Democracy in disarray

By Dr. Hari Bansha Dulal & Stefano Foa

While India marks two and a half years since the orderly transfer of power from BJP to a Congress-led alliance, elsewhere in the subcontinent democracy is in disarray. In Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf is resorting to reckless political adventurism to save his quasi-dictatorial regime, and, according to newspaper reports, which began to surface in August, making tacit power-sharing deals with former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. In Bangladesh, the military retains indefinite leave to supervise the political process, following years of insurmountable polarization between the centre-right Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the centre-left Awami League (AWL). Meanwhile in Nepal, constituent assembly elections, scheduled for late November, are now threatened by a 22-point list of demands from the Maoists and criminal activities of groups such as Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha -Jwala Singh and Goit factions and Madhesi Mukti Tigers (MMT). Pahadis in the Tarai are repeatedly intimidated, extorted, and are pushed to a position whereby they have no options but to leave the Tarai.

So how has India managed to maintain the steady plod toward democratic consolidation, while regional neighbors have stumbled into anarchy and arbitrary rule? While a number of factors differentiate India from nearby countries, a key indicator of the health of democracy in India today is the emergence of a new civic culture, with a new wave of participation in voluntary associations, public debate, and social activism. Indeed, commentators such as Yogendra Yadav, co-director of the Programme for Comparative Democracy in New Delhi, have gone as far as to describe this as a 'second democratic upsurge'. Electoral participation in India, for example, now hovers at around 60 per cent, from only 45.7 per cent during the first elections in 1952. Second, participation in other forms of civic activism has also remained robust, with studies such as the World Values Surveys, conducted in the region since 1990, showing a consistent majority of Indians affirming their willingness to sign a petition or attend a peaceful demonstration for an issue about which they hold an opinion. Third, citizens in India are increasingly attuned to public affairs, as evinced from the fact that the number of radios per capita in India is roughly double the level in Bangladesh, Pakistan, or Nepal. Per capita newspaper circulation, meanwhile, stands at three times the rate of Sri Lanka - a country with a substantially higher literacy rate. Fourth, attitudes to democracy are also more favorable in India. According to a 2004 poll conducted by Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, a majority of Indians express satisfaction with the 'way democracy works', compared to less than a third of Nepalis or Pakistanis. Indians also attach far greater loyalty to their democratic institutions, with less than a third expressing a preference for 'a strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament or elections', in contrast to a majority of Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis, and Nepalis.

How has this broader, more participatory form of political life emerged from the wreckage of the Congress system? Academics such as Ashutosh Varshney, of the University of Michigan, attribute the reworking of India's civic fabric to the rise of caste-based politics among the 76.6 per cent of India's population estimated by the Mandal Commission to be members of the scheduled castes, tribes, and other backward classes. The first upshot of this new political development, for example, is that it has prevented religion from becoming the primary basis of electoral mobilization, with the popular appeal of the BJP restricted to predominantly middle-class groups from the North, who share their distaste for caste empowerment. India has therefore avoided the worst forms of the 'resacralization' of the public sphere that have occurred in neighboring states, where state religions have been declared in Pakistan in 1973, Bangladesh in 1988, and is still being debated in Sri Lanka. Due to its inability to cut across the caste divide, the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) has reached a ceiling at 20-25 per cent of the popular vote, which prevents it from achieving a parliamentary majority, and thereby replicating the bygone hegemony of the Indian National Congress. Meanwhile, by forcing Congress into a social coalition with the caste parties, Indian politics has been realigned along cross-cutting socioeconomic issues, rather than a strictly secular-religious dichotomy.

Avoiding the breakdown of secularism that has swept across South Asia in recent decades, India has averted the sectarian disorder of Bangladesh, the renewed insurgency of Sri Lanka, or putatively secular military interference, as in Pakistan. Incidents such as the 1984 Golden Temple invasion, or the Gujarat Violence of 2002 may have been destabilizing, but are less likely to funnel up into the political process once religion has become only one dimension of political competition, alongside caste and class.

