Let Wisdom Dawn On Our Leaders
Yuba Nath Lamsal
Politics is the game of possibilities. All types of possibilities are explored and experimented in politics. It is thus said that there is neither a permanent enemy nor permanent friend in politics. In politics, strangers become bedfellows. Politicians make and change alliances to suit their personal and partisan interest. As politics is being guided more by personal and partisan interest and benefit, the era of principle-based politics seems to be over.
Mission for change
There were days when politics was a mission to change the society and lift the condition of the people. It was a period when politicians sacrificed their lives for a certain cause. If we are to take the names of such politicians in our own country, the list would be long. Tanka Prasad Acharya, BP Koirala, Ganesh Man Singh, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, Pushpa Lal, Manmohan Adhikari and Madan Bhandari are such personalities who championed a certain cause throughout their life and never compromised on their principle for personal gains. This culture has now become history.
These are the leaders that some of our political parties have regarded as their role model. BP Koirala was the founder of the Nepali Congress, who not only created the party but also gave a new political vision and thought for the country. Theoretically, BP’s vision is still the guiding principle of the Nepali Congress. However, in all practical sense, the Nepali Congress departed from BP’s vision and programmes long ago.
BP’s ideals and vision, Ganesh Man’s sacrifice and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai’s honesty no longer exist in the Nepali Congress. So it is with the CPN-UML. Pushpa Lal, Manmohan and Madan Bhandari are ideal persons in the CPN-UML. But this has been confined to the speeches of the leaders and documents of the party. Both the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML have degenerated politically and ideologically.
So far as the Maoist party is concerned, this party is yet to be tested in real politics. But their initial performance when they were in the government was not promising.
In the present era of globalisation and economic liberalisation, politics, too, is market-driven and demand-based. Like the market economy that is based on immediate and quick gains, politics has also been guided by the market. Or we can call it market politics which is demand-based. Politicians promise anything and everything that the voters demand, which are never met. The purpose of present-day politics is to go after power, make money and enjoy a luxurious life.
This is called political pragmatism or realism. Advocates of political realism are of the view that principle-based politics sounds good but does not fit into the politics of the modern age which is often guided by gains and losses. For the benefit of the party and leaders, they are willing to make any kind of alliance or strategy. They describe principle-based politics as being outdated, which is often rigid and conservative.
According to them, policies and strategies should be pragmatic enough to suit a particular period of time. It is this reason why the political parties are so undependable - they will do anything provided it suits the interest of their group and the party.
The present situation of Nepal is the result of this kind of mentality that is prevalent in our political circle. Power is the principle of the parties and politicians. This has been so well applied in present-day politics that it has given rise to the unprecedented crisis in Nepal’s political history. The political parties and politicians seem to be least bothered about the country and the people.
The parties have already demonstrated their incompetence by not being able to write the constitution in the two years prescribed - the period the interim constitution had specifically stated for writing the constitution. Instead of admitting their mistakes and apologising to the people for their failure, they did not hesitate to extend the life of the Constituent Assembly, through which they ensured their perks and position.
They extended the life of the Constituent Assembly by amending the interim constitution. Technically, this was legal as the elected representatives of the people took the decision. But what moral authority had they to change the constitution when they had failed to accomplish the job mandated by the people within a specific time? In other words, they had lost popular legitimacy to take such an important decision. The decision to extend the tenure of the Constituent Assembly was, therefore, illegal from the political standpoint. Instead of extending the term of the Constituent Assembly, a decision should have been taken to seek a fresh mandate, which would have been more legitimate and politically and morally correct.
In a democracy, going for a fresh election is the best and most legitimate option, against which no one can challenge politically. But the parties and leaders were afraid to face the election simply because they were not certain of their strength. Moreover, they had also lost moral authority to go to the people and ask the people to give them a fresh mandate.
Currently, they are enjoying power, perks and position, which they do not want to lose. If a fresh election were to be held, it is not sure that they would be able to retain their current strength. The Maoist party currently enjoys the position of the largest party. Similarly, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are the second and third largest parties, which have enjoyed power according to their strength.
Despite losing the election, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML have emerged winners so far as exercising power is concerned. The UCPN-Maoist is the loser in the present context despite being the largest political force as it has not been allowed to lead the government.
Although the parties have tacit agreement to give continuity to the present power equation, they have problems trusting one another. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are not willing to accept Maoist leadership of the government because they are afraid they would lose their hold on power forever. This fear is not based on ground reality. Had the Maoists wanted to do so, they would have tried that when they had led the government soon after the Constituent Assembly election. This is the bogey that the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML have been raising just to scare the international community.
Thus, the parties need to base their politics on ground reality. The Maoists are the largest party and have the legitimate right to lead the government. The mandate of the people is that the Maoists should lead the government and other parties should cooperate. This has to be accepted by the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML. The Maoists, too, need to allay the fears of the other parties and show that they are prepared to co-exist with them. This assurance must come from the Maoists not only in words but in action, too.
The present deadlock in the country is attributed to the crisis of trust among the parties. It is now the job of the parties to create an atmosphere of confidence so that all the political forces can cooperate and collaborate to complete the historic jobs of writing the constitution and concluding the peace process.
New era of consensus
What we need are the ability and willingness on the part of the political parties to rise above their partisan interest and work genuinely for the interest of the nation. If the parties are guided by national interest, the fear and suspicion that exist among the parties regarding the intention of the others would automatically be alleviated, and it would herald a new era of consensus and cooperation among the political forces of the country. Let us hope this wisdom would dawn on our leaders.
