Social Democracy for Nepal

Jeevan Baniya
The debate on social democracy heard especially while Nepali Congress was having its general convention few months earlier although it had to come into prominence from the very beginning of constitution-writing process that started with the formation of various committees in the Constituent Assembly.

The discourse on this particular concept is important, for, this might be the kind of democracy most political parties have been looking for or want to practice in Nepal. We know that most political parties have always shown their commitment, theoretically but not in practice, to the concept of social democracy. This becomes more evident from their manifestoes and their ideological orientation on the form of democracy, although the ultimate goal of the Maoists differs in their papers even from three different papers discussed in Palungtar plenum of the party.

Actually, this columnist was encouraged to write this piece after listening to a senior Nepali Congress leader on the BBC Nepali radio service in which he was not able to convincingly answer the question as to what he meant by 'social democracy'. It was surprising to know a high-ranking leader of the party that envisaged the concept itself did not have clear vision about democratic socialism or social democracy. There is no confusion that the NC has had a departure from its idealism of democratic socialism adopted in 1956, must have taught them lessons in the recent past. Hence, it becomes clear that not many of our leaders know what characterises social democracy and whether it is possible to establish it in Nepal given the conditions and situation we have.

As the world acknowledges, Norway has had the democratic system that is well-functioning, more responsive and representative. The government of this country has long been able to entertain strong trust from its citizens. Its standing on top position if HDI ranking better explains the effectiveness and legitimacy of its system.

It's amazing to see Norway's resourceful population with high level of education who make their voices heard in government, academic institutes, local organizations and workplaces. It is always tempting for anyone who dreams for better system of governance, better life conditions and better development.

When we envision and discuss the ways and possibilities to adopt social democracy in practical sense it is always important to have experiences from the societies that have exercised and benefited from such system.

Therefore, it will be important for Nepal to learn from Norway, one of the champions of social democracy, about how it has been possible for the country to develop and practice such a model of democracy. The experiences from Norway will also help our leaders along with others, who are interested in discourse of social democracy – even for those asking questions to our leaders in their programs as it is necessary to understand the questions of not only ‘what’ but also ‘how’ and ‘when’.

Historically, the Norwegian state has developed on popular movements and mass parties after the 1930s and after World War-II. The state is persistently engaged in systems for social security and redistribution socially and geographically, which has been supported by popular broad and center-left. The fact that the state has exercised extensive public control or ownership of land, resources and capital, has assisted to provide welfare services to the citizens. In return, the state and its public institutions have succeeded in receiving wide support and legitimacy for welfare arrangements in the country. One may argue that Norwegian oil resource has helped them get to the point where they are now. True, but this is not the whole story.

It is not only the state as such, which became only agent of such achievements in Norway; more significantly have been mass parties and voluntary associations with broad societal agenda to have a strong impact on the evolution of public authority. Civil society organsations have been very significant forces that play the role as bridges to connect communities and social groups to national-level entities, which is rare in Nepal. These organisations also have succeeded in changing the passive people into citizens by reaching out no matter where and what kind of lives they lived. This interplay has created good marriage of top-down and bottom-up governance. It is remarkable that local community associations in Norway have been very active and effective agents of social, political and economic reforms.

But in Nepal, the problems of co-option and party politicisation of such organisation is very high, which indicates that even organisations operating in societies are still questionable to whether they can be effective agents in developing social democracy in Nepal. Hence, it calls for the transformation of such social groups and organisations. Only then, one can be hopeful that they might contribute to stop the decline in democratic infractures in Nepal.

On the other hand, Nepal has already been trapped in the vortex of liberalisation and hollowing out of the state, which was supported by the major political parties like Nepali Congress and CPN-UML going against their original political and economic ideology. The possibility of establishing social democracy hence highly depends on whether these parties can retain their original stance in New Constitution that is yet to be promulgated.

Quite contrary to the idea of decentralisation and federalism that is perceived as the norms and ideals of democracy, Norwegian state is characterised by high level centralisation of its institution – it might have been feasible because of low population rate in the country. But interesting enough, centralization has been equally balanced by high levels of citizen’s control over them – which may somehow suggest that only decentralisation is not the solution of the problems people facing, rather it is also important to what extent people can control over their public affairs in their respective societies.

It is necessary for any local government to be effective and democratic to work with various organizations and social groups in their communities – this is the area where representative and inclusive democracy, and rule by popular consent has to be practiced.

Comparing the conditions and situations between Nepal and Norway, one can easily notice that there are serious obstacles in establishing social democracy in Nepal. It demands high level of educated citizens, highly mobilised society and willingness on the part of political parties, and responsive and effective administration and state institutions. However, if the actors involved realize that it is deemed necessary for the country, they are the ones who should at least pave the way through the opportunity they do have now.

Meanwhile, we can just live with the hope that country will soon take the path to exercising social democracy.

This artical was originally published in www.nepalnews.com
http://www.nepalnews.com/main/index.php/component/content/article/13-top-column/11395-social-democracy-for-nepal.html