Crisis Is Part Of Politics
Yuba Nath Lamsal
Politics is never smooth sailing. Politics does not move in a straight line but takes numerous curves. Crisis is a part of politics, and crises surface and resurface. The triumph of a politician depends upon the knack and ability to overcome a crisis and be ready to face a new one.
The present crisis in Nepal is a part of politics, and should be taken in a normal and natural way. It is during crises that politicians and leaders are tested. This is more so in a democratic polity. Democracy is a political system that is particularly beset with crises and challenges.
Decisions must be made during a crisis taking the will and sentiment of the people into account. In a democracy, different ideologies and interest groups vie for an upper hand and pursue their own policies to woo the people. The policies of a party or group may be in sharp contradiction of the policies of the other parties. In such a situation, compromises have to be made taking the interest of the people and the country above their partisan and personal interests.
Difficult transition
The present crisis and problems in our country should also be viewed in this light. Nepal is currently passing through a difficult transition period, where the old system is being replaced by a new one. Some discomfort, confusion and crisis have surfaced because we are not accustomed to such a big transformation from an old feudal, monarchical and unitary system to a modern, republican and federal democracy. In this process, the old system has collapsed while the new one has yet to be institutionalised.
Democracy is the common concern and desire of the people for which all of us fought years and even decades. So we cannot go against the basic tenets of democracy. However, a debate is raging over the form and model of democracy. Different parties hold different views on democracy. In fact, democracy, as interpreted by former US president Abraham Lincoln, is the polity of the people (owned by the citizens); for the people (the system works for the general welfare of the people); and by the people (the system in which the government is popularly elected). This concept fits all manifestations and versions. But this definition is also interpreted by different people differently.
Democracy is a system that must cater to the fundamental needs of the people. An election is an important part of democracy. But elections alone do not guarantee genuine democracy. Even during the partyless Panchayat system, elections were held at all levels to allow the people to choose their representatives. But was the Panchayat a democratic system? The elections then were stage-managed to seek democratic legitimacy.
Democracy is also not rhetoric but a mechanism to deliver the goods. Perhaps, this is one of the most fundamental objectives of a democratic polity. But rhetoric is more common in the politics of the developing countries and emerging democracies, and not much emphasis is laid on efficiency and perfection on the delivery side.
A lot of questions are being asked in Nepal at present about the most suitable model of democracy that would deliver the goods under our unique conditions. A proportionate electoral system and inclusive governance are accepted norms in present-day politics, and these principles are already in practice in Nepal. The proportionate electoral system adopted in the Constituent Assembly election held three years ago ensured representation of all sections and sectors of the people on the basis of their population. As a result, the people feel a sense of ownership of the political system.
Similar is the case with governance. In principle, the inclusive system of governance was accepted, and efforts are being made to put it into practice. This is a system that guarantees the participation and share of all at all levels of decision-making and in the process. This provision has been incorporated in the constitution and also in the laws, which has aroused a new sense of political awareness among the people. Now people of all sections and sectors are raising their voice vigorously for their rights and share in governance and the political process, which was not there before. This is a positive aspect of our new found political system.
A recent case in which a newly appointed minister refused to participate in the swearing-in ceremony also needs to be analysed from the perspective of increased political awareness. Jayapuri Gharti, a Maoist lawmaker who was appointed Minister for Women, Children and Social Welfare, refused to take the oath of office to protest against not having at least 33 per cent women’s representation in the cabinet. This may have happened due to wrangling in the party or something else, but she has emerged as a champion of women’s cause, and her role was well appreciated by women activists.
Earlier, there was no provision of having at least 33 per cent women’s representation at all levels of government. It was the Maoist party that raised this issue and got it incorporated in the constitution as there was no opposition from the other political forces.
These issues are part of politicking. And they should by no means be taken as a real crisis. Without a crisis, a country cannot move ahead and will always remain stagnant. The tendency of seeking easy answers and solutions to problems and avoiding crises will not lead the country forward. World history has shown that only those countries that have passed through serious crises have prospered. Be it Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom or even our own immediate neighbours, they overcame the challenges and marched ahead on the path of development and prosperity.
No easy solution
Japan and Germany were virtually devastated in World War II, and they were forced to sign humiliating treaties by the victors. But in the post-war period, the humiliation inspired them to work hard, and they finally emerged as economic superpowers. Even India and China have had bitter experiences in the past. India remained a British colony for long and China, too, underwent a similar experience. But today these countries have emerged as big powers capable of challenging the dominant world powers.
Nepal, fortunately, never had any experience of war nor did it undergo any humiliation under external rule. So even a minor problem is taken as a big crisis. The present transition is, thus, being seen as a big challenge. In fact, it is a part of transitional politics and can be resolved easily in a democratic manner. For this, we need patience and the courage to tackle the crisis in a democratic way.
