Democracy, national interest and political behavior

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Apologists of western liberal democracy call it the best political system in the contemporary world. They are of the view that divergent ideologies and ideas exist, grow, expand, flourish and contest in democracy, which sometimes lead to conflict causing even collateral damage. But, according to them, this system provides for a negotiated settlement to all problems, conflict and contradictions through dialogue and compromise. This is their half-baked logic. But it has some degree of truth as some sporadic cases and developments have exhibited so. But this is not always the case. Liberal democracy, which Marxist call as a capitalist or bourgeoisie democracy, provides provision for free speech, freedom of expression and competition in the name of periodic election. However, election alone does not guarantee genuine democracy and there are instances in the world that such systems sometimes give rise to notorious dictators, which have to be dumped in history’s waste bin through popular insurrections. There are countries which have had bitter experience of their electoral and political system that produced tyrants in the name of exercising democracy and adult franchise, which is the fundamental gauge of democratic system. Russia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey, Ukraine, Georgia, and the Philippines are some recent examples how they suffered dictatorship even though they exercised democracy and free election. Hitler rose out of Germany’s political system under Weimar constitution, considered to be by far the most democratic constitution in the world. Ferdinand Marcos was a popular and democratic leader in Ph8ilippines, who rose to power through popular and democratic election but turned into a tyrant after he rode to power. These are just a tip of iceberg as to how free election and democratic system produce dictatorship in the absence of proper mechanism of check and balance and specific provisions for accommodating dissenting voices including minorities.  The system to accommodate minorities of different manifestations in the political and decision-making system and governance is defined as inclusive or participatory democracy, which is the best approach to address the ills that democracy has faced in different developing countries at present.

Democracy is a political arrangement that should give representation to all section and sectors and address the concerns of all. Democracy is not merely an election and also should not be majority/minority phenomenon. In the present day liberal democracy borrowed from the West, winner or majority takes all whereas minority loses everything. Under this system, 51 per cent votes are declared winner, which decides in an arbitrary manner in which the voice and concerns of 49 per cent is rarely given any attention. The 49 per cent voters should also be given their share of representation in decision-making and governance, for which the inclusive and proportionate electoral system has been mooted and exercised. 

The need for proportionate election system and inclusive democracy arose as the political arrangement in the name of liberal democracy failed to manage and accommodate minorities. It is this failure that leads to conflicts of various kinds and nature. This is exactly what Nepal faced and has been facing as conflict germinated, grew and flared up in the past. Our leaders and political parties have still not learnt the lessons from the past and are still bogged down in mere power game ignoring the fundamental issues and concerns of the people and the country.

Democracy should be the system that is required to instill hope among the electorate for safer, better, brighter and more prosperous future. But that has not been the case in Nepal which has bred crises, conflict and confrontation in society. In order to win elections, politicians buy, bribe and still votes with money, muscle, cheap sloganeering and populist promises ignoring the long-term impact and costs of their actions, which sometimes get so complicated that they become chronic problems for future generation. 

Politics is vocation to serve the country and the people. Democratic system encourages and promotes competition among parties and individuals how best to serve the people. In this sense, politicians, leaders and parties are the genuine friends if not servant of the people. But in our case, leaders tend to boast themselves to be masters rather than friends of people, rule rather than serve and take care of their own, family’s, relatives’,  clique’s and party’s interest rather than the broader interest of the country and the people. That is the fundamental reason why Nepalese democracy has not taken deep roots and gets trampled in every short interval of time. Let us take a look into our own chequered  history of democracy and political development. Nepalese have to fight three crucial struggles for democracy as the people’s polity became victim of misrule of near-sighted and self-centric and party-centric politicians that gave rise to ambitious tyrants to trample democratic system. In 1961, king Mahendra crushed democracy, banned political parties, sent leaders behind bars and imposed his absolute regime. But people did not rise against this undemocratic action, which further encouraged the king to prolong his tight control over the country. Had the people come to streets against this move, the king would have been forced to immediately withdraw it and restore democracy. But nothing happened because people were fed up with the misrule and ugly wrangling among parties merely for power. The democratic period between 1951 and 1959 was the height of unique instability, frequent change of governments and mudslinging among leaders and parties that gave rise to public apathy out of which the king took advantage. Leaders failed to learn lessons even after the restoration of democracy in 1990 and again partisan interest ruled the roost where key parties confronted both on the streets and in parliament. The interest of the people and the country took a backseat whereas the interests of people in power, their clique, party and families got priority. This situation added more fuel to King Gyanendra’s ambition and the king again trampled democracy. Again people rose in the name of Maoists’ insurgency and peaceful popular movement of 2005-6 and established republican democracy. After the 2006 political change, it had been expected that leader and parties learnt lesson and changed their behavior and working style. It was, however, proved that habits die hard and leaders and parties continued to  function and behave in their old style. As a result of the leaders’ unpredicted and self-centric behavior and activities, Nepal has been in political transition for the last seven years since the political change in 2006. The Constituent Assembly was formed twice through democratic elections but the constitution has not yet been delivered and there is still no certainty that the country would get the new statute in any time soon. This is because parties’ failure to accord priority to the country and the people.

We got democracy and our institutions were not democratized. Out leaders working style, function, attitude and thinking have not been democratized. In our democratic system, leaders are acting in their undemocratic thinking and style, which has created contradictions and mismatch between rhetoric and action. This is the fundamental problem of our times. If democracy is to take a root, parties and leaders need to be democratized first and their action should be in compatible with the universal values, principles and spirit of democracy. Otherwise, authoritarian tendency will continue to rein the country. In the past we had a king and now we have several kings, which is the most unfortunate for the country. The present political deadlock in the country is the result of this tendency. If the country is to be relieved from the crisis, stalemate and problem, the leaders and parties are required to be democratic and accord higher priority to the country.