Democratisation process - Taking a wrong approach to it

Post-Jana Andolan II, Nepal has made great advances in ensuring freedom of speech and democratic rights. How it attains a liberal ideal to manage reform process would be a test for democracy. The problem is, despite consensus among divergent groups, it still calls for agreeing on goals and methods that would enable domestic institutions to reform their polity and lead when the situation demands.

It is impossible to predict the course of action that would help preserve Nepal’s multi-ethnic integrity. But the ruling clique is anxious to shift the blame for political setbacks. There is an apparent tension not only in pursuit of its mission to work for the community’s good but also a debilitating contradiction in style of governance and its goals. Nepal has limitations - some real structural weaknesses, other inadequacies - due to its failure to respond to changing circumstances.

It is not always possible to distinguish the form of democracy from its substantive content, whereas chances of developing stable democracy can be significantly improved if consensus on goals does not evaporate with short-term ad hoc actions; rather it is translated into deliberative process that is transparent, depicting broad-mindedness, integrity and character, with each individual assured of his or her desired social and political life.

Democracy is best for political reforms. It does not help bring down a brutal regime, resolve disputes, or help towards political liberalisation. A forward-looking nation requires reasoned discourse, including listening to the opinions and demands of parties and seeking compromise. If state weakness is a factor in organised violence, the test of leadership cannot be based on its ability to succeed with the support of those who habitually align themselves to meet their selfish ends, but in giving a vision for paving the way for full-blown democracy. When one propounds something useful, the political culture of proposition must be identified. Since conflict resolution is a complex exercise, much of the burden of peace-building lies with the leadership. Madhesis want political autonomy. Even if political metabolism can be achieved through CA elections, their struggle should be understood in historical context, not as gambits for political influence, and as a critical juncture reflecting possible future directions. The struggle in Terai is not only about defence of liberty of conscience or freedom of thought but concerned with the struggle for self-expression. The issue is about the legitimacy of current establishment.

Nepal seems to need more time to contemplate its future identity, and find a suitable political structure and legitimacy. At the roots, it is a political question but if we mischaracterise the nature of conflict, our policy response may be misguided. Not all disputes have neat solutions, although more people are likely to accept radical changes in political course. Arguably, social sciences cannot be treated by sets of pre-established facts. Politics is not about lofty pursuit of public interest; it is about power - who gets what, when and how.

Certain types of political strategies are more likely to succeed than others; yet the more intriguing question is: How an inherently authoritarian monarchy that always thwarted people’s sovereignty and the Maoists who missed the opportunity to smash it through their might could be substantially moderated to have legitimacy and become the order of the day?

Nepal’s current regime is eight-party ‘oligopolistic pluralism’ or ‘monopoly of non-democratic power’. Monarchy’s defeat has concentrated power in the PM. Even if it were not damaging to democratic aspirations, it is unlikely to cultivate democratic norms and respect for law. The want of credibility makes it vulnerable, with the possibility of being overthrown. This can be problematic not because it would be unfair but illegitimate, although repercussions may not be clear. Democracy is about who should rule and liberalism about the limits of rule. Even if democratic transitions at a critical juncture set off ‘prolonged and inconclusive political struggle’, there is a more disturbing concern. The current conglomeration is brimming with lumpen democrats/proletarians in legislature who have no understanding of democratisation. While their struggle might be justifiable, democratic context requires different behaviours.

Thus, if the Maoists want to satisfy everybody’s needs, Maoism — which merely advocates working class influence in politics - is undesirable and self-defeating. It is immature to assume that structural features of liberal democracy — individual rights, competitive parties and regular elections - would not materialise. But, due to the inability of ruling elites who determine targets and timing for political actions, the system’s legitimacy may, over time, may be questioned even if it promises stability in the long run. If liberty is not a governing principle, there is no reason to consider the interests of the members of society.

Ganga Thapa is professor of Politics, TU