 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
| |
|
|
|
Dipak Gyawali/Space for ethical voice
I
have just returned from being a guest at the annual
meeting of one of the first rural electrification
cooperative in Nepal, which encompasses 19 VDCs
of south Lalitpur. To me, this particular group
of people symbolises the problem of inclusion
or exclusion in Nepal. These 19 VDCs of south
Lalitpur have been excluded from electricity for
the last 92 years although its in their midst
that electricity was generated in Pharping for
the first time in Nepal in 1911. They set up a
cooperative a couple of years back to rectify
this anomaly. To me, when we talk about exclusion,
this case in as poignant and difficult a case
as any—this is exclusion from development.
Political
exclusion is mainly a problem of the past. The
Ranas and the Panchayat were political exclusionists
in their own way; the Ranas excluded non-Ranas
from the decision-making Bhardari core while the
Panchayat prevented anyone not subscribing to
its ‘partylessness’ ethos. But, paradoxically,
post-1990 Nepal has been politically inclusive
in letter if not in spirit of the law. I have
been told that in ethnic terms in the Panchayat
period representation in the civil service was
much better than has been in the 12 years of democracy.
The year 1990 was expected to be a watershed,
a year of hope that all would be included. Unfortunately,
inclusion was only for the party in power. There
was a tremendous failure of political groups to
see beyond their narrow party boundaries, a failure
to see the distinction between citizen, state
and custodianship.
What
were the points of exclusion? With a reductionist
approach to the problem, we might solve bits and
pieces here and there. But the type of exclusion
I am trying to look at is of a different kind.
Let me list some of them. One, which has got to
do with the Maoist problem, is the exclusion of
the small parties built within the constitution.
It is the infamous Article 113 of the constitution.
It is debatable whether such a provision is needed
at all or not. With hindsight, it is seen as an
attempt by the so-called large parties to make
sure no challenge arose and the growth of small
parties was stymied. It is well known when the
Samyukta Jan Morcha split, Baburam Bhattarai’s
faction went to court to get it recognised as
a national party but it could not. When it was
not, it was provided with a legitimacy to go to
the jungles, though this was not the only reason.
Two, the exclusion in the constitution of the
units of local self-governance, something that
was there even in the Panchayat constitution.
The best example of the fusion of these two, the
exclusion of small parties and local units of
governance, was seen in the very first parliament
with its attitude towards the Rolpa DDC, which
was controlled by Jan Morcha and which was not
tolerated by the large parties. Much of the police
action, non-political activities of the large
parties in squashing this DDC and the treatment
meted out to its chairman and others also legitimised
the movement of the Maoists to say that they moved
away from the constitution and the parliamentary
system that they were part of. Three, the other
serious exclusion was the exclusion in public
positions. Appointments were not on merit but
on party affiliation. Four, one of the most serious
forms of exclusion was the exclusion of development
with which I have to deal almost every day as
the king’s minister. Three-fourths of the
applications and petitions I receive deal with
very mundane development issues. This comes across
party lines. They talk about their irrigation
scheme being left out because the minister or
the MP happened to be of a different party. Rural
electrification transmission lines are some of
the worst examples in this regard where transmission
lines are pulled in a different direction to exclude
villages which probably did not vote for the party
in power. Electric poles are dumped in villages
during elections but never erected, and rough
estimates of this type of blocked assets runs
into billions. This kind of inclusion/exclusion
at the village level has led to alienation. If
beneficiaries have been excluded in a structure
that claims to be democratic then there are going
to be a lot of problems.
The
lack of development has fed some of the protests
and insurgency movements. I believe that ultimately
free and fair competitive elections at various
levels would solve the problem. However, in the
discourse you hear today there is a loud silence
about elections from those who have to go to the
people for elections to legitimate themselves.
