Revolution and democracy

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Revolution is change and so is democracy. Democracy and revolution are inseparable. Democracy always has scope for change, reforms and innovation, which is also called democratization process. If change and innovation are restricted, democracy ceases to exist. Perpetual changes and continuous reforms and innovation make democracy vibrant, well-functioned and progressive. Democracy is the product of revolution and democracy alone keeps the torch of revolution alive. Resistance to change is status quo and attempt to undo the change is regression.

Nowhere in the world, is there perfect democracy. From the ancient Athenian democracy to present form of liberal system, a lot of change has taken place and much reforms and innovation effected in what we call democratic polity. Democratization is the continuing process that never comes to an end. The democratic system always leaves scope for change and innovation as and when it is required to suit the taste of time. It is with this process of change, reforms and innovation, democracy gets reformed and refined.

A true democrat is never opposed to change. Those who are opposed to change are often called conservative, orthodox, rightist and status-quoist. And people aspiring and advocating for change are revolutionary. But the world revolution and revolutionaries is often taken as a bad connotation in the definition of western capitalist or liberal democracy. In the lexicon of Western democracy, revolutionaries are often condemned as communists. But, in essence, communism is not against democracy. According to Marxism, communism is the most advanced social, economic and political system in which classes do not exist and it ensures classless society completely free from exploitation. Going one step further, communism is the global and stateless system in which the world will be a one single community of human being with no discrimination, which communist call as the highest form of democracy. But this is a utopian concept, which may not be possible in the foreseeable future.

The champions of western liberal democracy are often resistant to radical change and they want status quo. They seek change only within a set of political mechanism, which can be called as cosmetic change. In such a situation, people are not allowed to go beyond that political mechanism, which is contradictory of the notion and fundamental principle of democracy. Democracy should allow continuous change—change in policy, change in the political mechanism and even thinking. The world is changing so is human feeling. Democracy must respect the feelings, sentiments and choices of the people and it has to build a valid ground for that. However, in the present mechanism of liberal democracy, one is, often, not allowed to go beyond certain limits and boundaries the system has set. It may be justified to a certain extent as it does not allow going to the extent of degeneration. Any kind of attempt to go back to undo what has been done through revolution or in the process of evolution is counter revolution.  Counter-revolution attempts to deprive the people of their rights and deny change, reforms and innovation. Thus, any kind of counter revolutionary plans and plots must be checked well in time, which is necessary for the protection of people’s rights and overall interest of the society and the country. But forward march and reforms should by no means be restricted, be it either systemic change or simply cosmetic one. When society and system is decayed, it needs systemic or radical change out of which a brand new and innovative mechanism evolves. 

In the long history of human civilization, the world has seen both revolutions and counter revolutions of various forms and manifestations. As regard to the political system and its development in Nepal, there have also been many ups and downs—some are more tumultuous than others. We have seen both revolutions and counter revolutions. We have also experienced systemic as well as superficial changes ever since Nepal came into existence as a nation state, which have their own unique impact on Nepali society. But Kot Parva or Kot massacre deliberately planned by Jung Bahadur Rana, the founder of the 104-year Rana oligarchic rule, was the gravest one that totally turned the political course to a different direction. The Kot Parva put a brake on the political evolution in Nepal for over a century only to crumble in 1951 on the face of a popular revolution inspired by mainly India’s liberation movement. The collapse of Rana’s oligarchic regime ushered in a new democratic era in Nepal, which was a major systemic change in Nepal’s political history.

History tells us that there were several implosions within the system even prior to Kot Parva and also after. As feudal political system in general and monarchical one in particular survives and thrives on intrigues, Nepali monarchy’s fundamental objective was to divide different clans and groups under the conspiracy theory. Such a theory least works only in open and democratic society and system.  During the Rana’s oligarchic dispensation, there had been some plots devised by certain groups within the Rana clans and groups under the system. But those initiatives could hardly bring about any change in the regime and impact on the society because they were not meant for systemic change but just to consolidate power and position by a certain group, family and clan and individuals. The only organized effort to bring about the systemic change in Nepali political spectrum was the anti-Rana revolution behind which was the force of political and democratic consciousness.  It was a cause that brought all people together, no matter whatever political orientation and leaning they might have belonged to and also it garnered international recognition and support.

Yearning for change is human. It is the human nature to see change. Only the desire for change and reforms lead the society towards progress. Nepalese people too are always desirous for change—positive and progressive change. It is this fundamental human instinct that has brought about major changes in the world including Nepal. And this is the same human instinct and mass psychology that heralded 1951 systemic change in Nepal’s politics, thus, making the people masters of their own destiny for the first time in history. But this tempo of change was hardly maintained and visualized by the leaders and rulers of Nepal, as a result of which the country had, at times, to suffer political regression.

Leaders, rulers and others who remain in the helms of public affairs must visualize the hunger for change that remains inherent in the heart and mind of the people and manage it accordingly. The political leader who visualize this and act in advance in accordance with the wish and demand of time, becomes a real statesman. Those who fail to feel the pulse of the people are ultimately dumped into the garbage of history and are subject to condemnation by the next generation, which is exactly the case in point as regard the political development of Nepal. In the case of Nepal’s history, there has, so far, none to be adored as a statesman. BP Koirala, the founder leader of the Nepali Congress, was close to becoming a statesman and by his intellect and international recognition, he deserved that status. However, he, too, failed to acquire that position because of some inherent weaknesses that was mainly seen during the time of national referendum in 1979. BP’s either unwillingness or failure to bring all forces that were opposed to the Panchayat regime or, to that matter the communists, under one umbrella of his leadership in a campaign for multi-party system was primarily responsible for this. His communist phobia largely played the role as the dissidents remained disintegrated whereas Panchayat centralized and concentrated all its strength and efforts, ethical or otherwise, against the multi-party supporters. As a result, Panchayat was declared the winner.

But the Ganesh Man Singh later succeeded where BP had failed. Singh in 1989 realized that it might not be possible to overthrow the tyrannical Panchayat and institutionalize people’s desire for change without the collective efforts of the anti-Panchayat forces and he brought together the Nepali Congress and the leftists in one place to spearhead the joint movement that overthrew the Panchayat. The Jana Andolan II was also the expression of the joint movement that not only restored once snatched rights of the people but also ushered in a republican era by abolishing feudal monarchy. This is a realization on the part of our leaders that people’s desire for change must be respected. However, in the aftermath of the 2006 mega change, parties and leaders have failed to keep this spirit going and political forces, whose unity played crucial role in bringing about the change, appear to be far apart when the time to institutionalize those gains has come. The November 19 verdict of the people is a message of people for unity among the change-maker political forces to institutionalize the changes and achievements of the people’s movements. In this backdrop, parties are expected to once again practically demonstrate larger and more meaningful unity to ensure that the gains of 2006 people’s movement are formally institutionalized by delivering a people' constitution.