Nepal: Put the politics first
By Gyan Basnet :
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 email@example.com.
Published Date: Thursday, July 19th, 2012 | 06:33 AM