By Jeevan Baniya
Nepal adopted the liberal democracy after the political change in 1990 that was based on sets of civil and political rights, participation based on justice, free and fair election, good governance, free media, and civic participation. We gave emphasis on importance of democratic institutions, modernization, and economic development for reaching the ends of establishing democracy in the country. In the similar line, some limited efforts were made towards diffusing of power and weakening the relative power of the executive machineries by strengthening legislative and judiciary institutions of government. And decentralization was viewed and encouraged as the effective political programme.
There is no doubt that the country had more democratic political space for opposition parties and independent civil society as well as regular elections and democratic constitutions after the political change in 1990; but is also an undeniable fact that these all were characterized by exclusion of citizens, poor representation of citizens’ interests, abuse of power and law by political party leaders, government officers and people with power. Consequently, people of Nepal were disempowered and they lost confidence in the state institutions. Even elections held so far failed to produce far less than what people had expected. In other words, the so called ‘democratic system’ that was in practice did not deliver on its ideals. And various measures (many structural adjustment programs) undertaken to deal with the maladies under the system, also remained ineffective.
Even after the political change of 2006, our focus has mostly been on institutions building as if institutions are the only way for developing a democratic and more prosperous nation. Of course, building institutions and civic and political rights, rule of law, free media, free and fair election etc. are essential for democracy. But, the experiences of Nepal and elsewhere in the third world countries have well indicted that peoples’ incapacity to make use of these rights and institution has all failed them to rip the benefits of the system. These institutions and rights have been mostly misused by the people in power to rule over powerless citizenry; hence, linking citizenry to these institutions and making them enabled to exercise their civic and political rights is a precondition and urgent task with Nepal’s political parties and other actors for democratic system to serve broader population in the country. Sad enough though, Nepal’s local institutions have been long delinked with people.
Our focus has been primarily on form not in substance despite the fact that Nepal has already failed to establish substantive democracy after 1990. In the pretext when various political parties of Nepal hold huge disagreements on the future form of governance and it is going to remain as one of the most significant issues to be finalized in order for writing the new constitution, suggestion can be made that all political parties can and should at least agree on developing a ‘Substantive Democracy’ in the country – the kind of democracy in which people are supposed to be given respect as human beings. In other words, ordinary citizens should be provided with basic needs (food, clothing, water, sanitation, education), which can make sure for them lead their lives with dignity. To this end, provision of basic needs should be held as the fundamental rights of ordinary citizens.
No one would disagree on vital issues of basic needs as the minimal conditions of life and all people want their basic needs met. Hence basic needs are necessary to be guaranteed first in order for anyone to pursue any other goals. When people lack access to these needs, we have experienced that it can drive to the problems like poverty, poor health, illiteracy, criminal activities and even the war. Therefore, our democratic government should have the moral obligation to provide people with these needs. But unfortunately, although political parties have often been able to mobilize their constituencies during election time in the past, it should be fair enough to articulate that the elected representatives except few have professedly failed to fulfill their promises of bargaining social policies in favor of poorer section of society in policy making processes; instead bargaining has mostly been confined within chair sharing. As a result, larger section of people in the country has long been made obliged to beg for these things that belong to them in term of their rights.
We might argue that it is because of economic underdevelopment or slow economic growth that the state has been ineffective in guaranteeing these basic needs for its citizens; yet this is not sufficient explanation. Indeed, economic growth is enormously helpful in advancing living standards and in fighting poverty. But moreover, it is also necessary to understand that economic growth alone is not an end in itself but should be seen as an important mean for achieving things we value, because, economic growth does necessarily enhance our ability to improve our living standards. Hence we should understand that the impact of such growth on citizens depends greatly on what we do with the increased income, on how we use it to closing economic and social inequality and, what the government with the revenue it collects. In the past our governments have failed in investing in the social objectives and we have also already experienced the results in our social, economic and political spectrums.
Although, peace process and constitution writing are the two major tasks at present, whether Nepal’s democratic political system can refocus neglected public services is one of the most pressing questions facing the country. There is no doubt that the future politics of any political party or party leaders will also very much depend on to what extent they can orient their politics towards what they can do to improve peoples’ lives through public policies.
No doubt people have regularly lost faith in the capacity and political will of political parties to represent their interests. Despite their disenchantment with political parties, it is yet in the part of state and political parties that people in Nepal expect to represent their needs. Because, most people still think that it is the state that is responsible to provide them with the basic needs when they are asked, which in a way is good for political parties of Nepal. People expect the state and the political party in power to, deliver basic needs, remove poverty, generate jobs and incomes, remove inequalities within/across different groups, protect vulnerable, and the poor. Although we often talk about necessity of ensuring participation of ordinary citizens in decision making processes for democracy to be representative, we can be utopian and expect their direct participation of because of various reasons, so, it is again peoples’ representatives who should stand in for their citizens. But it will also depend on quality of political actors and the conditions under which such people-oriented policies and programs can be developed.
When the government and political parties fail to link mediate citizens’ needs to institutions, their popularity goes down and even the legitimacy of democracy declines. Consequently, people even feel like seeking prospects in authoritative enclaves as in the case of ex-King Gyanendra’s taking over of power that generated huge euphoria among people for solution of the problems facing them.
The avatar of the kind of democracy we have experienced so far has largely been ineffective in delivering to peoples’ needs but has created so many other socio-economic and political problems. Hence, the future of democracy in Nepal can be ensured by establishing substantive democracy – may the concerned actors work towards this end.