Politics is never smooth sailing. Politics does not move in a straight line but takes numerous curves. Crisis is a part of politics, and crises surface and resurface. The triumph of a politician depends upon the knack and ability to overcome a crisis and be ready to face a new one.
The present crisis in Nepal is a part of politics, and should be taken in a normal and natural way. It is during crises that politicians and leaders are tested. This is more so in a democratic polity. Democracy is a political system that is particularly beset with crises and challenges.
Decisions must be made during a crisis taking the will and sentiment of the people into account. In a democracy, different ideologies and interest groups vie for an upper hand and pursue their own policies to woo the people. The policies of a party or group may be in sharp contradiction of the policies of the other parties. In such a situation, compromises have to be made taking the interest of the people and the country above their partisan and personal interests.
Difficult transition
The present crisis and problems in our country should also be viewed in this light. Nepal is currently passing through a difficult transition period, where the old system is being replaced by a new one. Some discomfort, confusion and crisis have surfaced because we are not accustomed to such a big transformation from an old feudal, monarchical and unitary system to a modern, republican and federal democracy. In this process, the old system has collapsed while the new one has yet to be institutionalised.
Democracy is the common concern and desire of the people for which all of us fought years and even decades. So we cannot go against the basic tenets of democracy. However, a debate is raging over the form and model of democracy. Different parties hold different views on democracy. In fact, democracy, as interpreted by former US president Abraham Lincoln, is the polity of the people (owned by the citizens); for the people (the system works for the general welfare of the people); and by the people (the system in which the government is popularly elected). This concept fits all manifestations and versions. But this definition is also interpreted by different people differently.
Democracy is a system that must cater to the fundamental needs of the people. An election is an important part of democracy. But elections alone do not guarantee genuine democracy. Even during the partyless Panchayat system, elections were held at all levels to allow the people to choose their representatives. But was the Panchayat a democratic system? The elections then were stage-managed to seek democratic legitimacy.
Democracy is also not rhetoric but a mechanism to deliver the goods. Perhaps, this is one of the most fundamental objectives of a democratic polity. But rhetoric is more common in the politics of the developing countries and emerging democracies, and not much emphasis is laid on efficiency and perfection on the delivery side.
A lot of questions are being asked in Nepal at present about the most suitable model of democracy that would deliver the goods under our unique conditions. A proportionate electoral system and inclusive governance are accepted norms in present-day politics, and these principles are already in practice in Nepal. The proportionate electoral system adopted in the Constituent Assembly election held three years ago ensured representation of all sections and sectors of the people on the basis of their population. As a result, the people feel a sense of ownership of the political system.
Similar is the case with governance. In principle, the inclusive system of governance was accepted, and efforts are being made to put it into practice. This is a system that guarantees the participation and share of all at all levels of decision-making and in the process. This provision has been incorporated in the constitution and also in the laws, which has aroused a new sense of political awareness among the people. Now people of all sections and sectors are raising their voice vigorously for their rights and share in governance and the political process, which was not there before. This is a positive aspect of our new found political system.
A recent case in which a newly appointed minister refused to participate in the swearing-in ceremony also needs to be analysed from the perspective of increased political awareness. Jayapuri Gharti, a Maoist lawmaker who was appointed Minister for Women, Children and Social Welfare, refused to take the oath of office to protest against not having at least 33 per cent women’s representation in the cabinet. This may have happened due to wrangling in the party or something else, but she has emerged as a champion of women’s cause, and her role was well appreciated by women activists.
Earlier, there was no provision of having at least 33 per cent women’s representation at all levels of government. It was the Maoist party that raised this issue and got it incorporated in the constitution as there was no opposition from the other political forces.
These issues are part of politicking. And they should by no means be taken as a real crisis. Without a crisis, a country cannot move ahead and will always remain stagnant. The tendency of seeking easy answers and solutions to problems and avoiding crises will not lead the country forward. World history has shown that only those countries that have passed through serious crises have prospered. Be it Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom or even our own immediate neighbours, they overcame the challenges and marched ahead on the path of development and prosperity.
No easy solution
Japan and Germany were virtually devastated in World War II, and they were forced to sign humiliating treaties by the victors. But in the post-war period, the humiliation inspired them to work hard, and they finally emerged as economic superpowers. Even India and China have had bitter experiences in the past. India remained a British colony for long and China, too, underwent a similar experience. But today these countries have emerged as big powers capable of challenging the dominant world powers.
Nepal, fortunately, never had any experience of war nor did it undergo any humiliation under external rule. So even a minor problem is taken as a big crisis. The present transition is, thus, being seen as a big challenge. In fact, it is a part of transitional politics and can be resolved easily in a democratic manner. For this, we need patience and the courage to tackle the crisis in a democratic way.
Comments
Post a Comment