Debate On Model Of Democracy
Yuba Nath Lamsal
Is there or can there be a single model of democracy in the world? This question has been nagging the mind of every conscious citizen in present day Nepal. This is so especially after the different political parties made their views public regarding the model of political system that a New Nepal should adopt in the future.
Extensive debate
Nepal is in the process of writing a new constitution. The new constitution is expected to end a major political issue that has been pending for more than half a century. For this, extensive debate on the form and content of the constitution and other issues like the structure of the government is necessary. Against this background, the debate that is raging is only natural. But the way the issue has been over blown by the parties does not seem sensible.
All existing major political forces in Nepal have one thing in common – to them the Western-style multi-party democracy as a political system is acceptable. Under this Western pluralist democracy, there are different models. But there is no fundamental difference in substance. So there should not have been so much hue and cry over this issue.
This was not an issue in the past as the traditional parties had adopted the parliamentary model of democracy that is in place in India and some other countries. This was borrowed from the British system after India got independence in 1947. In the Westminster model of democracy, the parties’ candidates are elected to Parliament, and the people’s representatives elect the prime minister, who becomes the executive head. As Britain has a monarchy, the monarch acts as the head of state with no executive and other powers except those defined by Parliament. A similar system has worked well in Japan also. Since India is a republic, it has the president as the head of state, whose role is ceremonial. The president is elected by an electoral college comprising of parliamentarians and members of the state legislative assemblies.
But the French and American system is different. In France, the president is directly elected by the people, whereas the prime minister is the one who enjoys majority in Parliament. The French president is the executive head of state, who wields all powers while the prime minister just runs the day-to-day administration. The United States has a presidential system. The president is directly elected and holds all powers in America. There is no system of prime ministership in the United States, and it has the provision of a presidential cabinet. These are some of the basic forms and models of Western democracy.
The existing debate in Nepal is not to find an alternative to Western democracy. Rather it is a debate about which of the existing models that are being practised in the Western world is best suited to Nepal’s new context.
Going back to history, Nepal followed the British model of parliamentary system after the political change in 1951 and also in 1990. The main logic behind adopting the British system was that both were monarchical countries. But the situation now is different as the monarchy has been abolished in Nepal.
Let us now talk about the position and views of the different political parties. The Nepali Congress, right from the beginning, has been in favour of the Indian model, on the basis of which it went to power several times - in the 60s, 90s and later on. In a way, the identity of the Nepali Congress is linked more with the parliamentary system of the Indian model. Moreover, the presidential system of democracy was not possible in the past as Nepal had the monarchy.
With the abolition of the monarchy, a debate has started on this issue. But the Congress is for the continuation of the parliamentary system of democracy with a ceremonial president - a system which has perfect checks and balances to ensure the smooth functioning of a democratic polity.
Even in the past when Nepal was a kingdom, the CPN-UML had floated the idea that the prime minister be directly elected by the people. The idea was not well received and supported by the other political players, especially the Nepali Congress. The CPN-UML has once again come up with the proposal of a presidential system as in the United States of America, where there is no prime minister. However, the CPN-UML has not made this an issue, which means it would support any of the two systems, although its preference would be for the presidential one.
The Maoists are pushing for the French model that has an executive president directly elected by the people and the prime minister to be chosen by the parliament for running the daily administration with no executive power. The Maoists are of the view that the parliamentary system creates different power centres, which may lead to perennial political instability and power tussle in Nepal. The provision of executive president alone would negate this type of power tussle in the country and ensure smooth functioning of the government for the specific period. No sooner had the Maoists floated this idea than the Nepali Congress came up heavily on them, dubbing the idea as a design to impose authoritarian regime.
Instead of wasting time on such cosmetic things, the political parties should have given more time to discussing whether an alternative model other than the existing ones can be found. Prior to the 80s, socialism was the alternative political model in the world. There had been stiff competition between Western capitalist democracy and the eastern socialist model. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist order in Eastern Europe, Western capitalist democracy emerged as the only democratic political system throughout the world.
