Need to learn lesson from history
By Yuba Nath Lamsal
In this 21st century, there is no alternative to the liberal democracy. All other forms of political systems have failed to deliver. The multi-party democracy appears to be the only political system that has so far proved to be better than others. But its degree of success depends upon the level of awareness and education of the people and sense of accountability of the political parties and the politicians.
The history of liberal democracy in Nepal is over 28 years. That means Nepali democracy is younger than Indian democracy by just four years. India attained independence in 1947 along with democratic political system. Nepal was also liberated from the Rana’s oligarchic rule in 1951. If we compare with other countries in South Asia, Nepali democracy should be older than other democracies in South Asia except Indian democracy. When Nepal entered into a democratic era, Bangladesh had not even been born.
Given the 58 years of history, Nepal’s democracy should have been mature and strong like that of India and other countries in the world. Unfortunately, it could not happen so. It came under continued threat from anti-democratic forces. The Nepalese political parties and people could not safeguard democratic polity from the onslaught by dictatorial elements. As a result, Nepal over the last 58 years after it first had the taste of democracy came under despotic and dictatorial rule more than 35 years. Even now democracy is not stable and there is a perceived threat from anti-democratic elements. Now this is high time to evaluate why Nepali democracy could not be stable even when Nepalese people fought three decisive struggles and established democracy in 1950, 1990 and 2006.
If we look at the democratic developments in South Asia, we can arrive at certain conclusion why democracy always wavered in Nepal whereas it has been stable and lively in its immediate neighbourhood in the south. Indian democracy continued to be practiced at the grassroots level. The leaders and rulers had unflinching commitment to democracy and they never let the anti-democratic forces to step into politics and influence Indian political system. Some western political pundits have often cited the economic prosperity and level of education as major prerequisites for the sustenance and development of democracy. However, India has proved these thoughts wrong. Despite poverty, Indian democracy has been vibrant that has earned the reputation of world’s largest democracy. One reason could be that Indian leaders, who came to the mantle of power after independence, were educated in Britain where democracy had taken a deep root and democratic culture had already been developed as a way of life. The Indian leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, who were educated in Britain, had been deeply influenced by the democratic culture and way of life and they were, right from the beginning, cautious about the elements that could have posed threat to democracy. Such anti-democratic elements were discouraged right from the beginning.
At the same time, the partition was also a cause of the stability of Indian democracy. The partition of India was a painful experience. But the anti-democratic force and elements that create instability were kept at bay. The Islamic fundamentalism is a big threat to democracy and India got rid of that element in the name of partition. With the partition, the Islamic fundamentalism went along with Pakistan, which has been a migraine not only for Islamabad but for the whole world. Pakistani democracy has also not been stable and the military and fundamentalist elements have always been the threat to Pakistani democracy. Fortunately, India could avoid this element. Similarly, the Indian leaders were so visionary that they had always kept the anti-democratic elements at bay. The Indian leaders developed a strong mechanism to keep the military away from politics. As a result, the Indian democracy has been stable and functioning.
Nepal should have learnt from Indian practice and system. Although the level of education and awareness among the people in Nepal was not different from that of India, the level of awareness, education and intelligence among Nepalese leaders was and is far lower than that of Indian leaders. Nepali leaders could not visualize the possible threat to democracy as Indian leaders did and acted accordingly. The Nepali leaders, although we have no doubt about their commitment to democracy, were often immature and short-sighted. The democratic and revolutionary leaders always aborted the movements in compromise. Even after the success of the democratic movement, the leaders entrusted the dictators with the responsibility of protecting and safeguarding new found democracy. It was something like trusting the wolf to protect the life of a deer.
