 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
| |
| |
|
Hari Roka/Towards a politics of inclusion: Redefining
parties for democratisation in Nepal
There
hasn’t been a national integration of our
country. Our country has not grown as a nation-state.
That is my conclusion. Political parties began
in Nepal in the 1930s. When the Ranas allowed
land to be bought and sold in 1921, the small
feudals rose against the big feudals. In the so-called
revolution of 1950-51, the small feudals rose
against the big feudals. In other words, the capitalists
rose against the feudals and the Nepali political
parties emerged. So we were not the deciding factor.
There are many issues like regionalism, ethnicity
being raised. We are not the ones who decide who
rules over us or what is good for the country.
After
1951 parties were split and the institutional
development of parties could not happen as much
as it should have by 1960. After the ban on parties
the political ideology was based on three words—service
to the country, building the country and development
of the country. After the parties were banned,
they could not go to the villages. They stayed
in towns, or were in exile or in jails. They could
not interact with the people.
In
the second phase—up to 1990—the Nepali
Congress had an organisation only in 20 districts.
The splinter communists groups were organised
in 58 districts altogether. People like me from
the lower middle class or the petit bourgeois
class who had come from the village to the city
to study got involved in the movement. The middle
and lower-middle class people from the towns and
cities were involved in the movement. The movement
coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union
and East Europe. Two things happened at once.
We began to think that we could not decide for
ourselves how to take the country forward and
secondly political parties’ agenda was the
only democratic and political expression. But
even they could not be aware of the people’s
aspirations as they could not interact with the
people in the past 30 years or more. The Nepali
Congress had embraced democratic socialism as
their ideology in 1955 but with the collapse of
the Soviet Union and East Europe they were in
a dilemma about continuing to embrace this ideology.
So while they retained democracy, they removed
socialism from their agenda. For the communists,
the Soviet Union had collapsed. If they did not
embrace communism, they’d have no identity.
So they embraced communism. Therefore there could
be no discourse in democracy.
In
the past 12 years, we have heard that the political
parties are liars and are corrupt. They are to
blame for the malaise. But there are those that
are legally as well as illegally corrupted. Examples
of legal corruption are raising the palace budget
from Rs 110 million to Rs 600 million; donors
giving money to private companies but the Centre
for Nepal and Asian Studies of Tribhuvan University
does not have money for programmes; there is no
support from anywhere to help develop national
institutions for nation-building. Our funds are
spent on privatisation. Institutions which conduct
research on our identity and local conditions
cannot develop. The so-called political parties
did not pay attention to the issues raised during
interactions with people. They did not pay attention
to institution building. Who is responsible for
this? The donors and the feudals in power who
never cared about social justice, and are the
ones responsible for the development paradigm
since 1951 are the ones responsible. No land reforms
took place so people did not have cash, so capital
could not accumulate. Therefore, feudals benefitted
as they had the monopoly over power. Thus there
is a duality which the land reforms of 1968 could
not address but marginalised more people. The
capital that came from outside made people from
a certain class smarter and benefitted them. After
1985 the International Monetary Fund took over
our development. We say and do what they say.
Except 1 or 2 per cent of the population, Nepalis
are poor and it is unlikely their condition will
ever improve. Selected feudalism is being encouraged.
Now
the question about inclusiveness of political
parties. The rivers flowing in our country prevented
discourse between us. People from Mahakali zone
could not go to Seti zone because of the Seti
river. The same with the people from the two sides
of the Gandaki. Therefore our discourse was with
India. We are different in every aspect, not only
culturally, socially and politically. Therefore
only one political organisation cannot bring us
together. This is a country for the majority.
We are a diverse people. Who are rising to power
and which are outside power? Political parties
came to power after 1990. The Maoist uprising
began in 1996. Six years is not enough time for
any political party. Parties inspired people to
be aware regionally and ethnically but did not
make them rise economically and socially. New
forces have now emerged—rural, women, ethnic
groups and Dalits, who constitute 14 per cent
of the population but they are not represented
anywhere. Can they be brought together and organised
only by women’s and ethnic groups? The solution
should be political. Parties should be strengthened.