Politically, Western democracy is better as it guarantees an individual’s liberty and civil and political rights. When it comes to the social, cultural and economic rights, Western democracies have, however, failed miserably. In terms of social, cultural and economic rights and opportunities, socialism definitely works better than Western capitalist democracy. Thus, the focus of discussion should have been on finding an alternative model that can guarantee both civil, political as well as economic, social and cultural rights to the people.
In other words, socialist democracy can be a suitable model in Nepal’s context. This can be possible if the political parties honestly implement their original policies. If we look at the original policies of the existing major political parties of Nepal, they are more socialism-oriented. But when it comes to practice, they have adopted ultra-capitalism. The communist parties, including the Maoists and CPN-UML, are in principle socialist whereas the official political doctrine of the Nepali Congress is still democratic socialism.
Whatever the form and model of democracy Nepal adopts, it may not function well if the key political forces and leaders are not honest. We have seen how leaders try to reach power with the slogan of democracy, people’s power and development. But once in power, they slowly forget their promises and finally end up being notorious dictators. Ferdinand Marcos was once a popular leader and also an icon of democracy in the Philippines. After grabbing power, Marcos became a corrupt, notorious dictator and was ultimately overthrown by a popular revolution.
In the same way, provisions in the constitution alone may not guarantee total democracy and freedom. If we look at the constitutions of the world, the Waimer constitution of Germany was the most democratic constitution of that time. However, this very constitution eventually gave rise to Adolf Hitler.
Intent
So it is not the form or model that guarantees democracy, freedom and development. It is the intent of the political parties and their leaders that alone will consolidate democracy and empower the people. Against this background, it may be worthwhile to quote former prime minister of Britain Winston Churchill, who way back in 1947, said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time". This shows how propagators of parliamentary democracy themselves were not happy with its effectiveness. There is always need for a better form and model that serves the purpose in the interest of the people.
Is there or can there be a single model of democracy in the world? This question has been nagging the mind of every conscious citizen in present day Nepal. This is so especially after the different political parties made their views public regarding the model of political system that a New Nepal should adopt in the future.
Extensive debate
Nepal is in the process of writing a new constitution. The new constitution is expected to end a major political issue that has been pending for more than half a century. For this, extensive debate on the form and content of the constitution and other issues like the structure of the government is necessary. Against this background, the debate that is raging is only natural. But the way the issue has been over blown by the parties does not seem sensible.
All existing major political forces in Nepal have one thing in common – to them the Western-style multi-party democracy as a political system is acceptable. Under this Western pluralist democracy, there are different models. But there is no fundamental difference in substance. So there should not have been so much hue and cry over this issue.
This was not an issue in the past as the traditional parties had adopted the parliamentary model of democracy that is in place in India and some other countries. This was borrowed from the British system after India got independence in 1947. In the Westminster model of democracy, the parties’ candidates are elected to Parliament, and the people’s representatives elect the prime minister, who becomes the executive head. As Britain has a monarchy, the monarch acts as the head of state with no executive and other powers except those defined by Parliament. A similar system has worked well in Japan also. Since India is a republic, it has the president as the head of state, whose role is ceremonial. The president is elected by an electoral college comprising of parliamentarians and members of the state legislative assemblies.
But the French and American system is different. In France, the president is directly elected by the people, whereas the prime minister is the one who enjoys majority in Parliament. The French president is the executive head of state, who wields all powers while the prime minister just runs the day-to-day administration. The United States has a presidential system. The president is directly elected and holds all powers in America. There is no system of prime ministership in the United States, and it has the provision of a presidential cabinet. These are some of the basic forms and models of Western democracy.
The existing debate in Nepal is not to find an alternative to Western democracy. Rather it is a debate about which of the existing models that are being practised in the Western world is best suited to Nepal’s new context.
