Debate on Model Of Democracy
Yuba Nath Lamsal
Is and can there be a single model of democracy in the world? This nagging question has come to the mind of every conscious citizen in the present day Nepal more than ever before. This is so especially after different political parties made their views public regarding the model of political system in New Nepal, which is in the offing.
Nepal is in the process of constitution writing. The new constitution would not only end a major political issue that had been pending for more than a half century. The extensive debate on the forms and contents of the constitution and other issues like structure of the government is necessary. Against this background, the debate is natural. But the way the issue has been over blown by the parties does not seem very much sensible.
All existing major political forces in Nepal have one thing in common that they would accept the western type of multi-party democracy as the political system. Under this western pluralist democracy, there are different models. But there is no fundamental difference in substance. So there should not have been so many hue and cries on this issue.
This was not an issue in the past as the traditional parties had adopted 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 this Westminster model of democracy, parties’ candidates are elected to parliament and the people’s representatives elect the prime minister, who becomes the executive head. As Britain has monarchy, and the monarch acts as the head of state with no executive and other powers except defined by parliament. The similar system is in Japan. Since India is a republic, it has president as the head of state, whose role is mere ceremonial, is elected by an electoral college comprised of parliamentarians and members of the state legislative assemblies. But the French System and American System are different. In France, president is directly elected by the people, whereas prime minister is the one who enjoys majority in parliament. French president is the executive head of state, who, holds all powers and 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 minister in the United States and it has the provision of 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 the western democracy. But this is the debate on which of the existing models that are being practiced in the western world is best suited to Nepal’s new context.
If we go back to history, Nepal followed the British model of parliamentary system after political change in 1951 and also in 1990. It was natural to follow the British system as the conditions in both the countries were similar. The main logic behind adopting the British system is because both were monarchical countries. But the situation now is different after the abolition of monarchy in Nepal.
Let us now talk the position and views of different political system. The Nepali Congress, right from the beginning, is in favour of Indian model, on the basis of which it went to power several times in 60s, 90s and later. Ina way, the identity of the Nepali Congress is linked more with the parliamentary system of Indian model. Moreover, the presidential system of democracy was not possible in the past as Nepal had monarchy. With the abolition of monarchy, the debate has started on this issue prominently. But the Congress views is for the continuation of the parliamentary system of democracy with ceremonial president—the system which has perfect checks and balances to ensure smooth functioning of the democratic polity.
Even in the past when Nepal had monarchy, the CPN-UML had floated the idea that prime minister be directly elected by the people. The idea was not well received and supported by other political players especially the Nepali Congress. This idea did not gain currency in the past. Now the CPN-UML has come up with the proposal of presidential system in Nepal like the one in the United States of America, where there is no prime minister. However, CPN-UML has not made this an issue, which means it would support any of the two systems, although its preference would the presidential one.
The Maoists are pushing for French model that has executive president directly elected by the people and the prime minister to be chosen by the parliament just for running the daily administration with no executive power. The Maoists are of the view that parliamentary system creates different power centers, 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, the Maoists floated this idea, the Nepali Congress came up heavy criticism dubbing this idea as a Maoist design to impose authoritarian regime.
Instead of wasting time in such cosmetic things, political parties should have spared more time to discuss whether an alternative model other than the existing ones can be found. Prior to 80s decade, socialism was the alternative political model in the world. There had been a stiff competition between the western capitalist democracy and eastern socialist model. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and socialist order in the Eastern Europe, the western capitalist democracy emerged as the only democratic political system that swept across the world. Politically, the western democracy is better as it guarantees individual’s liberty and civil and political rights. When it comes to the social, cultural and economic rights, the western democracies have miserably failed. In terms of social, cultural and economic rights and opportunities, socialism is definitely works better than the western capitalist democracy. Thus, the focus of discussion should have been to find an alternative model that can guarantee both civil political as well as economic, social and cultural rights. In other words, socialist democracy can be a suitable model in Nepal’s context. This can be possible if 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 may be the form and model, it may not function well and address the issues if key political forces and leaders are not honest. We have a lot of examples in the world that leaders go to 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 as notorious dictators. Ferdinand Marcos was once a most popular leader and also an icon of democracy in the Philippines. After grabbing powers, Marcos became a name for a notorious dictator of the 20th century and ultimately overthrown by a popular revolution.
In the same way, provisions of 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, who is known among us as the mother of all dictators.
So it is not the form and model that guarantees democracy, freedom and development. But it is the intent of the political parties and their leaders that alone consolidate democracy and empower 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 is an example how propagators of parliamentary democracy themselves were not contended with its effectiveness and that there is always need for seeking a better form and model that serves the purpose in the interest of the people.