The emergence of caste politics also offers a rationale for understanding why India's civic life has managed to flourish despite widespread poverty, illiteracy, and malnutrition. For as caste movements began to splinter away from Congress juggernaut, they have appealed to a new strata of economically mobile individuals among the scheduled castes and Other Backward Castes (OBCs), who in turn have benefited from stricter quota policies. The upward movement by members of these hitherto marginalized groups has generated a greater general sense of social mobility, and in turn the citizen interest in politics, electoral participation, and strengthened legitimacy of the political system. As economist Deepak Nayar remarks, in India those "who are excluded by the economics of markets are included by the politics of democracy". As a result, contemporary India is characterized by the curiosity of being one of the few democracies in which the poor vote in larger proportions than the rich, the less educated more than graduates, and the villages more than the cities.

Can India's democratic consolidation have lessons for other South Asian countries? Perhaps. The first would be that once political mobilization takes place along vertical lines - that is, between the elites and masses of one religion or ethnicity and against those of another - the potential for organized violence and civic disruption are greatly amplified. Measures to inhibit sectarian competition, such as the decision last year by the Nepali Parliament to rescind Hinduism as the country's state religion, are necessary steps in this direction. The second lesson would be that caste politics need not be a disruptive force in South Asian politics: a distinction must be made between the mobilization of the lower castes into political life (whose unsettling manifestations may include participation of OBCs or Dalits in anti-Muslim violence), and the emergence of caste-based politics and ideology, which may instead moderate the tendency of these groups toward sectarian identities. Third, and perhaps most importantly, India's remarkably civic transformation shows that it is possible for a pro-democratic, civic culture to develop in South Asia before the arrival of a broad urban middle class - so long as groups are mobilized into politics for the sake of issues of distribution and empowerment, rather than identity or culture. This finding has consequences well beyond the South Asia region, and can likewise inform political developments in fledgling new democracies such as South Africa, Kenya or Peru, where democratic competition also revolves around the struggle by socially excluded groups for representation and recognition.

After sixty years of democratic practice, and twenty years of contentious affirmative action policies, Indian democracy has survived in the face of guerrilla insurgencies, religious riots, and simmering international tensions, and in the process developed a deeper civic culture. The strangely enduring quality of India's political institutions has been summarized by leading historian Ramachandra Guha, who remarks that India's founding fathers 'planted a sapling of democracy that has grown into a tree', such that while 'later people who came after them can disturb the tree, can lop of a branch here and there' nonetheless 'the tree stays intact.' In other South Asian countries, on the other hand, this same seedling of democracy has been repeatedly uprooted by the military, trampled down by rioters, or scorched by the flames of guerrilla insurgency. Yet the Indian example shows that the sap can grow tall, even if planted in the soils of poverty and illiteracy, so long as it is hedged in by policies that promote the alignment of political competition around the distribution of goods, rather than priority of gods.

Bhutanese Refugees: Trapped and Tantalized

It’s been more than one-and-half decades since the first group of refugees reached eastern Nepal from Bhutan। However, their collective sufferings resulting from the tragedy of forced exile continue unabated; they have no way of knowing what their situation will be from one day to the next. With respect to land, they lost the possessions that gave meaning and dignity to life and their personal history.

The forceful mass expulsion of Nepali speaking Lhotshampa of southern Bhutan by the Drukpa regime is a living example of state sponsored apartheidism। The Lhotshampas became sacrificial lamb because economically well-off, better educated, and freedom loving Lhotshampa were an eminent threat to Drukpa regime’s autocratic aspirations. However, in a desperate move to annul the threat to his autocratic regime, former King Jigme exhibited a worst form of guardianship by chasing the very people he was supposed to protect as a monarch.

Even after languishing in refugee camps in eastern Nepal for more than a decade and half now, Bhutanese refugees cannot stop thinking about returning home। Although their decade long battle for the right to return home has not borne any fruit, they have not given it up altogether. The hope of being home someday has kept them going.