When the democratic movement was in its pinnacle in 1950, some of the Nepali Congress leaders rushed to negotiate with the Rana rulers and accepted the Rana Prime Minister, against whom the entire movement had been targeted, as the leader of the new coalition cabinet that was to be formed. This is where the Nepali leaders had made mistake in 1950. Had the movement been allowed to continue for a few more days or weeks, the scenario would have been completely different and the situation of conspiracy would not have arisen. This compromise gave enough room for the reactionary and anti-democratic elements to realign and regroup. Moreover, the leaders especially the Nepali Congress leaders including BP Koirala trusted the king so much and made the monarchy powerful which later came out to be a disaster in Nepali democratic movement. The monarchical system is a symbol of feudalism, which can never be a democratic institution. The Nepali Congress failed to understand this. As a result, democracy was trampled by the kings and the Nepali parties had to fight against the monarchical dictatorship that was finally made a history in 2008.
The history was repeated in 1990 as well. When the movement had reached a decisive moment, the leaders of the Nepali Congress and the United Left Front reached an agreement with the then king Birendra that restored the multi-party political system. The parties again made a mistake by allowing the monarchy to continue. If the movement had been continued for more days, the monarchy would have been abolished and a Nepal would have been a republic right in 1990. Had the monarchy been abolished in 1990, we would not have to suffer another monarchical dictatorship imposed by Gyanendra.
The Nepali leaders were so innocent that they could not foresee the danger and the threat from the monarchy and they trusted the kings as the patron of the constitution and democracy and symbol of national unity, which was the historic mistake Nepalese political parties and leaders made. And Nepalese people are now paying the price of those mistakes.
Even today, parties and leaders do not appear to have learnt lessons from their past mistakes. The recent incident regarding the army is evident that our parties do not learn lesson from history. The army is an institution that should never be politicized. Once politicized, army will always have influence in politics, which is not in the interest of the nation and democracy. The Maoists tired to politicize the army but failed as they were soon out of power. It was good that army was not dragged into politics. The army should be kept as professional fighting force strictly under the control of the civilian government. In this state of transition, political parties have to learn lessons from the history and experiences and practices of our neighbours so that our democratic system would not again slip out of hands.
In this 21st century, there is no alternative to the liberal democracy. All other forms of political systems have failed to deliver. The multi-party democracy appears to be the only political system that has so far proved to be better than others. But its degree of success depends upon the level of awareness and education of the people and sense of accountability of the political parties and the politicians.
The history of liberal democracy in Nepal is over 28 years. That means Nepali democracy is younger than Indian democracy by just four years. India attained independence in 1947 along with democratic political system. Nepal was also liberated from the Rana’s oligarchic rule in 1951. If we compare with other countries in South Asia, Nepali democracy should be older than other democracies in South Asia except Indian democracy. When Nepal entered into a democratic era, Bangladesh had not even been born.
Given the 58 years of history, Nepal’s democracy should have been mature and strong like that of India and other countries in the world. Unfortunately, it could not happen so. It came under continued threat from anti-democratic forces. The Nepalese political parties and people could not safeguard democratic polity from the onslaught by dictatorial elements. As a result, Nepal over the last 58 years after it first had the taste of democracy came under despotic and dictatorial rule more than 35 years. Even now democracy is not stable and there is a perceived threat from anti-democratic elements. Now this is high time to evaluate why Nepali democracy could not be stable even when Nepalese people fought three decisive struggles and established democracy in 1950, 1990 and 2006.
If we look at the democratic developments in South Asia, we can arrive at certain conclusion why democracy always wavered in Nepal whereas it has been stable and lively in its immediate neighbourhood in the south. Indian democracy continued to be practiced at the grassroots level. The leaders and rulers had unflinching commitment to democracy and they never let the anti-democratic forces to step into politics and influence Indian political system. Some western political pundits have often cited the economic prosperity and level of education as major prerequisites for the sustenance and development of democracy. However, India has proved these thoughts wrong. Despite poverty, Indian democracy has been vibrant that has earned the reputation of world’s largest democracy. One reason could be that Indian leaders, who came to the mantle of power after independence, were educated in Britain where democracy had taken a deep root and democratic culture had already been developed as a way of life. The Indian leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, who were educated in Britain, had been deeply influenced by the democratic culture and way of life and they were, right from the beginning, cautious about the elements that could have posed threat to democracy. Such anti-democratic elements were discouraged right from the beginning.