Is and can there be a single model of democracy in the world? This nagging question has come to the mind of every conscious citizen in the present day Nepal more than ever before. This is so especially after different political parties made their views public regarding the model of political system in New Nepal, which is in the offing.
Nepal is in the process of constitution writing. The new constitution would not only end a major political issue that had been pending for more than a half century. The extensive debate on the forms and contents of the constitution and other issues like structure of the government is necessary. Against this background, the debate is natural. But the way the issue has been over blown by the parties does not seem very much sensible.
All existing major political forces in Nepal have one thing in common that they would accept the western type of multi-party democracy as the political system. Under this western pluralist democracy, there are different models. But there is no fundamental difference in substance. So there should not have been so many hue and cries on this issue.
This was not an issue in the past as the traditional parties had adopted 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 this Westminster model of democracy, parties’ candidates are elected to parliament and the people’s representatives elect the prime minister, who becomes the executive head. As Britain has monarchy, and the monarch acts as the head of state with no executive and other powers except defined by parliament. The similar system is in Japan. Since India is a republic, it has president as the head of state, whose role is mere ceremonial, is elected by an electoral college comprised of parliamentarians and members of the state legislative assemblies. But the French System and American System are different. In France, president is directly elected by the people, whereas prime minister is the one who enjoys majority in parliament. French president is the executive head of state, who, holds all powers and 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 minister in the United States and it has the provision of 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 the western democracy. But this is the debate on which of the existing models that are being practiced in the western world is best suited to Nepal’s new context.
If we go back to history, Nepal followed the British model of parliamentary system after political change in 1951 and also in 1990. It was natural to follow the British system as the conditions in both the countries were similar. The main logic behind adopting the British system is because both were monarchical countries. But the situation now is different after the abolition of monarchy in Nepal.
Let us now talk the position and views of different political system. The Nepali Congress, right from the beginning, is in favour of Indian model, on the basis of which it went to power several times in 60s, 90s and later. Ina way, the identity of the Nepali Congress is linked more with the parliamentary system of Indian model. Moreover, the presidential system of democracy was not possible in the past as Nepal had monarchy. With the abolition of monarchy, the debate has started on this issue prominently. But the Congress views is for the continuation of the parliamentary system of democracy with ceremonial president—the system which has perfect checks and balances to ensure smooth functioning of the democratic polity.
Even in the past when Nepal had monarchy, the CPN-UML had floated the idea that prime minister be directly elected by the people. The idea was not well received and supported by other political players especially the Nepali Congress. This idea did not gain currency in the past. Now the CPN-UML has come up with the proposal of presidential system in Nepal like the one in the United States of America, where there is no prime minister. However, CPN-UML has not made this an issue, which means it would support any of the two systems, although its preference would the presidential one.
The Maoists are pushing for French model that has executive president directly elected by the people and the prime minister to be chosen by the parliament just for running the daily administration with no executive power. The Maoists are of the view that parliamentary system creates different power centers, 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, the Maoists floated this idea, the Nepali Congress came up heavy criticism dubbing this idea as a Maoist design to impose authoritarian regime.
Instead of wasting time in such cosmetic things, political parties should have spared more time to discuss whether an alternative model other than the existing ones can be found. Prior to 80s decade, socialism was the alternative political model in the world. There had been a stiff competition between the western capitalist democracy and eastern socialist model. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and socialist order in the Eastern Europe, the western capitalist democracy emerged as the only democratic political system that swept across the world. Politically, the western democracy is better as it guarantees individual’s liberty and civil and political rights. When it comes to the social, cultural and economic rights, the western democracies have miserably failed. In terms of social, cultural and economic rights and opportunities, socialism is definitely works better than the western capitalist democracy. Thus, the focus of discussion should have been to find an alternative model that can guarantee both civil political as well as economic, social and cultural rights. In other words, socialist democracy can be a suitable model in Nepal’s context. This can be possible if 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 may be the form and model, it may not function well and address the issues if key political forces and leaders are not honest. We have a lot of examples in the world that leaders go to 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 as notorious dictators. Ferdinand Marcos was once a most popular leader and also an icon of democracy in the Philippines. After grabbing powers, Marcos became a name for a notorious dictator of the 20th century and ultimately overthrown by a popular revolution.
In the same way, provisions of 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, who is known among us as the mother of all dictators.
So it is not the form and model that guarantees democracy, freedom and development. But it is the intent of the political parties and their leaders that alone consolidate democracy and empower 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 is an example how propagators of parliamentary democracy themselves were not contended with its effectiveness and that there is always need for seeking a better form and model that serves the purpose in the interest of the people.
Comments
Post a Comment