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
Post a Comment