 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
| |
| |
|
Saubhagya
Shah/Nepali dystopia: The search for an articulating
state
Shah’s
presentation attempted to engage with the literature
on democracy and the state, drawing extensively
on Britain’s experience. Today, Nepal is
attempting to place itself in debates that have
histories extending back centuries. Here the focus
will be on the philosophical origins of statehood
and their implications for Nepal, rather than
on the ideologically-loaded literature of Nepal’s
last three decades of state evolution.
The
failures since 1990 have undermined the Nepali
nation-state in many different ways, calling into
question basic assumptions of the country’s
history and present political structure. Some
have even gone so far as to malign the Nepali
nation-state as an outcome of Gorkha aggression.
This naturally raises further lines of inquiry,
particularly about the legitimacy of a nation-state
formed in such a manner. The mutually constituted
terms of monarchy and state have important implications;
consider Afghanistan and Kashmir, and their recent
histories. In the case of Nepal’s monarchy,
given that it is an outcome of history and has
served an historical function, it should be retained,
with modern reforms appropriate to this country
and society.
A
second question concerns structures and actors.
In Nepal, the focus has mostly been on the latter,
but which structures help, and which ones hinder
successful state functioning? In the discourse
of despair, the assumption is that the structures
are fine but the individuals have failed. Most
political models take into account the potential
for incompetent/corrupt individuals, but Nepal
lacks operational measures to prevent corruption
and veniality. For instance, Nepal adopted the
Westminster parliamentary model, despite the unsuitability
of that model to the conditions of this country.
Shah
questioned the extent to which the Nepali state
is designed to meet the goals and desires of the
Nepali people. In its present formation, the state
is unable to deliver on its commitments, even
of protecting life and property. In this light,
Nepal’s contemporary situation can be contexualised
within the philosophical debates on governance
in 17th-century England. John Locke argued for
a minimalist state, while conversely, Thomas Hobbes
advocated a strong power to protect citizens.
The Nepali state has failed in basic responsibilities
such as guaranteeing physical security, not to
mention secondary and tertiary ones. From a Hobbesian
perspective, in the absence of a competent state,
essential functions of government cannot be carried
out.
The
1990 constitution erred on two counts: weakening
the king’s authority without taking into
consideration the corresponding weakening of the
Nepali state, and leaving the political set-up
beset with ambiguity and uncertainty. The events
of the last 13 years have clearly demonstrated
the seriousness of these omissions. Plato’s
Republic warns that democracy can easily disintegrate
into tyranny or anarchy, and both appear to be
threatening Nepal. The state is incapable of governing
itself, much less the country.
The
framers of the 1990 constitution fundamentally
misread the ways in which the state’s constituent
parts fit together, Shah argued. The resultant
fractured state has been unable to deliver on
its commitments, one obvious example being its
inability to control Maoist violence. Hobbes underlined
the importance of having but one authority in
society with powers of physical coercion. But
Nepal has suffered several insurgencies over the
years, demonstrating that there is no monopoly
on the tools of violence.
In
the old days, the state needed only 100 troops
to maintain law and order in the Karnali zone.
In recent years, despite the deployment of thousands
of troops and the efforts of dozens of NGOs, the
area is nearly ungovernable. A fundamental responsibility
of the state is administering the country with
rudimentary competence and safeguarding citizens.
The philosophical foundation of this position
rests with Rousseau, who argued that the state
must be the protector of people’s rights.
Other
reforms to the system should include strong anti-corruption
measures, using property as a basis for gauging
wealth, and increasing the power of the prime
minister. Specialists, not politicians, believed
Shah, should be appointed ministers. This would
both help to secure the prime minister’s
political position as the central figure and bring
a degree of expertise to the practice of government
that has been sorely lacking to date.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