The parties are of two types but they are non-ideological.
CPN (UML) should clarify its position vis-à-vis
its communist tag and the Nepali Congress should
be clear about which class interest it represents.
They should clarify their positions regarding
the king. Therefore we need parties. Talking about
civil society, it should educate the political
parties. The people who are capable are not doing
this. The professors of universities are busy
with consultancy work, those talking about ethnic
groups only talk, they do not say what should
be done to uplift ethnic groups. Our political
parties are just like us. They do not come from
outside the society.
Questions
1. You mentioned three powers. In a country with
parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy,
the king will also ask for power. This will weaken
parliament democracy. What do you think about
this? A lot of mistakes have been made in the
past 12 years. Should we not evaluate the 12 years
too?
2.
There have been 9-10 prime ministers in the past
12 years. If the leadership itself is immature
what can the people do? There were land reforms
in 1965 but you said nothing happened then, but
there were some achievements.
3.
What kind of concern about Dalits should be expressed
by political parties and how should Dalits be
represented? Some 20 per cent of the population
is Dalits and what kind of programmes should there
be for them? There has been a failure in the past
12 years. The Nepali Congress and the CPN (UML),
the main forces behind the people’s movement
of 1990, took the help of the Rastriya Prajatantra
Party, a party of the former panchas to get to
power. Shouldn’t the Nepali Congress and
the CPN (UML) have worked together instead? We,
Dalits, had expected a lot from the Maoists but
they did not have any Dalit representative in
the talks team and neither does the government.
How should the problem of the Dalits be dealt
with?
4.
There are just Bahun leaders in all the parties.
Therefore whoever comes to power says Sanskrit
should be taught and news should be read in Sanskrit.
You do not say what should be done to liberate
the janajatis. You say that the political parties
should work together. This means bringing the
Bahuns together.
5.
The non-representative character of our parties
has been talked about a lot in the past three
days. We need to think about the mechanism to
develop ideas within the party. No parties have
research institutes, neither are there any outside
the parties. But we expect the parties to be more
informed.
6.
Parties use individuals and misuse the sense of
ethnicity. Maoists have Ram Bahadur Thapa Badal,
Dev Gurung and Matrika Yadav in the talks team
but have not clarified their position on ethnic
groups. Do you think the Maoists will go the UML
way on the ethnic issue? What kind of structure
do you propose for parties to address the ethnic
question?
Answers
1. We’ll talk about the 12 years later but
we must stress on integration.
2.
The king was instrumental in appointing prime
ministers in 1950s, not the political parties.
Regarding land reforms, land owned was recorded
and therefore ‘hidden’. Since it remained
hidden there was no productivity.
3.
In the past 12 years we have had an opportunity
for democratic/political expression for the first
time. But this does not bring about social transformation.
For this, there must be changes in the economic
and social structure. Our policy is guided by
the IMF and World Bank. Therefore transformation
is not possible. We have to look for it, that
is we have to come together and get organised.
Dalits should not only talk amongst themselves
but also with others, creating an atmosphere to
work together. Only this will bring about inclusion.
4.
I got a ticket from the party to fight elections
for parliament but I did not accept it saying
it should be given to someone from an ethnic group.
You must get into the system and struggle if you
want rights.
5.
If there is no change in the social structure
there can be no other changes. During Panchayat
times, King Mahendra handpicked people from the
dalit and ethnic communities. The MP from my district
was MP for 19 years but there was no high school
in his village till his death. If a person is
handpicked symbolically he turns into a Bahun
himself about whom you are speaking. Therefore
inclusion should be of a class/group within the
structure. If the Maoists were to surrender to
neo-liberalism and corporate governance, I do
not think there will be a new structure of inclusion.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
