At a traffic light, a motorcyclist was informing someone over his phone that he had cancelled the planned protest for which he had already arranged 350 people. Apparently, the government had agreed to consider their demands. He also informed that the matter was already conveyed to Congress President Sushil Koirala and Vice-President Ram Chandra Poudel. Well, this is how demonstrations and protests are organized these days. Ordinary people now shun protests because they are disappointed with their leaders who have done nothing to improve their lives.
In the past, political leaders could mobilize people as volunteers to fight for freedom and justice. BP Koirala, Ganesh Man Singh and Madan Bhandari are examples of such leaders. But these days, protests can’t be arranged without hired protesters. Barring a handful of committed political workers, other people do not bother to show up. People now believe that current democratic leaders, just like the autocratic kings and hereditary prime ministers of the yore, are only interested in safeguarding their own interests. [break]
No party has a political leader with the charisma to rally the country around his/her vision. So each party—be it Nepali Congress or UCPN (Maoist), CPN-Maoist, CPN-UML, Rastriya Prajatantra Party or Madhesi forces—is packed with leaders who are continuously at loggerheads, trying to politically eliminate each other. Leaders who are unable to mobilize public support turn to goons to get the job done. It seems Nepal is driving toward a cliff in a fog. Insecurity and uncertainty have become pervasive.
The image of our political leaders has been tarnished, especially after the demise of the Constituent Assembly. The leaders could not write a new constitution owing to disagreements on important issues, including the nature of federalism. Nor could they agree on an election government under a political leader. So they had to install a bureaucratic government under the incumbent Chief Justice to organize the polls, flouting the time-honored principle of separation of power. These constitute major failings of Nepali leaders.
But there is no point crying over spilt milk. People want election. The leaders should have invested their energy and political capital to create the right environment for holding the polls on the stipulated November date. But that is not happening. The election schedule has become a political football. Every party and leader is trying to maneuver the ball to their advantage.
This is not what the Seven-Party-Alliance and the Maoists had committed to people in the famous 12-point agreement in 2005. They had promised to pursue peace and democracy through consensus. But they have long since forgotten the commitment. Especially the Maoists (both cash and dash) have failed to abide by their pledges by continuing to hold onto the dogma that only violence can deliver their goals. The recent call by CPN-Maoist to boycott Constitution Assembly election by destroying ballot boxes is a glaring example of this dogma. Faced with the prospect of defeat, the Maoists have always resorted to violence. This is the crux of the political problem in Nepal.
Democracy, the argument goes, curbs extremism due to its disciplined approach to governance. But this has not been the case in Nepal. Instead, even after the arrival of democracy, extremism continues to thrive. Sadly, almost all political leaders who came to power after 1990 have been mostly engaged in acquiring wealth and power for themselves and neglected their duty to people—creating jobs, providing security, and uplifting the downtrodden and vulnerable groups. Because of their petty personal interests, the leaders have driven a wedge between ethnic, religious and regional groups and sub-groups.
The division and concomitant acrimony has undermined peace and security and adversely affected development activities at a time when people are going through great economic hardships. They have serious doubts if the self-centered leaders can work towards political consensus and take concrete measures to write a new constitution, establish rule of law, provide relief to people and put Nepal on a growth trajectory.
People fought and made sacrifices to throw out the corrupt, inefficient and autocratic system and create a “New Nepal.” But now they have many more royals in the garb of political leaders. People are unhappy to find that political parties have turned out more corrupt than monarchy. The Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer 2013 makes it clear that the political sector is the most corrupt in Nepal.
While political leaders enjoy expensive foreign trips and sumptuous hospitality in faraway lands, desperate flood victims have been crying for help in Nepal. They do not have time for the victims and do not appreciate former royal family members helping the needy. One leader went to the extent of threatening to throw former king Gyanendra into jail for helping victims, even though the ousted king has as much freedom to live, work and help the needy as any other Nepali citizen. Democracy is not only for political leaders, it is also for the former king and ordinary people.
When they were in power, the royal family members seldom assisted the victims of disasters. The sudden change of their heart does give room for suspicion that they may be trying to fish in troubled waters. But such apprehension is not enough to justify denying former royal family members their human rights and civil liberties guaranteed by the Interim Constitution. The former king could even form a political party and contest election. If the majority of people so decide, he could even be restored as king, though the possibilities for this are close to non-existent.
The royal family is itself responsible for the plight it now finds itself in. If it had been sincere about resolving the Maoist problem and to identify with the poor and downtrodden when they were in power, they might still have been ruling the country. But they were gripping a double-edged sword—engaging with the Maoists through interlocutors on one hand and calling them terrorists on the other.
This helped the Maoists become a major political force. But it would be wrong to say that they won a war against monarchy. Rather, it was the SPA which gave them a safe landing in democratic politics through the signing of the 12-point agreement. So the credit for the political change of 2006 does not go to the Maoists alone. Other political parties and people played a critical role as well. But the Maoists have misinterpreted history and used the mandate to divide the country along ethnic, religious and regional lines.
Although the Maoist ploy has substantially torn the social fabric in Nepal, it has not completely torn it asunder. The Maoists of all stripes should understand that Nepali people will not tolerate a totalitarian state. For their long-term viability, they should rather concentrate their energy on building a strong democratic Nepal. Nepal’s future lies in a united march of all ethnic, religious and regional groups for the greater good. Nepal is and should remain a strong and beautiful mosaic of over 100 ethnic groups living in harmony, not as enemies.
Certainly, a nation thrives when its political and economic institutions are inclusive and fails when those institutions become extractive, concentrating power and opportunity into a few hands. Nepalis are desperate for leaders who possess such vision, who are committed to working for the nation, and who can win people’s confidence for economic and social progress within a democratic framework. Sadly, there is an acute shortage of such leaders.
The writer is former
foreign secretary
bhagirath_51@live.com
Related story
Buwa wins Ncell short film competition
_20240311121839.jpg)
_20220508065243.jpg)
