Myths And Realities in Politics


Yuba Nath Lamsal
Myths do not always match with realities. Myths are created to mesmerize the general masses. Myth creation is more prevalent in religion and folk tales, in which a supernatural and a hidden power are created to either glorify someone and something or frighten and demonize someone. In recent days, politicians often create myth to adore themselves and vilify their rivals. This is more applicable in Nepal’s politics where our leaders portray them as the savior and their dissidents as devils.
If we look at the politics of Nepal over the last couple of decades, it is the politicians who have ruined the country and the system. In the name of democracy, politicians often defame democracy as it is being taken by leaders and parties as a means to serve their petty and personal interests. Democracy is people’s polity where voters have their decisive say in decision-making and other state of affairs. This is the system where rules and laws prevail. Thus, democracy is described as a political system in which rule of law is respected and accordingly merit is awarded and wrong doers are brought to book. As this is the polity of the people, the rulers make their entire efforts for common good and welfare of the citizens especially those belonging to the lower and downtrodden section of the society.
However, rulers have created enduring myths on democracy not only in Nepal but also in the entire world. It has been widely perceived in most of the Third World countries that the rule of law is being turned into the law of the rulers. As a result, the universally accepted norms and virtues of genuine democracy have vanished whereas the rules and norms determined by the rulers to protect their class interests have ruled the roost in the modern day democracy. The rulers often dub democracy and capitalism as the natural partners. According to the ruling elites, democracy functions and prospers only in capitalism or the political system and set up which is capitalism friendly. The electoral laws, policies and system are such that they always favor the ruling elites dominated by a handful of capitalists and bourgeoisie. The system other than capitalism or its allies do not qualify to be a democratic system in the dictionary of capitalists and imperialists. In the capitalists’ lexicon, communism or socialism are tyrannical systems simply because these systems do not act in tune with the interest of the capitalist elites but work for the larger mass especially the workers, proletariats and peasants.
Democracy is also class-based. The definition of democracy depends upon who is going to define it. For the rich, feudal, rulers and capitalists, one must be capitalist or its allies to be recognized as a democratic. To qualify to become democracy, the system must protect the interests of a few handful of feudal, landlord, capitalists, imperialists and the ruling elites. This is the fundamental rule in the present world dominated by capitalists. On democracy, Vladimir I Lenin has said: “In the capitalist system, democracy is always hemmed in by the narrow limits set by capitalist exploitation, and consequently always remains, in effect, a democracy for the minority, only for the propertied classes, only for the rich. Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners. Owing to the conditions of capitalist exploitation, the modern wage slaves are so crushed by want and poverty that “they cannot be bothered with democracy”, “cannot be bothered with politics”; in the ordinary, peaceful course of events, the majority of the population is debarred from participation in public and political life.” According to Lenin, genuine democracy is the system in which larger mass comprising workers, peasants and proletariats have control in the state affairs, which, in other words, is called socialist or communist system. But the advocates of western capitalist democracy disagree with what Lenin or his followers have said about democracy. According to the supporters of liberal democracy, they call the system Lenin has described as genuine democracy or communism/socialism a tyrannical system with power being centralized in the hand of a person or the chief of a communist party and opposition are summarily suppressed.

The politicians, political pundits and their followers have often confused the people on what democracy is and what constitutes democracy. This is being done deliberately because only confused people cannot make a right decision. If people are better informed, they make informed choice, which may necessarily be at the interest of the elites and aristocrats whose interest often matches with capitalists and clashes with the general mass comprising poor, peasants and proletariats. There are clearly two distinct sets of definition and schools of thoughts about democracy and political ideology in the world. One school of thought propagates individual liberty and freedom of choice as the fundamental tenets of democracy. Under this definition fits the Western concept of liberal democracy which prophesies individual liberty and freedom of choices. In contrast, the advocates of Marxist political theory are of the view that the individual liberty and free choice are secondary components of democracy but the primary constituents of democracy are the right to life and right to development which alone enables citizens to make an informed choice and compete in political race.
In the defence of their avowed political ideology and philosophy, politicians and political theorists have created myths. But these myths of unnecessary glorification has ultimately dug graveyard for the system they intend to champion and glorify. The world has seen that the communist or socialist regimes all over the world have faced a serious setback as there is no single country in the world that may be taken as an example for the successful socialist or communist state. Similar case is with the capitalist democracy. The capitalist or western liberal democracy is also not successful either. The capitalist system itself is in deep crisis and this crisis is further intensifying. With the crisis in the capitalist system, the capitalism-backed political system or the western liberal democracy, too, is heading towards crisis. All myths being created in the name of liberal democracy are being shattered with people building popular wave of resistance against the vices of liberal or capitalist democracy.
In Nepal, too, similar crisis is visible as there is a fierce clash between the supporters of liberal democracy and communist/ socialist philosophy. But both of them have agreed that the traditional approaches are not going to work in Nepal—be it Marxism or liberal democracy. The Jana Andolan II was the confluence of these two philosophies that blended to give birth to a new system and political approach. The political forces that had long been advocating parliamentary system namely the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML agreed to go little beyond that to embrace a mix of system that has qualities of both liberal democracy and Marxist philosophy. The radical communists or the Maoists, too, gave up some of their radical agendas of establishing one-party communist state and agreed for a multi-party competitive political system. This was how an amicable outlet was given to the decade-long political crisis as a win-win solution to both the old parliamentary parties as well as new and revolutionary force.
But the problem has remained as it was left after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). This is because our political parties are capable of pursuing the agenda but are unable to institutionalize them when it comes to their turn to settle. There is an inherent mistake in the parties’ ability and intention in institutionalizing the achievements of the popular movements and revolution and genuinely empowering the people. Every time after the success of the political movements and revolutions, parties utterly fail to formalize the achievements of the popular upheavals. Parties and leaders often fantasize democracy and raise people’s expectations in a way it becomes difficult for the parties to manage them after the movement. Parties describe democracy as the prescription of all ills. As a result, people soon get frustrated to find the leaders and parties unable to deliver what they had earlier promised. In fact, democracy is the rule of law and basic system to deliver goods to the people especially to those belonging to lower strata of the society. Myth creation about democracy and incompetence of our leaders are what has failed our new found political set up in every interregnum. This happened in 1951, in 1990 and 2006. The parties and politicians created myths about republican democracy and raised people’s expectations so high in Jana Andolan II that they have not been able to manage them now. This is one of the reasons for their failure to institutionalize the achievements of Jana Andolan II and conclude the ongoing political process to the best satisfaction of the people. This is time for the parties to stop fantasizing the republican system and democracy but tell the people the truth that the act of nation-building should start from the scratch for which people’s partnership and their say are more important than anything else.




Comments