Culprit behind discrediting democracy

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Democracy, as a political system, has attracted global attention and interest in the present 21^st century. In other words, democracy has become a modern culture. One cannot deny democracy if one is to be regarded as the equal member of human society in the present context. But it remains to be seen what type of democracy we are really looking for.

This is the reason why democratic upsurge has swept all over the world forcing the dictators of various kinds to give in to the power of people.  This is how democratic society and regimes have been established in the world. The growing craze for democracy among the new generation of people has swept the world. As a result, many countries have adopted genuine democratic political or representative democracy. In some cases, rulers just try to give a kind of democratic façade to the regimes just to escape public rage and international criticism. But there is one stark reality the world has witnessed at present is the fact that despite such a marvelous global popular upsurge in the march for democracy, the genuine democratization process has yet to evolve in many of the countries especially in the developing world. This has given much room to argue whether liberal democracy that we have been advocating is best suited to be able to tackle the bourgeoning crises that the world is facing. It has been often argued that the capitalist democracy is not the political system that would ensure genuinely representative democratic system and society. Election is, of course, the basic tenet of representative democracy. But the electoral system is designed in such a manner that the election held under this system hardly represents and exhibits the genuine feelings and representation of the people in the political superstructure and decision-making apparatus.

Given the electoral system and its results in the recently held election, many are now of the view that election is being used as a tool to grab power by those who already wield power and control resources. In order to win elections, it is said, politicians bribe voters with promises and handouts either in the form of cash or other methods, which makes election as a vote buying machine.  But once the election is over, the entire promises are ignored and politicians get bogged down in power grabbing game in which people and the country figure the least. When one wins the election with money and muscle power, it is natural for him/her to ensure that he/she recovers the money spent during the election and also earns more in order to finance the next election. This makes the representatives to seek lucrative posts and positions and make money through legal or otherwise methods. Thus, the representatives tend to ignore the people and national issues and needs. As a result, corruption becomes pervasive and institutionalized and democracy becomes a profit-making venture for politicians and their collaborators. This is how the fundamental spirit of democracy has already died.

What has happened in Nepal at present is exactly the same. The election in Nepal is becoming expensive, which only the rich people can afford to contest. Now business people, corrupts and crooks are making speedy inroad into political parties because of the expensive election system. Even some politicians have acknowledged this fact and demanded reforms in electoral system in order to protect the sanctity of the election. CPN-UML Chairman Jhalnath Khanal and Nepali Congress central leader Gagan Thapa have publicly spoken on the need of electoral reforms to make election affordable and check money power.

According to knowledgeable people, the least amount spent on the election by each candidate of major party was five million. But some candidates may have spent up to 50 million. The monthly perk of a lawmaker is 74,000 rupees a month and a lawmaker would take home slightly over 60,000 rupees a month after deducting taxes, which means the legal income of a lawmaker will be less than three million in four years for which the lawmakers have been elected. The lawmakers would not be able to earn even the amount they spend during the election campaign. This compels the lawmakers to seek some other methods to recover their money spent in the election and also earn for the next election. Since this cannot be done through legal sources, politicians and leaders, therefore, siphon off the fund of development projects into their pockets and promote corruption. Thus, the very political and electoral system has indirectly encouraged corruption and made mockery of democracy. If the electoral system was not reformed, our democracy would be an oligarchy of a few people including businessmen and corrupt politicians.

However, some argue that this kind of system is a part of the capitalist democracy in which money plays greater role than the people. In Nepal, we are exercising and experimenting capitalist democracy in which such practices and procedures are normal phenomenon. This is the reason why our democracy is feeble and fragile. Since money, muscle and might play greater role in election and political process, people’s genuine causes take a back seat.

Once gone to power, one often tries to remain power for ever and personalize politics. As a result, institutional development takes a back seat even when the so-called democratic system is in place. The problem begins with the fear of losing power as out of power means out of access to resources. Parties and politicians, thus, resort to all kinds of tactics and method to retain power. This is the real culprit that has hindered the process of democratization and institutionalization of democracy in Nepal.

The other issue is the definition of democracy. The western countries often tend to have the authority to certify whether or not a particular political system is democracy. The western capitalist countries recognize only the political system and regimes that follow the capitalist model of liberal democracy. Any other political model that does not reconcile with the values and principles of western capitalist system is condemned as authoritarian and undemocratic system. So this ideological divide has also cost heavily on democracy and political systems in the world.

As the world is diverse with different countries having their own unique history, culture, traditions and value systems, they also have different perception on political model and governance. They have their homegrown and time-tested system that is more suitable to their country. In these countries, imposition of alien system and values in the name of democracy has often boomeranged.

In fact democracy is collective self-rule which implies that people oversee their affairs on the basis of collective consent. This is more possible in direct democracy which used to be practiced in ancient Athens. During the early days of democracy, Athenians would gather in the city center where they would collectively take decision on each and every issue of national significance. These decisions used to be binding for authorities and they had to implement without any question. In this self-functioning type of system or democracy, each electorate directly participated in the decision-making process and governance. This was called a direct democracy, which is the mother of democracy in the world.
With the march of time, the social fabric, demographic pattern and society itself underwent phenomenal change and transformation. With the demographic pressure, social structure and relations got complicated. The old systems that had been in practice for years, decades and centuries were replaced by the new and improvised ones to cope with the new changes in the social, political and cultural spheres and challenges as direct democracy is not possible in the present complicated world. This was later replaced by representative democracy in which people would choose their representatives through periodic election and the elected representatives would rule and decide on behalf of the people. This is the democracy we are practicing in the world at present.

The liberal democracy is being portrayed as the only legitimate political system of the people. The system of governance or liberal democracy was born and nurtured in the Western capitalist countries and was later put in test in other countries of the world, as well. Since it is their brain child, the Western countries champion, advocate and defend liberal democracy and try to establish and institutionalize it in the world as the best democratic system of governance. To them, any other form of political system challenging liberal democracy is tantamount to authoritarian system devoid of popular legitimacy. However, all other forms of system are not authoritarian and all political system based on Western political values alone may not necessarily signify genuine democracy.
Given the great debate going on in the global level, it seems that the dispute is focused not on the form and fashion of the political system but on values it champions. It is the clash between two value systems— the oriental and western values. In other words, the row is between individualism and collectivism and between the person and the community or society. The countries in the Western World are the advocate of individual rights and they have based quality and class of democracy on the level and extent of individual rights and freedom. However, the oriental countries focus more on community rights and interests than personal pursuit. This is the fundamental difference on the model and definition of democracy in the world.