 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
| |
| |
|
Tom
Carothers/The end of the transition paradigm
Carothers
began with the caveat that his paper draws not
on the expertise of a Nepal specialist, but on
a comparative approach to democratisation in different
parts of the world to contextualise Nepal’s
experience within other global developments.
He drew attention to the idea of ‘transition
democracy’. In the last two decades, a remarkable
wave of political developments has occurred, with
democracies overturning dictatorships in many
places. As a consequence, a framework emphasising
the transition to democracy emerged to help explain
these changes. But, as transitions cannot go on
indefinitely, the phase of transition democracy
has probably ended in many places. There is now
a need to develop new paradigms to explain political
trends.
The concept of ‘transition to democracy’
was founded on five assumptions:
1.
Any country moving away from authoritarianism
is moving towards democracy.
1.2.
Democratisation is a natural process proceeding
in stages. It is possible to place a country on
a continuum of democratic development.
1.3.
Elections are important in two ways: for forming
a foundation of political choice and for serving
as a basis for continuing reform that produces
responsible and responsive politicians.
1.4.
Economic and political development do not necessarily
depend on each other. Democracy does not require
certain economic pre-conditions.
1.5.
Building a democracy and a more effective state
are complimentary processes.
These
assumptions have been undermined by experiences
in the last few years. Today, of the approximately
100 countries once labelled ‘transition
democracies’, only 10-20 are moving towards
consolidated democracy. For the most part, these
countries are found in eastern Europe, Latin America
and East Asia. In many parts of the world, countries
have ended up in a grey zone between democracy
and authoritarianism. People in these countries
often say similar things: ‘Politicians in
this country don’t care about the common
people’, ‘We had such high expectations,
but we haven’t seen any rewards’,
‘Corruption is a massive problem’,
‘We’re not really interested in ideology’,
‘The parties don’t stand for anything
but themselves’, ‘I’m interested
in competence and honesty’, ‘We’re
very concerned about the influence of the private
sector on the political process’.
The
core assumptions of the transition democracy paradigm
are not proving true. For instance,
1)
abandonment of authoritarianism can lead to many
different things, not all of which are democratic;
2) nations continue to deal with fundamental problems,
despite talk of stages;
3) good elections can exist with bad politics;
the virtuous cycle does not always work out; and
4) the economic assumptions of democracy have
not proved true—poverty is highly corrosive
for democracy, and an independent civil society
and media are hard to establish in impoverished
societies;
5) democracy-building in the ideal case should
be about distributing power, but in state-building,
it is about assembling power and people often
blame the weakness of the state for failures.
Many
of the countries in this ‘grey zone’
are not in a process of change that we understand,
said Carothers. Surveying the world, some countries
(Uzbekistan, Egypt, Malaysia) have fallen into
a dominant power group. A powerful family/clan
controls politics, and while they allow some token
dissent, there is no chance for substantive change.
The other set of countries is mired in feckless
pluralism. No single group controls power, but
there is endemic incompetence among the elite,
in spite of external funding of civil society.
Both
of these systems have their relative merits of
stability. In Egypt, for instance, Hosni Mubarak
manipulates public opinion to stay in power and
provide continuity. In the second category, there
is the continuous process of renewal, which can
remain relatively stable for a long time. In the
second group, there are two ways change occurs:
as in Venezuela, where a non-party candidate enjoys
success, or alternatively, with a revolutionary
movement, which has the effect of undermining
the political centre, strengthening both the left
and the right.
In
Nepal, people are frustrated with the incompetence
of the political elite, the powerlessness of civil
society, the overwhelming problems, and the failures
of elections to effect change. Nepal is not unique,
though there are some aggravating circumstances
here, including massive poverty, unusual political
fracturing, oppression and a monarchical system.
In conclusion, it is no longer appropriate to
call Nepal a country in transition to democracy,
but instead to place it in some other category.
Nepal is on the edge of something decidedly undemocratic.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