India, the regional power house and closest ally of Bhutan, has so far shirked its responsibility in solving the Bhutanese refugee problem by calling it a bilateral issue between Nepal and Bhutan. However, everyone, including Bhutanese refugees themselves, knows the key to voluntary repatriation of Bhutanese refugee problem rests in New Delhi.

Indian government is indirectly obstructing the rightful repatriation of Bhutanese refugee by shirking its responsibility in solving Bhutanese refugee issues। As Bhutan is India’s closest ally in South Asia and has always blindly toed Indian line at the United Nations and other forums, India does not want to upset Bhutan King’s aspirations for autocratic regime by pushing for rightful repatriation of Bhutanese refugees in Nepal.

Bhutanese refugees have witnessed 15 tumultuous years pass by and 15 rounds of talks held between the Nepalese and Bhutanese government fail. Nepal has failed, miserably, to force Bhutan to accept its people. The time is ripe for some hard talks. Nepal should put Bhutan on the spot and ask if it is going to take back its citizen or not. If yes, when? Nepal should push for definite time line. The refugees cannot and should not continue to stay in the camps for long. Bhutanese refugees deserve much more than the mere enjoyment of Convention rights in exile.
In addition, the Nepalese government has two options: it can do what the Ivory Coast did or express the inability to pressure Bhutan and thereby ask Bhutanese refugees to explore the option of resettlement in third-world countries। During the influx of Liberian refugees in 1989, President Félix Houphouët-Boigny set such an example by declaring the refugees from Liberia as “brothers in distress” and refused to warehouse them in camps. He asked his people to accept them as a part of the Ivorian society. Let those willing to accept local integration be part of a Nepalese society. If we do not have that big of a heart and courage to do what Félix Houphouët-Boigny did in Ivory Coast, lets stop showing Bhutanese refugees false dreams. The 15-year of diplomatic efforts have already shown that with India on Bhutan’s side, Nepal will not be able to score decisive victory and pressure Bhutan into repatriation of refugees.

The warehousing of Bhutanese in refugee camps in eastern Nepal has not contributed to anything। Instead, it has increased idleness and dependency of Bhutanese refugees, which in itself, is a violation of human rights. Warehousing these men and women that have an ability to change the face of any nation is a denial of rights and a waste of humanity.

Nepal should put up a bold face and acknowledge once and for ever that we are not able to help our brothers in distress। Given the limited prospects for return to Bhutan in the foreseeable future, Bhutanese refugees should be asked to explore other viable options. In a scenario whereby local integration may not be desired by most of the Bhutanese refugees and voluntary repatriation does not seem to be happening in the foreseeable future, what options are left? For Bhutanese refugees languishing in refugee camps in eastern Nepal resettlement in third countries may be, in fact, the best—or perhaps, the only—alternative. Bhutanese refugee leaders should be extremely cautious and should not allow this problem to go unsolved any longer for their personal political gains. The settlement in third-world countries is not the best option, as no place is dearer than one’s birth place, but is far better than a foreign land whereby one is forced to spend dependent and idle life at the mercy of relief agencies. Furthermore, if the problem remains unsolved much longer, it will fall off the radar screen of the international community into an Orwellian memory hole. Bhutanese leaders should not ignore what is happening with Palestinian refugees languishing in refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon. Neglected by the international community, more than 750,000 Palestinian refugees who fled Israel in 1948 and who, along with their children numbering in the millions, are now forced to live uprooted lifes indefinitely.

Bhutan's foreign minister Khandu Wangchuk recent remark, “bringing back the "highly-politicized camp people" into Bhutan would mean importing ready-made-terrorists” clearly shows that Bhutan does not want to take back these refugees anytime soon। Refugee leaders should acknowledge the truth once and for all. With India on its side, Bhutan may, theoretically, continue its delay tactics forever. In turn, Bhutanese refugees warehoused in refugee camps may never again be able to see their land. As Israel will likely never accept Palestinian refugees who fled Israel in 1948, as acceptance would change Israel from a Jewish state into an Arab state, Drukpa regime may never accept forcefully evicted Lhotshampa. Accepting these forcefully evicted Lhotshampa will turn Bhutan in to a democratic state which is dead against the aspirations of the King and his cronies in Bhutan.