The mandate would come only when MPs have been
elected in a manner that is free and fair. In
the last parliament, in the early days, sessions
were stalled, chairs were broken because parties
were accusing each other of having rigged the
elections. A committee was formed with the prime
minister and the speaker that ended the impasse,
but the ultimate message that came thorough was:
‘We all rigged the elections so let’s
shut up and go on.’ That high-level committee
produced no report nor did it punish any of those
rigging the elections. Well, it turned out that
you could not go on with business as usual as
the subsequent impasse with the parliament did
show. Parties are not clamoring for elections.
Armed Maoists and their violence is only part
of the excuse. I have been travelling the districts
and the most disturbing things that I see is that
while violence is a problem, it is not the only
problem. The bigger problem is the political vacuum
one sees in the districts, a vacuum born our of
mal-development, a vacuum that came from the leadership
at the national and local level getting delegitimised.
To the credit of the Maoists, it might be said
that though their methods of violence were wrong
that, they saw the emerging vacuum and stepped
into it almost effortlessly. But the last 12 years
also show that elections alone are not enough
for democracy and inclusion. Injustice of all
forms, not only of the state but also of the market,
need to be critiqued by our civil society. Of
the three legs of our society—market, state
and civil society—unfortunately the third
that should be the social auditor is the weakest
leg today.
Questions
1. What is your view of federalism that has been
much discussed in these two days?
2.
There is a lot of talk of the failure of the political
parties. I wonder isn’t it the failure of
the development ideology not the failure of development?
Isn’t it the success of technocratic development
that is the problem which did not allow the parties
to think beyond the discourse of development?
3.
Is your whole argument to justify the present
state of affairs? The conclusion of your critique
seems to be, why don’t the political parties
go for elections now? Are you trying to imply
that the political parties are responsible for
the present state of affairs?
4.
I get the impression that this development exclusion
began only after 1990. I do see the left extremism
much before that. Is it a culmination of a certain
thing or beginning starting with the failure of
the political parties? The land/peasant movement
in some of these areas is pretty old and none
of these areas were included in development in
spite of the fact that the Panchayat system claimed
to go to smaller nooks and corner of the country
than political parties ever claim to be.
Answers
1. On federalism, Nepal is perhaps too small a
unit for federalism . A better decentralisation,
a better devolution of power to municipalities
and district governments and villages also would
probably take care of many of the grievances provided
they were done properly. That’s my position.
On what to do about the current dialogue with
the Maoists, and parties on what to do with the
current constitution (do we take it as it is,
do we reform it, if so how, or do we do scrap
it and go for a constituent assembly), I am a
gradualist. We have experimented with constitutions
too often from BS 2004 and perhaps the current
one has enough scope provided we get it reformed,
getting rid of some of the defects. Federalism
is a new ball game and I think that before we
arrive there or, if we arrive there at all, in
the interim too many things will have gone haywire.
2.
The question on development ideology failure,
I think that’s what’s happened. Political
parties have not come up with development ideologies
that are different. However, mass aspiration and
information revolution have meant that expectations
are higher and that delivery should have been
much faster. When delivery regressed, dissident
groups could easily step into the vacuum and justify
themselves on the grounds oSSB Participants -
Dipak Gyawalif critique. There is opposition to
a particular project not so much because of ideology
but because of all sorts of reasons, including
unacceptable built-in inequities.
3.
The present state of affairs came about because
of the parties, and ‘justifying’ it
is hardly the thing to do. Had they got their
act together, this would not have happened. The
only way to solve that is to agree upon a minimum
of reform programme and move forward with elections.
But the parties which should be eager to go to
the people fear to do so mainly because their
loss of face (from corruption) at the grassroots.
4.
Development exclusion started earlier, but after
1990, the difference was that the failure allowed
the Maoists to step in. When I go to the districts,
I have been told that people got elected and never
came back to see the project. The panchas were
more astute, they did go back to their constituencies.
It is hardly excusable that those who got elected
did not go back to their constituencies in four
or five years.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