Politics is the game of possibilities. All types of possibilities are explored and experimented in politics. It is thus said that there is neither a permanent enemy nor permanent friend in politics. In politics, strangers become bedfellows. Politicians make and change alliances to suit their personal and partisan interest. As politics is being guided more by personal and partisan interest and benefit, the era of principle-based politics seems to be over.
Mission for change
There were days when politics was a mission to change the society and lift the condition of the people. It was a period when politicians sacrificed their lives for a certain cause. If we are to take the names of such politicians in our own country, the list would be long. Tanka Prasad Acharya, BP Koirala, Ganesh Man Singh, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, Pushpa Lal, Manmohan Adhikari and Madan Bhandari are such personalities who championed a certain cause throughout their life and never compromised on their principle for personal gains. This culture has now become history.
These are the leaders that some of our political parties have regarded as their role model. BP Koirala was the founder of the Nepali Congress, who not only created the party but also gave a new political vision and thought for the country. Theoretically, BP’s vision is still the guiding principle of the Nepali Congress. However, in all practical sense, the Nepali Congress departed from BP’s vision and programmes long ago.
BP’s ideals and vision, Ganesh Man’s sacrifice and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai’s honesty no longer exist in the Nepali Congress. So it is with the CPN-UML. Pushpa Lal, Manmohan and Madan Bhandari are ideal persons in the CPN-UML. But this has been confined to the speeches of the leaders and documents of the party. Both the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML have degenerated politically and ideologically.
So far as the Maoist party is concerned, this party is yet to be tested in real politics. But their initial performance when they were in the government was not promising.
In the present era of globalisation and economic liberalisation, politics, too, is market-driven and demand-based. Like the market economy that is based on immediate and quick gains, politics has also been guided by the market. Or we can call it market politics which is demand-based. Politicians promise anything and everything that the voters demand, which are never met. The purpose of present-day politics is to go after power, make money and enjoy a luxurious life.
This is called political pragmatism or realism. Advocates of political realism are of the view that principle-based politics sounds good but does not fit into the politics of the modern age which is often guided by gains and losses. For the benefit of the party and leaders, they are willing to make any kind of alliance or strategy. They describe principle-based politics as being outdated, which is often rigid and conservative.
According to them, policies and strategies should be pragmatic enough to suit a particular period of time. It is this reason why the political parties are so undependable - they will do anything provided it suits the interest of their group and the party.
The present situation of Nepal is the result of this kind of mentality that is prevalent in our political circle. Power is the principle of the parties and politicians. This has been so well applied in present-day politics that it has given rise to the unprecedented crisis in Nepal’s political history. The political parties and politicians seem to be least bothered about the country and the people.
The parties have already demonstrated their incompetence by not being able to write the constitution in the two years prescribed - the period the interim constitution had specifically stated for writing the constitution. Instead of admitting their mistakes and apologising to the people for their failure, they did not hesitate to extend the life of the Constituent Assembly, through which they ensured their perks and position.
They extended the life of the Constituent Assembly by amending the interim constitution. Technically, this was legal as the elected representatives of the people took the decision. But what moral authority had they to change the constitution when they had failed to accomplish the job mandated by the people within a specific time? In other words, they had lost popular legitimacy to take such an important decision. The decision to extend the tenure of the Constituent Assembly was, therefore, illegal from the political standpoint. Instead of extending the term of the Constituent Assembly, a decision should have been taken to seek a fresh mandate, which would have been more legitimate and politically and morally correct.
In a democracy, going for a fresh election is the best and most legitimate option, against which no one can challenge politically. But the parties and leaders were afraid to face the election simply because they were not certain of their strength. Moreover, they had also lost moral authority to go to the people and ask the people to give them a fresh mandate.
Currently, they are enjoying power, perks and position, which they do not want to lose. If a fresh election were to be held, it is not sure that they would be able to retain their current strength. The Maoist party currently enjoys the position of the largest party. Similarly, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are the second and third largest parties, which have enjoyed power according to their strength.
Despite losing the election, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML have emerged winners so far as exercising power is concerned. The UCPN-Maoist is the loser in the present context despite being the largest political force as it has not been allowed to lead the government.
Although the parties have tacit agreement to give continuity to the present power equation, they have problems trusting one another. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are not willing to accept Maoist leadership of the government because they are afraid they would lose their hold on power forever. This fear is not based on ground reality. Had the Maoists wanted to do so, they would have tried that when they had led the government soon after the Constituent Assembly election. This is the bogey that the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML have been raising just to scare the international community.
Thus, the parties need to base their politics on ground reality. The Maoists are the largest party and have the legitimate right to lead the government. The mandate of the people is that the Maoists should lead the government and other parties should cooperate. This has to be accepted by the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML. The Maoists, too, need to allay the fears of the other parties and show that they are prepared to co-exist with them. This assurance must come from the Maoists not only in words but in action, too.
The present deadlock in the country is attributed to the crisis of trust among the parties. It is now the job of the parties to create an atmosphere of confidence so that all the political forces can cooperate and collaborate to complete the historic jobs of writing the constitution and concluding the peace process.
New era of consensus
What we need are the ability and willingness on the part of the political parties to rise above their partisan interest and work genuinely for the interest of the nation. If the parties are guided by national interest, the fear and suspicion that exist among the parties regarding the intention of the others would automatically be alleviated, and it would herald a new era of consensus and cooperation among the political forces of the country. Let us hope this wisdom would dawn on our leaders.
Comments
Post a Comment