Going back to history, Nepal followed the British model of parliamentary system after the political change in 1951 and also in 1990. The main logic behind adopting the British system was that both were monarchical countries. But the situation now is different as the monarchy has been abolished in Nepal.
Let us now talk about the position and views of the different political parties. The Nepali Congress, right from the beginning, has been in favour of the Indian model, on the basis of which it went to power several times - in the 60s, 90s and later on. In a way, the identity of the Nepali Congress is linked more with the parliamentary system of the Indian model. Moreover, the presidential system of democracy was not possible in the past as Nepal had the monarchy.
With the abolition of the monarchy, a debate has started on this issue. But the Congress is for the continuation of the parliamentary system of democracy with a ceremonial president - a system which has perfect checks and balances to ensure the smooth functioning of a democratic polity.
Even in the past when Nepal was a kingdom, the CPN-UML had floated the idea that the prime minister be directly elected by the people. The idea was not well received and supported by the other political players, especially the Nepali Congress. The CPN-UML has once again come up with the proposal of a presidential system as in the United States of America, where there is no prime minister. However, the CPN-UML has not made this an issue, which means it would support any of the two systems, although its preference would be for the presidential one.
The Maoists are pushing for the French model that has an executive president directly elected by the people and the prime minister to be chosen by the parliament for running the daily administration with no executive power. The Maoists are of the view that the parliamentary system creates different power centres, which may lead to perennial political instability and power tussle in Nepal. The provision of executive president alone would negate this type of power tussle in the country and ensure smooth functioning of the government for the specific period. No sooner had the Maoists floated this idea than the Nepali Congress came up heavily on them, dubbing the idea as a design to impose authoritarian regime.
Instead of wasting time on such cosmetic things, the political parties should have given more time to discussing whether an alternative model other than the existing ones can be found. Prior to the 80s, socialism was the alternative political model in the world. There had been stiff competition between Western capitalist democracy and the eastern socialist model. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist order in Eastern Europe, Western capitalist democracy emerged as the only democratic political system throughout the world.
Politically, Western democracy is better as it guarantees an individual’s liberty and civil and political rights. When it comes to the social, cultural and economic rights, Western democracies have, however, failed miserably. In terms of social, cultural and economic rights and opportunities, socialism definitely works better than Western capitalist democracy. Thus, the focus of discussion should have been on finding an alternative model that can guarantee both civil, political as well as economic, social and cultural rights to the people.
In other words, socialist democracy can be a suitable model in Nepal’s context. This can be possible if the political parties honestly implement their original policies. If we look at the original policies of the existing major political parties of Nepal, they are more socialism-oriented. But when it comes to practice, they have adopted ultra-capitalism. The communist parties, including the Maoists and CPN-UML, are in principle socialist whereas the official political doctrine of the Nepali Congress is still democratic socialism.
Whatever the form and model of democracy Nepal adopts, it may not function well if the key political forces and leaders are not honest. We have seen how leaders try to reach power with the slogan of democracy, people’s power and development. But once in power, they slowly forget their promises and finally end up being notorious dictators. Ferdinand Marcos was once a popular leader and also an icon of democracy in the Philippines. After grabbing power, Marcos became a corrupt, notorious dictator and was ultimately overthrown by a popular revolution.
In the same way, provisions in the constitution alone may not guarantee total democracy and freedom. If we look at the constitutions of the world, the Waimer constitution of Germany was the most democratic constitution of that time. However, this very constitution eventually gave rise to Adolf Hitler.
Intent
So it is not the form or model that guarantees democracy, freedom and development. It is the intent of the political parties and their leaders that alone will consolidate democracy and empower the people. Against this background, it may be worthwhile to quote former prime minister of Britain Winston Churchill, who way back in 1947, said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time". This shows how propagators of parliamentary democracy themselves were not happy with its effectiveness. There is always need for a better form and model that serves the purpose in the interest of the people.
Comments
Post a Comment