At the same time, the partition was also a cause of the stability of Indian democracy. The partition of India was a painful experience. But the anti-democratic force and elements that create instability were kept at bay. The Islamic fundamentalism is a big threat to democracy and India got rid of that element in the name of partition. With the partition, the Islamic fundamentalism went along with Pakistan, which has been a migraine not only for Islamabad but for the whole world. Pakistani democracy has also not been stable and the military and fundamentalist elements have always been the threat to Pakistani democracy. Fortunately, India could avoid this element. Similarly, the Indian leaders were so visionary that they had always kept the anti-democratic elements at bay. The Indian leaders developed a strong mechanism to keep the military away from politics. As a result, the Indian democracy has been stable and functioning.
Nepal should have learnt from Indian practice and system. Although the level of education and awareness among the people in Nepal was not different from that of India, the level of awareness, education and intelligence among Nepalese leaders was and is far lower than that of Indian leaders. Nepali leaders could not visualize the possible threat to democracy as Indian leaders did and acted accordingly. The Nepali leaders, although we have no doubt about their commitment to democracy, were often immature and short-sighted. The democratic and revolutionary leaders always aborted the movements in compromise. Even after the success of the democratic movement, the leaders entrusted the dictators with the responsibility of protecting and safeguarding new found democracy. It was something like trusting the wolf to protect the life of a deer.
When the democratic movement was in its pinnacle in 1950, some of the Nepali Congress leaders rushed to negotiate with the Rana rulers and accepted the Rana Prime Minister, against whom the entire movement had been targeted, as the leader of the new coalition cabinet that was to be formed. This is where the Nepali leaders had made mistake in 1950. Had the movement been allowed to continue for a few more days or weeks, the scenario would have been completely different and the situation of conspiracy would not have arisen. This compromise gave enough room for the reactionary and anti-democratic elements to realign and regroup. Moreover, the leaders especially the Nepali Congress leaders including BP Koirala trusted the king so much and made the monarchy powerful which later came out to be a disaster in Nepali democratic movement. The monarchical system is a symbol of feudalism, which can never be a democratic institution. The Nepali Congress failed to understand this. As a result, democracy was trampled by the kings and the Nepali parties had to fight against the monarchical dictatorship that was finally made a history in 2008.
The history was repeated in 1990 as well. When the movement had reached a decisive moment, the leaders of the Nepali Congress and the United Left Front reached an agreement with the then king Birendra that restored the multi-party political system. The parties again made a mistake by allowing the monarchy to continue. If the movement had been continued for more days, the monarchy would have been abolished and a Nepal would have been a republic right in 1990. Had the monarchy been abolished in 1990, we would not have to suffer another monarchical dictatorship imposed by Gyanendra.
The Nepali leaders were so innocent that they could not foresee the danger and the threat from the monarchy and they trusted the kings as the patron of the constitution and democracy and symbol of national unity, which was the historic mistake Nepalese political parties and leaders made. And Nepalese people are now paying the price of those mistakes.
Even today, parties and leaders do not appear to have learnt lessons from their past mistakes. The recent incident regarding the army is evident that our parties do not learn lesson from history. The army is an institution that should never be politicized. Once politicized, army will always have influence in politics, which is not in the interest of the nation and democracy. The Maoists tired to politicize the army but failed as they were soon out of power. It was good that army was not dragged into politics. The army should be kept as professional fighting force strictly under the control of the civilian government. In this state of transition, political parties have to learn lessons from the history and experiences and practices of our neighbours so that our democratic system would not again slip out of hands.
Comments
Post a Comment