There has been a lot of discontent expressed about the peace process in the Nepali media, and some have even begun to raise questions about democracy itself. The irresponsible behaviour of political leaders as well as the deteriorating law and order situation are fuelling the discontent.
Many people are dissatisfied due to the spectacle of the ongoing political manoeuvring for positions and perks by the elected leaders. Other people may not be happy because they perceive threats to their traditional privileges by the ongoing changes, while others may not be happy because democracy
has not delivered many things they expected.
One reason people are frustrated with Nepali democracy is that they find it lacking in many aspects when they compare it with established democracies. One should not expect the same things in established and new democracies. Democracy theorist Philippe Schmitter argues that new democracies in the developing world should not be compared with the same criteria with established democracies that evolved over a much longer period and faced many similar problems during their evolution.
All problems will not be addressed the moment democracy is introduced. If one were to look at the established democracies where a better law and order situation and more responsive governance prevail, those qualities did not emerge in one stroke. The older democracies took centuries to include more citizens in the polity and become responsive and accountable to the people. The foundation for democracy was laid in Britain with the Magna Carta of 1215 that respected the rights of the elite lords. It took centuries for other democratic rights such as freedom of speech, the bill of rights and universal
suffrage to become part of the British democracy.
Similarly the US did not grant suffrage rights to blacks and women for a couple of centuries despite the lofty words in its constitution. Various restrictions that prevented blacks from voting were lifted only in 1964 in the US. The US and the UK provided universal and equal suffrage to women only in 1920 and 1928 respectively, a long time after men had obtained similar rights. The Swiss enfranchised women only in 1971. Established democracies like New Zealand and Belgium initiated major political reforms in recent decades to deepen their democracies. Many of these changes did not come by themselves. The people had to struggle and launch movements for a long period of time.
Democracy is a long-term project. This does not mean that people should remain pliant and do nothing about the problems plaguing the polity. People should mobilise to expand their rights and make the government more responsive. The established democracies consolidated and deepened over time only with continuous struggles by its people to make their polity progressively more responsive and participatory.
In the context of Nepal, one way to assess whether we are moving forward in the democratic project is to compare the current polity with past democratic epochs. Has the post-2006 Nepali polity become more democratic than the polity of the 1990s? There are still many problems, but the comparison resoundingly says that the post-2006 polity is far better than the previous ones for a large number of the common people. Around 2.4 million Nepalis without citizenship certificates obtained the documents after 2006. The monarchy, the fountainhead of feudalism, was abolished in 2008. Elements of feudalism still exist, even among the self-declared “anti-feudalists”; but feudalism has been nevertheless weakened with its anchor gone.
The Nepali state has been declared secular, paving the way for making followers of all religions and non-believers more equal. The adoption of a mixed electoral method has reduced the creation of an artificial majority by the single-member district method and has better reflected the people’s votes in Parliament. Women have attained 33 percent representation in the Constituent Assembly for the first time in Nepal’s history. The Dalits have also made significant gains in the Constituent Assembly and the cabinet. The country is set to adopt federalism that will take governance closer to the people, and empower diverse groups and millions of citizens. Even some of the political parties have become more democratic, and younger generation leaders have begun to occupy more influential positions in party organisations and in public institutions like the Constituent Assembly.
These are major achievements of the 2006 regime change that will make the future Nepali democracy qualitatively much deeper than the previous experiments. Of course, major problems still remain: The culture of impunity is more or less intact, politicisation of the administration continues, the peace process appears to be in the doldrums and no one can guarantee that it will not falter, the law and order situation has deteriorated, and politicians still squabble over positions and perks leaving important issues on the side.
The old constitution has been dismantled and a new one is yet to be made. Such a situation creates uncertainties, including among politicians and administrators, because the polity is in a state of flux and hence administrators may not act decisively. Once the country adopts a new constitution and the polity begins to stabilise if the new constitution is acceptable to the people, then some of the problems due to the transition will be reduced. However, some problems like weak accountability and the culture of impunity may continue even after the new constitution is adopted. The challenge to the Nepali people, therefore, will be to progressively work, perhaps through advocacy, awareness raising and even movements, to reduce such problems.
Democracy provides space and opportunities to make citizens’ voices heard, and to organise and mobilise to influence the leaders and the political process. They must utilise these opportunities if they want to make the polity better. The more people organise, the sooner some of the problems might be addressed in some ways. The global history of democracy tells us that citizens have obtained more power, the polities have become more accountable, and democracies have deepened when citizens have organised and mobilised.
Nepal’s history till date also supports this thesis. More Nepalis have been empowered post-2006 because they struggled for their rights. If Nepalis want to improve the democracy the country has, they will have to work for it. The global trend gives plenty of hope—with people’s efforts, democracies have deepened globally. More people today are living under freer societies and deeper democracies than ever before.
By: MAHENDRA LAWOTI
Source: www.ekantipur.com