The Bhutanese refugee leaders should shun their future political ambition if necessary for the greater good of Bhutanese refugees। The western nations have pretty well studied the complexity surrounding the issue or else they would not be exhibiting their willingness to take Bhutanese refugees in their land. Western nations will not do anything that will displease emerging economic power house, India, which is on Bhutan’s side when it comes to the Bhutanese refugee issue. In addition, India’s overindulgence in Nepal’s internal political affairs has subtly threatened the careers of political leaders who dare to dissent on the Bhutanese refugee issue. Therefore, many politicians in Nepal are hesitant to openly criticize India’s reluctance in solving Bhutanese refugee crisis.

Bhutanese refugees should acknowledge the complications surrounding the issue and be ready to make painful decisions of settling in third-world countries। As far as democracy in Bhutan is concerned, the remaining Lhotshampa and democracy-loving Drukpas, if any, will sooner or later rise and defeat autocratic Drukpa regime. It’s just a matter of time. Ten, twenty, or thirty years is not long in the history of a nation. The leaders should think about the futures of the brave men and women and their families that dared to stand against Drukpa regime, which as a result, are now forced to live an idle and dependent life in refugee camps and be ready to make hard and painful decisions.

Bhutanese refugees in Nepal have suffered too much and for too long. They deserve a better life for themselves and generations to come. Political ambitions of few refugee leaders should not be allowed to dwarf the future of fellow citizens. In addition, it is a duty of refugee leaders to provide younger generation refugees languishing in refugee camps with an opportunity to enjoy the rights to the freedom of movement, education, access to employment even if it is on foreign land. It is far better to be a citizen of sovereign nation than live a life of refugee forever. Warehousing these productive brave men and women in refugee camps is a waste of humanity.

Dual citizenship: A win-win proposition

The Nepalis are not far behind when it comes to trotting the globe and exploring opportunities. Though they can be found in every corner of the world, in some countries there are many, whereas in others, a handful. However, no matter where they are and in what conditions they are living, they share one common characteristic-undiminished love for their country.

Every single Nepali citizen, who is living abroad, has either been contributing, or possesses the desire to contribute in some form. Whether it is by remitting money or by doing philanthropic work, the Nepali Diaspora is trying to keep the linkage with Nepal alive.

There are many expatriates who have spent their youth gaining valuable experience and making fortune in the West. These Nepalis now want to contribute towards the development of Nepal and upliftment of Nepalis languishing at the bottom of the pyramid.

However, this is only possible if the government provides a conducive environment.

One way of tapping this vast potential is by providing Nepali diaspora, who are living in foreign shores, their desired right to possess dual citizenship. In an era where the movement of educated manpower is no more considered brain drain but brain circulation, Nepal can tremendously benefit from opening the gate for Nepali diaspora through the provision of dual citizenship.

We live in a world whereby the concept of cultural retention has lost its relevance, and globalization has become a modern day cult. Emergence of multiple identities that did not exist before is now being welcomed. Thus, dual citizenship should not be considered antithetical to the ideal of loyalty to one's homeland.

India's former prime minister Moraji Desai's famous anti-dual-citizenship quip, that "no man can serve two masters," has no buyer in today's modern India.

The number of countries joining the bandwagon of dual citizenship policy is increasing at a rapid pace. Countries such as Mexico, the Philippines, India, Colombia, Ecuador, Ghana and the Dominican Republic have a huge number of Diaspora living abroad. Each of these countries has allowed their citizens to possess dual citizenship, while recognizing that it has the advantages of broadening a country's economic base, fostering trade and investment, and an enhanced availability of skilled manpower.

