 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
| |
| |
|
Genevieve Lakier/Public spectacle and political
power: The bandh and democracy in Nepal
This
paper is concerned with bandhs and democracy in
Nepal, and is the beginning of a dissertation.
Primarily it focuses on what happens when local
actors come to Kathmandu to protest the state.
Rather
than focus on what did not happen during that
last 13 years, an examination is made into what
did happen. Symbolic public protests became quite
common, and the adoption of varied protest forms
by opposition groups indicates the exercise of
political freedom. Despite the autocratic leanings
of the present dispensation, the king cannot stop
such activities. In fact, visible repression by
the state only makes these popular movements stronger.
The
bandh, in part because of its stubbornness, has
grown to be an important element in the operation
of democracy in Nepal. Populist rhetoric calls
on the state to live up to its populist commitments.
Popular protest challenges the state to its right
of control, often through self-inflicted pain,
such as hunger strikes. While against the state
at some level, nationalism is very strong in public
rhetoric, perhaps owing to the existence of large
neighbouring countries.
An
examination of Nepali democracy should centre
on events in the country, not merely dismiss aspects
of the situation as deficient in comparison to
other countries. In 1991, German researchers found
that Nepalis’ expectations of ‘democracy’
did not match with their own assumptions. Nepalis
indicated a willingness to become personally involved
in politics, in contrast to actors in many other
democracies. Villagers and the poor were the most
willing to be active. These groups were very well
versed in national issues, which caught Western
scholars by surprise.
Protest
is a kind of public discourse, and it forces the
government to listen in what is otherwise a power-dominant
relationship. What distinguishes these movements
as spectacles is that they are public events;
a hunger strike in secret would not have much
effect. Indeed, how much of a public spectacle
something is may be more important than the ideology
behind it.
The
free press has played an important role in promoting
these protests. Some journalists have noted that
the Maoists are able to pull off bandhs because
of the publicity afforded them by the press. Censorship
cannot prevent bandhs, and eventually they always
become front-page news. It is important to note
that while other forms of consumption are disrupted
by bandhs, papers continue to reach their audiences.
As such, any discussion of democracy in Nepal
has to take into consideration the role of the
press.
Spectacles
involve both supporters and non-supporters, and
they disrupt the economy, including tourism. Moreover,
by calling on the state to solve problems, the
rhetoric of protests reinforces the role of the
state as the agent of change. But this is paradoxical,
as bandhs weaken the ability of the state to meet
protestors’ demands.
Nepal
has developed a strong form of public dissent
because the state has shown itself to be immune
to most other forms of dissent. At the national
level, the organisations capable of pulling off
bandhs often increase their own institutional
power. Protest can be productive even in its failure
through the politicisation of ordinary citizens.
Even if this is bad in some respects, it expands
democracy.
Third
world democracy is characterised by citizen action
much more so than in the West. The state’s
unwillingness or inability to suppress dissent
means that critics capture the public space. Participation
in protest often extends beyond traditional Bahun-Chhetri
domination of politics, and young and rural voices
have a role in protest politics in Kathmandu.
Nepali politics, as seen in these protests, is
more complicated than simplistic analysis of domination
of the public sphere by certain political actors.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
