Contrary to common belief, overthrow of legitimate regimes do not occur in vacuum. The military may be the sharp edge of a putsch, but the final blow is often preceded by public indifference toward the functioning of democracy. Even the royal-military coup of February 1 in 2005 was not a bolt from the blue. Preparation for the takeover of the state by the regressive forces had begun with the ascension of King Gyanendra to the throne.
Circumstances that had led to the resignation of Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala in July 2001 have not yet been convincingly explained. However, there is no denying that he had to bow out from Baluwatar when the army brass showed extreme reluctance in executing formal orders of the government. When the public opinion doesn’t support a legitimate government, electoral mandate alone is not enough to ensure civilian control over the army. Koirala’s successor in Singh Durbar let the term of local government lapse, declared a state of emergency, agreed to the dissolution of the parliament, and prepared the ground for his own dismissal. Throughout this turbulent period, people kept unusually quiet.
The silence of the middleclass became deafening when very few spoke up against the ‘half-corrected regression’ assumptions of Madhav Kumar Nepal that sought to confer post-facto legitimacy upon King Gyanendra’s power grab of October 2002. Had the king reined his urge to become the chairman, probably the history of Shah dynasty would have been different. The April Uprising in 2006 washed away the monarchy and along with it sins of many political parties including CPN-UML.
Initially, there was some pressure upon the parties to reform. But it slacked as the issue of intraparty democracy was reduced to having more numbers of elected members in the central committee. The change has worsened factionalism within parties as elected presidents have to grapple with the reality of having to deal with multiple claimants to the throne. Meanwhile, the public just watches as party officials try to sort out their internal problems.
The general mood in the country is that parties have messed up politics big time, but the readiness to intervene in internal affairs of political party through open debate about their ways of functioning is sorely lacking. Such a studied indifference does not augur well for the health of democracy. When apathy runs deep, a society gets the polity it deserves and Nepal has to endure the UML—an archetype of opportunistic party that will continue producing Parshuram Basnets.
History of enmity
The comfortable classes everywhere do not find it very comfortable to deal with political parties. Political parties are partisan organizations. The definition of merit in political party is different from the ones that put a premium over doctorate degrees. The Nepali elite want to have as little to do with political parties as possible. A junior minister may have easier access into cultural, financial or social corridors of power in Kathmandu than the secretary general or vice-president of her party. Part of the explanation for such discomfort is practical: Minister can help push decisions of the government while party functionaries cannot be equally useful. In addition to that, lower social acceptance of political parties also has something to do with the context of their emergence.
The Nepali Congress (NC) was formed in 1946 to fight Rana autocracy and establish democratic rule in the country. Before 1950s, opposition to family rule amounted to sedition. The Nepal Communist Party was created to set up a dictatorship of the proletariat. Such a goal could easily be construed as treason. Let alone the aristocracy, even plebeians find it uneasy to deal with organizations that are portrayed as fighting against the sovereign. The NC succeeded in obtaining the sanction of a section of the cultural elite by helping restore King Tribhuvan to the throne in February 1951, but lost their confidence the moment B P Koirala began to introduce changes in social relations through politics.
Ramraja Prasad Singh once rued that not a bosom was bared to stop possible bullets when an elected prime minister with two-third majority in the parliament and the chairperson of the largest party in the country was arrested from the middle of a meeting of his young cadres. For arguments sake, even if B P knew about his impending arrest, where else could he have gone other than remain surrounded by his young party cadres? Wonder where all those youths who failed to protect their leader are today? History will remember them for what they didn’t do with such distinction. King Mahendra had correctly guessed that the awe of the uniform was greater than the respect for elected personalities.
Once ensconced in the driving seat, the royal-military machinery initiated a relentless campaign against NC in collaboration with the communists. A democratic party was depicted as ‘anti-national’ and ‘terror outfit’. When so much mud is thrown unrelentingly at any target for decades in a row, some of it is bound to stick. Despite having been in the government several times, NC still has to prove its nationalist credentials from time to time even as others that ran armed campaigns from foreign soil or run the party with foreign money claim the high moral ground.
Charges of corruption, often unsubstantiated ones, became handy ammunition in the arsenal of traditional elite to slander political parties. It was ignored that ‘corruption’ is an inalienable part of bourgeois politics. The question of electoral finance is not the only issue here, though that involves huge sums of money. Even more fundamental is the question: Is clean politics possible when almost every other section of society is dysfunctional?
Political parties are on the defensive, but compared to administration, businesses and even defense forces, they have succeeded remarkably in keeping themselves relevant in national life. The area they have failed completely is perhaps in earning the faith of the vocal middle class, a group that helps shape perceptions due to their visibility in society.
Future dissonance
Luring the urban middleclass—especially the twittering youths of twenty-something—into hurly-burly of politics is not going to be easy. Brought up in the age of fast food, faster gadgets and fastest turnover of relationships, today’s youngsters prefer instant gratification to long-term goals. Unwilling to work for promises, they want results here and now. There are opportunities and risks involved in dealing with such disposition.
Once upon a time people that joined a party wished to be a leader in the future. These days all that they want is a government contract here, some grants for an NGO there, transfer of a cousin in government job somewhere or nomination into a team visiting any country anywhere. For a serious political party, dispensing these favors should be an inexpensive way of buying the silence of habitual political party bashers.
Trickier would be the challenge of winning the trust of professionals. They have literally seceded from the state. They live in chic houses, gated colonies or fancy flats with captive water supply and power backup. Their children go to exclusive schools and parents avail health services at private hospitals. They fly private airlines, drive private cars and hire the services of private garbage collectors and private security guards. They no longer see any possibility of changing society through politics. Like any other business, political loyalty for them is merely a profitable transaction.
Ironically, even the lower middle class have begun to explore alternatives to political parties. Older institutions of solidarity such as bhajan mandali, caste Panchayats and community affiliations have staged a comeback. Text messages succeed in bringing clans together while email groups keep members updated. The messiah of calisthenics Swami Ramdev has a strong fan following in Nepal and talks of creating Nepali Anna Hazare are rife in certain circles. Such steps may or may not achieve anything, but they will definitely weaken political parties.
It is quite natural for a party to go through growth pangs, reach maturity, begin a decline and then finally become irrelevant. Then it is the turn of some other party to repeat the process. However, when all political parties are becoming victims of decay, defamation and degeneration, it is time to begin worrying, for a functioning democracy without vibrant and credible political parties has not yet been designed. The moment all political parties begin to appear equally inept, vile or corrupt, invitation has already been received by non-political actors. The date and time of coup d’état is then for the probable savior to choose. The country may not have reached that stage already, but it seems to be rushing full-speed toward the precipice.
Related story
Misjudging Politics as Service
