of illegitimate prolongation of the power given by the people for a specified term. Constitution writing failed because too often these politicians tried to divorce political adjustment from practical reality. Thus Nepal, with the wrong leaders, is heading toward a near-dysfunctional society and ugly politics.
The successful toppling of monarchical autocratic regime, which for 240 years ran a military-backed police state, was no small feat. But in the wider context, an overwhelming majority of the population believes that the country is stumbling, the situation lurching from bad to worse. Some observers view these developments as an indication of democratic decay. It would not be incorrect, even if very insulting, to say that Nepal’s top leadership vis-à-vis India, has been morally bankrupt, greedy, hypocritical and have served as no more than errand boys. People are tired of these slick, fast-talking politicians. In fact, their reputation has gone down the drain. In a culture aimed above all at seizing power with material motivations, political democracy and thereby sustained peace is unlikely.
We got rid of the monarchy because it believed it had a divine right to rule, which would be a glaring anachronism in the 21st century. But we still have demagogues profiting from Maoism, which can always pose hurdles in adherence to democratic norms. Although the actual Maoists have relinquished their weapons, Maoist tactics continue to be used by criminal gangs that have tremendous rustic intelligence. Nepal neither has the resources nor the capability to control large scale eruption of violence. I find it deeply troubling that for want of a national agenda, democracy, transparency and inclusiveness have failed to take roots in Nepali politics. This refers to a deep-rooted structural problem in the political process and overall stability—the dearth of mutual trust in the society, which is responsible for the Nepali leaders’ ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ that in turn has led to bad governance. The process of democratization has been stalled; the level of respect for constitutionalism has plummeted; networks based on personal contacts have proliferated; and decisions are imposed by a handful of elites.
There is an opportunity for something constructive by harnessing the anger among the people. Unless they resolve to vote out the dinosaurs of Nepali politics, there is no guarantee that things will get better under a new political regime. The rustic intelligence of Maoists won them the largest number of seats in previous CA election and we are not sure whether they have been able to transform themselves from their barbaric past into a reliable modern, democratic force. Left-wing extremism, indeed Maoists’ stonewalling attitude toward everything, remains the most serious internal challenge. The Maoists and other communists have thrived the most in the flawed experiment with democracy, which has bred political instability, corruption and lawlessness.
The problem is compounded by each party’s reliance on money power; they nurture corruption and lawlessness to get hold of the riches. Parties have become shelters of crooks, thieves and cold-blooded criminals and their leaders are protected by anti-democratic and intolerant gunmen—a remnant of the old monarchy. It’s now time for politicians to explain why we should vote for them; it’s time for citizens to exhibit their opposition to yet another fraud. Active involvement of citizens is essential to frame a new constitution and give it legitimacy. The new constitution would serve as the baseline of what we call ‘democratic rules of the game’. At the same time, it is important to look not just at the election process but also at what happens after the election. American diplomat Richard Holbrooke once made an important observation on Yugoslavia: suppose elections are free, fair and even fearless but those elected are criminals, terrorists, separatists, racists and radical nationalists; what then? This, in fact, did happen here in Nepal when the post-civil war elections resulted in unexpected gains by the Maoists and other sectarian forces. If we continue to let them get away with their ways, rather than stopping them from doing it again, we the people must share the blame for a government that would function only to our detriment.
There is no serious debate on the legitimacy of constitution, which is primarily derived from the method of its enactment. Elster takes up this concept in passing and specifies three essential dimensions for a successful constitution-drafting process. He considers that a constitution can become legitimate if the Constituent Assembly (CA) is formed according to democratic principles; this may be called legitimacy from above. Second, the decision-making process within the CA must proceed according to democratic principles, which involves internal procedure legitimacy. Third, the most important but often neglected aspect, the constitutional draft must be ratified through public vote, which builds the foundation of new authority and would give enduring legitimacy to the political system. This refers to legitimacy from below or ‘mass loyalty’. Until these three specific processes are channeled through democratically legitimate procedure, the already prolonged transition might continue indefinitely.
Let me be forthright here. In all likelihood, it would be impossible to start making significant repairs even after upcoming election, because there are no high-quality leaders to put the country on a more peaceful, prosperous and just path. There is plenty of blame game, but the political leadership in Nepal has never learned. Significant damage has already been done to public support for democracy, which is getting worse by the day. Some find the country still in conflict trap and some see it squeezed between the neighbors’ clutches. Despite a lot of people simply stopping to listen to their leaders due to their shambolic management and autocratic-narcissistic behavior, the political arrangement following the demise of monarchy has propped four communists as prime ministers, two of them former insurgents. That may be tempting to zealous demagogues, but again, long-term political stability with dignity cannot be bartered at the expense of human rights and democracy.
The author is Professor of
Politics, Tribhuvan University
thapa_gb@yahoo.com
Related story
Democratic Recession in Nepal
