SPEAKING
FREELY Nepal: Put the politics
first By Gyan Basnet
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please
click hereif you are interested in
contributing.
Fracturing within
and among the political parties of Nepal has been
a common phenomenon for over half a century, but
recently the practice has exceeded all reasonable
limits. Today, lack of a common vision among the
political parties and their leaders, together with
social divisions in the name of ethnic or regional
politics, indicate that they are embarking on a
path that is far from certain.
The
developments of the last few years demonstrate
that Nepal's
political parties are in
the midst of serious internal crises. If the major
parties break apart the stage is left for ethnic
and regional party politics to take over. The
established political parties are suffering grave
internal disputes and the resultant power
struggles are building towards a mighty explosion.
The recent example of the United Communist
Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-Maoist) split, with
the Mohan Vaidya faction breaking off its
relationship with the mother party and declaring
itself a new party called Communist Party of
Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist), is a clear indication
of this.
Recent feuds also within the
Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist and
Leninist as well as within the Nepali Congress
party, where Janajati and Madhesi (ethnic and
regional) leaders have threatened to quit if their
parties do not accept ethnic-based federalism, are
yet more profound examples of the same.
The phenomenon seems set to continue.
Strong political parties are of paramount
importance for open, competitive, democratic
politics, particularly in emerging democracies
such as theirs. All democracies demand strong and
sustainable political parties that have the
capacity to represent the people and to provide
choices that underline their ability to govern for
the public good.
In their context, though,
all the mainstream political parties are
experiencing internal party feuds and have
developed cracks from within. Factionalism has
become a normal phenomenon in the country, and
their newly established democracy suffers greatly
because of it. Indeed, that very democracy may
itself be in serious danger if the political
parties cannot re-define their attitudes, space
and manifestos and learn to serve the people
better.
Parties seem simply to accept the
facts: they neither look for rational reasons, nor
do they take seriously the possible consequences.
Should they not start to ask questions? Why are
their major parties being torn apart? Who is to
blame? Are the internal feuds driven purely by
political and ideological motives, or are the
splits caused by something else? Answers to these
questions must be urgently sought to establish
sustained and fair party politics in their
country.
Reasons and
Consequences The political parties are
among the most crucial of national institutions
for the promotion and consolidation of democratic
norms and values. In their many forms, they should
not merely contest elections, but should on a
continuous basis mobilize and organize social
forces that energize the democracy. In Nepal's
context, however, the reality on the ground is
much more complex. Nepalese politics and the
political parties themselves suffer from
gutbandi and kripabad: (fraction and
favoritism) most importantly they suffer from a
culture of deep-seated greed for power.
Over time political parties everywhere do
split and re-form. Politics do polarize. It is the
essence of democracy. However, in their context it
would appear to have been happening for over seven
decades not so much for ideological or even
rational reasons, but because of personal hunger
for power among the leaders and, most importantly,
disagreement in len-den (the ill practice of give
and take) between them. The Nepalese political
parties seem to be guided less by principles and
convictions and more by power grabbing in order to
serve their own petty interests. A recent split in
the UCPN-Maoist, for example, would appear to have
had less to do with ideology and rational reasons,
and more to do with personal conflict and the
sharing of power and resources. Such splits are
easily attributable to a moral vacuum in their
politics.
The practice of these splits
within and among the political parties is
responsible for a severe weakening of the nation
state, of its democracy, and of its political
stability. It is a disease that affects South
Asian politics in general, but in Nepal it is more
visible.
Nepal has over 70 years of
experience of political parties, but it still
suffers from nepotism, favoritism and excessive
corruption.
There is little to prove that
anything much has been learned from the many years
of experience. Party politics should essentially
be about serving the people, but never has there
been a serious interaction between their people
and the political parties or their leaders. In
many cases even a single family or clan sets the
agenda for the whole party. In the political
process, the wishes of the people should be
providing the principal guidelines for action, but
the political parties have deceived their people
so often that they feel that the politicians have
no further interest in them beyond their votes.
Pulling politics back from the
brink The parties need to remember that if
the political party system weakens, democracy
itself weakens, and with it society as a whole.
Political parties are the backbone of any
democracy. They provide the means to achieve the
desired social goals, and without them democracy
has no meaning. It is partisan politics that puts
flesh on the democratic process and
institutionalizes its ideals. Thus excessive
factionalism and splits within and among the
political parties without rational justification
may defeat democracy itself. Since the nation may
pay a huge price for this, it is vital that they
pause now and seek to establish value politics as
an extremely urgent priority.
Firstly, to
improve party politics, the parties themselves
must encourage greater participation in open
debates on all important issues. Nothing should be
secret in a democracy. Open, competitive, and fair
participation in a framework of legitimate,
credible party institutions enables citizens and
groups to defend their interests, to act on issues
that they care about, and to hold their leaders
accountable for their decisions. Such
institutions, enlivened by contention among
socially rooted interests, can moderate conflict,
convert demands into public policy backed by a
working consensus, and earn legitimacy.
Secondly, promoting inner democracy and
inner morality within each party is first
essential in their country. Leaders need to show
quality and commitment to good causes, and fair
debate and regular elections to change the
leadership within the party are also vital. In
politics, as in any walk in life retirement gives
opportunities for a new generation with energy and
ideas to represent the changed needs and
sentiments of the people.
Thirdly, there
is an urgent need for greater transparency in the
funding of the political parties in Nepal. They
clearly need money to plan and implement their
manifestos, to mobilize support, to compete, and
to perform their democratic functions. Yet,
political money and those who donate it are widely
seen as problematic - at times, even, as a threat
to democratic stability. People ask how leaders
have become "fat cats" overnight? Is it not time
to ask themselves and them about their sources of
income? Is it not time to investigate?
Finally, the aim should be to establish a
fully-fledged democracy. As in all social
institutions, there are good and bad people, good
and bad leaders. Bad leaders must be discarded at
all levels, and the politics of gutbandi
stopped. A political party cannot gain strength by
flexing its muscles in the street, but by
committing itself to workable policies and plans,
to gaining the loyal support of its members, and
above all to earning the trust of the people.
Excessive practices of favoritism and factionalism
do no good for a party, and they do no good for an
emerging democracy such as theirs. Most
importantly, party politics must not be hijacked
by a handful of party bosses as appeared to happen
during the final days of our Constituent Assembly.
Party politics in Nepal must, therefore, be freed
from the faria (pocket) of a few leaders.
Justice, fairness, national and group
identity, good leadership, and healthy politics
are essential elements of democracy. The political
process must reflect all these elements as it
strives to advance social values while regarding
the interests of the people as being of paramount
importance. It is time for their leaders in Nepal
and all who care about the future of their country
to take these issues seriously, to listen to the
people carefully, and to do their utmost to pull
the country back from the brink of a possible
catastrophe.
Dr Gyan Basnet, who
holds a PhD and an LLM degree in international
human-rights law at Lancaster University, UK, is a
columnist, researcher in international
human-rights law and a human-rights and
constitutional law lawyer in the Supreme Court and
subordinate court of Nepal. He can be reached at
gyanbasnet@aol.com.
Speaking Freely
is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest
writers to have their say.Please
click hereif you are interested in
contributing. Articles submitted for this section
allow our readers to express their opinions and do
not necessarily meet the same editorial standards
of Asia Times Online's regular contributors.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