The value of Dual Citizenship increasingly becomes a necessity as society becomes more global and integrated. Many countries around the globe have recognized the possible contribution of a diaspora to the development of their country, and these countries have made an effort to attract it.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) has developed a program called Migration for Development in Africa (MIDA). This program aims at the transfer of vital skills and resources present in the African diaspora to priority sectors back home. It also aims at matching the profiles of migrants with the demand from African countries. MIDA is meant to channel the available skills, namely financial skills and other available resources of a Diaspora, to support development projects.

Over time, arguments against dual citizenship are becoming less compelling, while arguments in favor of dual citizenship are gaining grounds. With an ongoing rapid globalization, the political reasons that were once used to reject the idea of dual citizenship have lost their significance. Today economic and cultural arguments in favor of dual citizenship have more buyers than they previously did in the twentieth century.

When the developed countries such Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are liberalizing their immigration policy to attract skilled workers, we are happy with meager remittances. The successive governments, after the restoration of democracy in 1990, failed to acknowledge the need of contribution of Nepali diaspora in enhancing economic growth and development.

The government pays millions of rupees annually to foreign-born consultants to work in Nepal; however it fails to pay a comparable amount to the similarly qualified Nepali professional who is living abroad and willing to work in Nepal. In terms of employment opportunities, these Nepali professionals are discriminated against the Westerners in their own country.

Nepal stands at a crossroads, and the need to change is apparent. In fact, the need to seek individuals with expertise and experiences that are helpful in developing the country is greater now than at any other time in the history of Nepal as a sovereign nation. Thus, the call for a sustained economic development should not be dwarfed by the sheer jingoism of individuals who think that dual citizenship is antithetical to the ideal of loyalty to one's homeland.

Dual citizenship is a progressive action, and Nepal would do well in taking advantage of it. Through dual citizenship the growing numbers of Nepali Diaspora can benefit from opportunities overseas, while maintaining their cultural and economic links with Nepal. In addition, they can bring back to the Nepali community their valuable expertise, knowledge, and funds needed to foster economic prosperity and sustained development.

Nepal can learn from an Indian experience; for India's acknowledgement of contribution of Diaspora is clearly reflected in its recent steps to appease Indian Diaspora. India in 2003 founded the Ministry of Overseas Indians to deal with issues and policies related to Diaspora. It introduced a dual citizenship system in order to facilitate investment and prioritize the transfer of technical know-how from the Diaspora to India.

Another example of current dual citizenship laws is in Ireland. Ireland is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, and has tremendously benefited from "citizenship by descent" laws.

Many Nepalis settled abroad may want to return in a late-inning of their life, because in Nepal they can become "big fish in a small pond". There exists distinctive opportunities to make an impact. In addition, there are some opportunities that are distinct and unique, and which cannot be duplicated in the West. Many Nepali expatriates long to return to Nepal, not because they have failed, but because they are successful in their country of residence. It is their desire to contribute to their country of origin that lures them to take the reverse route.

Dual citizenship will provide expatriates to return and invest in Nepal, entice foreign investors, and enhance cross-border cooperation. Dual citizenship will facilitate the freedom of movement of Nepali settled abroad, allowing skills to move as opportunities arise in Nepal. It will permit an opportunity to well-educated children of Nepali diaspora born abroad, but want to contribute towards Nepal's development.

In addition, Nepal can benefit from the political and economic clout that Nepali diaspora possess, and which can be used in favor of their country of descent. Investments from Nepali diaspora can make our path towards sustainable development less bumpy. In a country like Nepal, where domestic sources of capital are scarce, investment and expertise of expatriates can be of tremendous help.

In addition to the economy, dual citizenship will help democratize the Nepali society. There are several thousand Nepalis. These people have lived and practiced democracy in countries where democracy is more institutionalized. These expatriates, and their siblings with their dual nationalities and exposure, could be of tremendous help when it comes to consolidation of democracy. They could provide a helping hand when it comes to navigating democratic Nepal through the twenty-first century.

Dual citizenship will enhance Nepali expatriates' ability to transact and move freely, especially in and out of Nepal; and this would be a prerequisite for fostering trade and investment. In order to build a prosperous and democratized society we need to be forthcoming in employing enlightened, reasoning, and dynamic imagination.