 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
| |
| |
|
John Whelpton/Nepalese democracy and its discontents
This
paper examined the practice of democratic politics
in Nepal. Whelpton said that broadly, there are
three democratic models in the world today:
1.
Actual democracy, competition between political
parties and meaningful conflict of interests within
a participatory framework.
2.
Participatory democracy, the taking of joint decisions
on issues that directly affect people’s
lives. This is a model which receives support
from the radical left, though in practice it only
works at a local level.
3.
Literal democracy, rule by the people, people
power. The problem with this model is that ‘the
people’ do not have singular interests,
barring exceptional historical moments like the
1990 People’s Movement. Literal democracy
is essentially an incoherent theory, through it
has powerful rhetorical elements. This system
can easily transition into totalitarianism, and
in practice is often favoured by the extreme left
through a single-party system of governance.
Since
1990, Nepal has experienced a very imperfect version
of actual democracy. The primary factors limiting
the system’s effectiveness have been intimidation
and criminality. In one sense, the Maoists are
a reaction against this system, against its failures;
in another, they are merely a logical extension
of its practice. As for the public, people strive
to put themselves in line with what they perceive
to be the most powerful faction, which undermines
the effectiveness of competitive democracy.
Though
the system clearly has its faults, there have
also been some successes. Whelpton argued that
the present conference is an example of discussion
and dissent, and Nepal enjoys a relatively free
press and, in general, people are able to voice
anti-establishment views. The practice of politics
also allows some space for challenging power through
democratic means; in the 1999 elections, despite
a Congress government in power, the left parties
won a larger share of the vote. In Nepal, parties
in power cannot ensure that they always win elections,
which means that authority can be challenged through
non-violent confrontation. In this respect, Nepal
is in a better position than, say, Iraq or North
Korea.
In
examining the institutional weaknesses of the
system, the main problem is not the constitution
or the legal framework. Rather, it is that actors
in the system do not abide by the existing rules.
If followed, the country’s laws could do
much to improve the current situation. That Nepal
has a crown price believed to be guilty of drunk-driving
homicide does not inspire confidence in the rule
of law.
In
any society there exist instruments of coercion
which are necessary for law and order, though
they should be exercised to a minimal extent.
In practice, there is often a trade-off in the
state’s use of force, for example, putting
down a militant rebellion but failing to do so
within the legal framework. Correcting this might
require bringing the armed forces under the unambiguous
control of the elected government, or, as Dipak
Gyawali has suggested, drawing the police force
from local areas and making it locally accountable.
In
addition to security issues, Nepal also needs
to face the patronage problem. Perceptions of
what can be gained from the system should not
be the people’s driving motivation. One
example of this problem is the development funds
personally distributed by individual MPs. These
‘pots of gold’, now totalling Rs 1
million each, are dispersed at legislators’
discretion. A better system would draw on local
recommendations. In practice, this could rely
on a lottery system, which might also be useful
in civil service appointments.
The
third key issue is decentralisation. While avoiding
specific recommendations, consider alcohol prohibition,
language choice and local ‘user groups’.
The Maoists have made the first of these an issue,
and it could be an important topic for local communities
to decide. On language choice, the primary difficulty
is in determining at what level decentralisation
is to occur. For public ownership, the ‘user
groups’ should be tied to geography, not
to ethnicity, which often has the effect of reinforcing
ethnic assumptions.
Whelpton’s
view was that the challenge is to find a way of
keeping people within the system and creating
a politics of inclusion. Different actors have
different responsibilities; parties should agree
on a minimum programme, and the king could play
an appropriate role, such as leading an anti-untouchability
campaign. There are also important roles for NGOs
and people not directly involved with politics
(non-politicians and -activists), that is, people
driven by an interest in a defined area.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