Nepal adopted the liberal democracy after the political change in 1990 that was based on sets of civil and political rights, participation based on justice, free and fair election, good governance, free media, and civic participation. We gave emphasis on importance of democratic institutions, modernization, and economic development for reaching the ends of establishing democracy in the country. In the similar line, some limited efforts were made towards diffusing of power and weakening the relative power of the executive machineries by strengthening legislative and judiciary institutions of government. And decentralization was viewed and encouraged as the effective political programme.
There is no doubt that the country had more democratic political space for opposition parties and independent civil society as well as regular elections and democratic constitutions after the political change in 1990; but is also an undeniable fact that these all were characterized by exclusion of citizens, poor representation of citizens’ interests, abuse of power and law by political party leaders, government officers and people with power. Consequently, people of Nepal were disempowered and they lost confidence in the state institutions. Even elections held so far failed to produce far less than what people had expected. In other words, the so called ‘democratic system’ that was in practice did not deliver on its ideals. And various measures (many structural adjustment programs) undertaken to deal with the maladies under the system, also remained ineffective.
Even after the political change of 2006, our focus has mostly been on institutions building as if institutions are the only way for developing a democratic and more prosperous nation. Of course, building institutions and civic and political rights, rule of law, free media, free and fair election etc. are essential for democracy. But, the experiences of Nepal and elsewhere in the third world countries have well indicted that peoples’ incapacity to make use of these rights and institution has all failed them to rip the benefits of the system. These institutions and rights have been mostly misused by the people in power to rule over powerless citizenry; hence, linking citizenry to these institutions and making them enabled to exercise their civic and political rights is a precondition and urgent task with Nepal’s political parties and other actors for democratic system to serve broader population in the country. Sad enough though, Nepal’s local institutions have been long delinked with people.
Our focus has been primarily on form not in substance despite the fact that Nepal has already failed to establish substantive democracy after 1990. In the pretext when various political parties of Nepal hold huge disagreements on the future form of governance and it is going to remain as one of the most significant issues to be finalized in order for writing the new constitution, suggestion can be made that all political parties can and should at least agree on developing a ‘Substantive Democracy’ in the country – the kind of democracy in which people are supposed to be given respect as human beings. In other words, ordinary citizens should be provided with basic needs (food, clothing, water, sanitation, education), which can make sure for them lead their lives with dignity. To this end, provision of basic needs should be held as the fundamental rights of ordinary citizens.
No one would disagree on vital issues of basic needs as the minimal conditions of life and all people want their basic needs met. Hence basic needs are necessary to be guaranteed first in order for anyone to pursue any other goals. When people lack access to these needs, we have experienced that it can drive to the problems like poverty, poor health, illiteracy, criminal activities and even the war. Therefore, our democratic government should have the moral obligation to provide people with these needs. But unfortunately, although political parties have often been able to mobilize their constituencies during election time in the past, it should be fair enough to articulate that the elected representatives except few have professedly failed to fulfill their promises of bargaining social policies in favor of poorer section of society in policy making processes; instead bargaining has mostly been confined within chair sharing. As a result, larger section of people in the country has long been made obliged to beg for these things that belong to them in term of their rights.
We might argue that it is because of economic underdevelopment or slow economic growth that the state has been ineffective in guaranteeing these basic needs for its citizens; yet this is not sufficient explanation. Indeed, economic growth is enormously helpful in advancing living standards and in fighting poverty. But moreover, it is also necessary to understand that economic growth alone is not an end in itself but should be seen as an important mean for achieving things we value, because, economic growth does necessarily enhance our ability to improve our living standards. Hence we should understand that the impact of such growth on citizens depends greatly on what we do with the increased income, on how we use it to closing economic and social inequality and, what the government with the revenue it collects. In the past our governments have failed in investing in the social objectives and we have also already experienced the results in our social, economic and political spectrums.
Although, peace process and constitution writing are the two major tasks at present, whether Nepal’s democratic political system can refocus neglected public services is one of the most pressing questions facing the country. There is no doubt that the future politics of any political party or party leaders will also very much depend on to what extent they can orient their politics towards what they can do to improve peoples’ lives through public policies.
No doubt people have regularly lost faith in the capacity and political will of political parties to represent their interests. Despite their disenchantment with political parties, it is yet in the part of state and political parties that people in Nepal expect to represent their needs. Because, most people still think that it is the state that is responsible to provide them with the basic needs when they are asked, which in a way is good for political parties of Nepal. People expect the state and the political party in power to, deliver basic needs, remove poverty, generate jobs and incomes, remove inequalities within/across different groups, protect vulnerable, and the poor. Although we often talk about necessity of ensuring participation of ordinary citizens in decision making processes for democracy to be representative, we can be utopian and expect their direct participation of because of various reasons, so, it is again peoples’ representatives who should stand in for their citizens. But it will also depend on quality of political actors and the conditions under which such people-oriented policies and programs can be developed.
When the government and political parties fail to link mediate citizens’ needs to institutions, their popularity goes down and even the legitimacy of democracy declines. Consequently, people even feel like seeking prospects in authoritative enclaves as in the case of ex-King Gyanendra’s taking over of power that generated huge euphoria among people for solution of the problems facing them.
The avatar of the kind of democracy we have experienced so far has largely been ineffective in delivering to peoples’ needs but has created so many other socio-economic and political problems. Hence, the future of democracy in Nepal can be ensured by establishing substantive democracy – may the concerned actors work towards this end.
No comments:
Post a Comment