Looking back to 1990, hardly anyone then believed democracy would be so difficult to establish and sustain. Restoration of democracy had widespread support after 30 years of autocracy that had thrived by outlawing all traces of political opposition. Predictably, people came out on the street in droves, danced, and celebrated on the night of April 9, 1990—when late KP Bhattarai announced that the King had agreed to restore multiparty democracy that would replace the panchayat system.[break]
After 20-plus years of democratic experiment, it is becoming increasingly evident that we are rushing to complete the circle—going back to where we had started, which is to a democracy-less future or, at best, a democracy only in name. To envisage this kind of political future, just look at what is happening in Russia which, judging from some recent events, is fast turning into a personal democracy of self-styled defender of new Russia, President Vladimir V. Putin.
Putin’s Russia
The view of new Russia was flashed across the pages of US newspapers last week, with a picture of two imprisoned punk band members brought for appeal court hearing in a glass-cage that looked like an aquarium. The defendants had been given two years’ jail term last August for staging an anti-Putin stunt in a Catholic church in Moscow, where they had forced their way in. Actually, the band comprised of three young women in their twenties, of whom one was later acquitted, while the other two were convicted. The persecution had asked for a seven-year sentence as punishment for their “grave offense” but the judge showed leniency by ordering just two-year sentences.
PHOTO: FILE PHOTO/DALJE.COM
The arrest of the punk band members called Pushy Riot followed Russia’s parliamentary election in December 2011 in which President Putin’s party—United Russia—reportedly won 238 of total 406 parliamentary seats, an absolute majority. The election was widely criticized as being rigged and sparked street demonstrations. Police in riot gear battled with demonstrators, hundreds were arrested, and many were kept in custody for trial and sentencing. The staging of protest by the punk band members two months later–by lip-synching anti-Putin songs in which they beseeched Virgin Mary to rid them of Mr. Putin—would ordinarily be construed as nothing more than a public prank, but in Putin’s Russia, this drew a jail-term! To justify the sentencing of the band members, the presiding judge described the group as posing danger to society and deemed them to have committed grave crimes.
There was another wave of protests to block President Putin’s inauguration for a new six-year term on May 7, 2012. His assuming the presidency was a prior arrangement reached with President Dimitri A. Medvedev—that he would relinquish Presidency to Putin after his term expired in 2012. This pledge was dutifully executed by Medvedev and, in turn, Putin appointed him his Prime Minister, a position Putin had held during the interim.
Although Putin had been admired for skillful use of his KGB background to bring under control the lawlessness of Boris Yelstin’s administration in the late 1990s, his private arrangement with Medvedev angered Western-styled Moscow elites and young people, who protested the day before Putin’s inauguration, and predictably, were met with outsized police presence. There were violent clashes between protesters and the police. Many were arrested and locked up at police stations. Some were later released but many remain in custody and one has just been sentenced for four-and-a-half years on charges of hurting a police officer.
Rough handling of anti-Putin protesters during initial demonstrations was just the beginning of a broad strategy of wiping out all traces of political opposition.
Reportedly, suspected opponents of the regime get search warrants, followed by a court summon which, most likely, produces a guilty verdict and jail-term. Most of those searched opt to go underground, while some choose voluntary exile. To up the ante, Duma—Russia’s parliament—is considering a bill to slap a US $30,000 fine on protesters and US $50,000 fine on organizers of such protests!
With police and judges colluding, there is no way that a suspected political activist can get a fair trial—this is the gut-feeling of many who know the system. Of the Russian justice system, one Moscow lawyer reportedly commented on the role of a lawyer “as carrying the money from client to the investigator or court officials.” Another Washington Post story clearly highlights the public perception of judges: “...the judges are among the least respected members of the legal community.”
Intolerance for political protests has reached a stage where Russia would soon qualify for the status of a police state—a descent from full-fledged democracy it enjoyed just over a decade ago. “People are being arrested for nothing at all, simply for standing on the sidewalk,” said the official from one human rights organization. “They even have started detaining people who were sitting [in a café] and drinking beer. I think this is to show who is the boss,” concluded the official.
Prachanda’s Nepal
The recent Hetauda gathering of Maoist High Command was significant in many ways but its most noteworthy feature was its projected vision for the country’s politics. Maoist Chairman Prachanda said his party was going to retain power for at least ten years. Prime Minister Bhattarai followed him by upping the vision to 20 or even 30 years which, in a normally functioning democracy, would be an eternity.
With UCPN (Maoist) so weeded to classic communism, there is nothing to suggest their old ways of governing would change.
If Maoist leaders are actually serious about ruling the country over such a long haul, there are only two ways of doing this. Keeping the masses happy and satisfied, or through oppression and intimidation, a la Putin. The two modes of governing can be juxtaposed in a number of ways, but let us assume that extreme approaches are followed to sustain power.
Because the Maoists are a proletariat group, we can safely assume that they would choose to prolong their rule by trying to keep people happy, which would assure them a governing majority. They must then devise a plan to provide for the people by addressing their daily concerns. Policies aimed at improving the material well-being of the masses would be a good place to start, backed by some intangibles—secure property rights, a fairer justice system, and safeguarding of personal freedom.
However, there is no denying that this would be a hard way to please the masses, in order to keep them loyal to the Maoists. For one thing, there is no precedent of Nepal ever being governed this way—whatever the color of the regime. The intention—apparent or implicit—has always been to rule by force and/or by deceit, the latter by making pledges without accountability. Benefits from State and from the governance system have invariably flowed just one-way—from bottom to the top, and rarely the other way.
Will the Maoist approach of sustaining their rule over the long haul reflect people’s free will, or a coerced mandate? There is much to suggest they will take the latter route. With a party so focused on sticking to the classical communist notion of people’s war and endless revolution and its leaders resorting to calls of patriotism to institute forbidding rules and regulations to keep out outside influences, there is nothing to suggest that their old ways of governing would change. Given this, we can expect a combination of hard-headed and heavy-handed regime to elicit popular support by force, while doing as little as possible to change a medieval way of life.
Related story
No one should dream of going against democracy: PM Deuba
