Visit MS-Denmark

Who is to blame - Democracy or the Demagogues?

Binay Dhital
Information Unit, MS-Nepal

Already about a decade into multi-party democracy, Nepal is still struggling to democratize its polity and society. The question whether the effort will be a success or not, is unanswered. Power still remains highly centralized.

Nepal is no exception to other third world countries, especially, when it comes to functioning of democracy. Democracy in these countries does not seem to have been properly understood or analyzed as a value or an ideal that is a part of social development. And for that matter there is a tendency among politicians and influential classes to use democracy as a means of serving their vested interest, while the common people paint a different picture of democracy in their minds. 

People, politicians and democracy

Democracy, from the perspective of a common man, should be able to deliver material benefits. Many new democracies in Asia, Africa and Latin America failed to deliver as expected. Hence the people, who usually do not bother to examine several other factors that contribute to the success or failure of democracy, have gone to the extent of blaming democracy rather than the behavior of the native rulers who are making the political system disruptive and dysfunctional. “In the past nine years into democracy, political parties and leaders (in Nepal) have done everything except disciplining themselves”, once noted a former deputy speaker of parliament. But perhaps he also may not have a practical suggestion as to how they can be made disciplined, responsible and accountable.
Political leaders in Nepal have failed to ponder the meaning of democracy and help the people to exercise their democratic rights. They are simply chanting buzzwords like development, poverty alleviation, human rights, democratic culture, national consensus, corruption control and so on. These are, of course, some of the key areas where people want to see some change. But the politicians are talking too much about change without doing anything substantial to bring about the long cherished change. 

If the leaders become deceptive as has been the case in Nepal, it is inevitable that the erosion of mutual trust, solidarity and support will follow thereby creating a big gap between the leaders and the people. And if this happened, democracy might exist, but only for its name’s sake.

Democracy and the realities

Already about a decade into multi-party democracy, Nepal is struggling to democratize its polity and society. The country saw the dawn of democracy for the second time in 1990. After the family oligarchy of Ranas was thrown out in favour of a rule by the representatives of people under a democratic constitution in 1951, the fledgling democracy was nipped in the bud by the then king and founder of the Panchayat polity in 1960. The Panchayat polity totally failed to deliver what it had promised. And its failure was inevitable because the advocates of this system did nothing (at least for the people and the country) except harping for thirty long years on their directive principle of creating an exploitation-free society through the monopoly of the dominant class in the name of class coordination. But one wonders why the situation has not improved even after the establishment of multi-party democracy. That the political parties drifted away from their ideological stands in the race for power and self-aggrandizement might be one explanation. And the faulty development philosophies of the political parties also augured badly for the development process.

Constraints

As a matter of fact democracy has come in the form of electoral rituals and not as an exercise of rights which is, although, beyond the capacity of the majority poor. The level of poverty and illiteracy in Nepal is very high even compared to its South Asian neighbours, and caste and gender discrimination is a common phenomenon. In such a situation effective participation in elections, social equality and organized dialogue are still a far cry. Equal participation of the people in decision making sounds unattainable. Come the elections, the politicians rush to their constituencies to solicit people’s votes by giving them empty assurances. When the election is over, people wait for their elected leaders to come to their villages and deliver what they had promised, but in vain. They have to wait for the next election to see their “leaders”. 

The efforts for decentralization have not shown any promising sign of success despite the passage of a local self-governance bill by parliament recently. The question whether the effort will culminate in simply decentralizing functions or in real devolution of authority is still unanswered. Power still remains highly centralized.

The popular movement for restoration of democracy (1990) ushered in political freedom but the socio-economic power structure remained the same. Another problem is Nepal’s increasing dependence on external finance and it is quite natural that dependence on economic arena has its political ramification. In the present Nepalese context government’s success or failure is measured against the yardstick of aid flow, and this is, no doubt, detrimental to any democracy.
Structures and institutions needed for democracy to function are in place but they do not function or are preoccupied with rituals rather than substance. Rejuvenation of these structures and institutions is the need of the day. Good organization of people in the form of trade unions, farmers’ cooperatives, local clubs and professionals’ unions are a must to preserve and promote the well-being of the respective groups as well as to awaken governments to the issues that have gone unheeded. After the restoration of democracy such organizations are emerging but they are still in their infancy and have not yet been able to function effectively.

The situation: yesterday and today

In the past, people were better organized and had a tradition of working for the betterment of themselves, their communities and their villages in a participatory manner without expecting much from governments. They had their own trust (guthi) to help the needy ones and provide forum for occasional discussions on local issues such as distribution of irrigation water, constructing local roads and trails protecting forests and the like. They had set up their own system of work and that system was quite democratic. But today, the situation is quite different.

While government plans and policies stipulate (at least in principle) that people should be at the centre of development, the people are not working or rather have not been able to work with the spirit they used to work before. They seem to be confused. Why did this happen? Who is to blame for it—the politicians or democracy itself? One explanation might be that before the advent of democracy people did not expect much from the government nor did the government tried to listen to them and involve them in political, economic and development dialogues and activities. 

There was a big gap between the government and the people. Communications media were not allowed to criticize the government and bring to light their wrongdoing. But after the attainment of freedom political awareness of people increased considerably. The press became very active in the dissemination of information, civil society came into existence, albeit still in infancy, and people remained no longer ignorant of what is happening in the country and outside. They started talking about their rights and the responsibilities of the government. They started demanding. But it seemed that their voices fell into the deaf ear of those at the helm of leadership. Hence the people are gripped by some sort of despondency and frustration. 

Frustration, insurgency and confusion

This despondency and frustration provided a fertile ground for Maoist movement in course of which some 900 people have already been killed. The so called Maoists’ “people’s war”, already in its fifth year, has led to gross violation of human rights both from the insurgents’ and the government’s sides. The leaders of the underground militant group are cashing in on the frustration of the illiterate rural poor who do not know even what Maoism is all about. The government has not been able to persuade them into sitting across a negotiating table and finding a peaceful solution. Nor has it been able to launch any effective programme to provide jobs to unemployed youth and help the people in the insurgency-hit areas to make their ends meet.

Instead of working the politicians talked too much about democracy without making the people aware about what they should do from their side to sustain it. They rather misinterpreted democracy and made the people feel that establishment of democracy was the pill for every ill. In the beginning, they were too euphoric to look into what they were doing. When the euphoria subsided they could not take time off from the tug of war for power and self-aggrandizement, and think about and work for the good of the people. In addition to this, along with the restoration of democracy the people have been bombarded with development jargons they had never heard before—liberalization, globalization, privatization, etc. etc. They do not know whether these jargons mean good or bad to them. They are all the more confused.

It is not that democracy is something totally new to the Nepalese people and, therefore, they are experiencing adjustment problem. Even in the ancient past they enjoyed democracy in one or the another form. Many traditional practices which can be dubbed as good as and even better than what we today call democracy still exist in Nepalese society.

Conclusion

There is still an immense scope for improvement and the people have not lost their hopes. There is a growing realization that first the people should be empowered to help them raise the living standards and consolidate democracy. With the help of a number of I/NGOs various efforts are being made in the country to make the people aware about their rights and responsibilities, and enable them to take decisions for themselves and demand not only access but control over resources and work for their own development. Many efforts have started showing positive signs. And people have started rekindling their hope — hope for better future in a vibrant democracy.

Back to Contents