Setting the Record Right

Scores of people have written about Girija Prasad Koirala (GPK) since his demise. From incidents such as the flight that they took together with GPK to the advice that they gave him were meticulously recollected in order to highlight their association. Strangely, people did not hesitate to reap creative mileage from his death. Instead of sincerely highlighting his achievements and fallacies, which is important to set the record straight, they used the opportunity to toot their own horns. The rarest and the biggest example of duplicity came from none other than the Maoist duo Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Baburam Bhattarai. It was quite obnoxious to learn that the Maoists duo that lured him with presidency, but eventually double-crossed him in the last minute, considered his passing away as a demise of a guardian. Hypocrisy at its best!

GPK might not be anywhere near in terms of moral virtues that Mahatma Gandhi had or selflessness that Nelson Mandela practices, but to fight relentlessly for democracy for decades is not something that everyone can or will be willing to do. One may argue that living in the proximity of one of the world’s greatest socialist thinkers like B P Koirala could have planted the virtues of democracy in a megalomaniac, but understanding virtues of democracy alone is not enough when it comes to making democracy work for the common men, which is what happened in the case of GPK. I am not particularly enthused at discussing GPK’s checkered past, considering that he is no more with us and that culturally we avoid talking about someone’s shortcomings after their demise. But, in weighing his achievements and fallacies, I find it important that between the eulogies, the unending praises and the references to GPK as a “maverick” that we take a moment to step away and be just to history. Revisionist history, especially in matters that may frame the future of modern Nepal, can be harmful, and, hence, must be avoided at all costs.

Making mistakes is human. In between birth and death, certain things are bound to happen one of them being mistakes. Like everyone else, GPK had his share. What sets his mistakes apart from common men’s is that they could have impacted the dreams of millions of Nepalis clamoring for a just, prosperous, and peaceful Nepal. They could have had far reaching consequences. Political pundits that churned out articles left and right after GPK’s demise made an interesting argument about what would Nepal be like had GPK not stood for democracy? But that is only one side of the coin. Given the fact that he had already achieved what he fought for the good part of his life through restoration of democracy in 1990, his ability to provide democratic dividends to the citizenry also needs to be evaluated—thoroughly.

Given the international goodwill he enjoyed and respect he commanded at home, at least in the early days of restoration of democracy, what would have Nepal looked like had he understood the importance of intra-party democracy, strengthening of institutions, quelling political corruption, enhancement of social justice and equality, and strict handling of the process of mainstreaming the Maoists, to name a few?

GPK ruthlessly destroyed the political career of his contemporaries. Ganesh Man Singh and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai’s political careers were cut short to promote his own. Had he allowed intra-party democracy to take root, NC would not have been left with just mediocre leaders that they have today. The party does not have a dynamic leader that can effectively energize the base, forget about energizing the nation and bringing it together. Intra-party democracy fosters emergence of competent leaders. When GPK became the prime minister in 1991 for the first time, the current president of the United States was a visiting Law and Government Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School. None beyond his family and friend circle really knew him. It is the transparent intra-party political system that allowed an African-American man and the son of a single mother with limited means to become the president of the most powerful nation on earth. Given the role that intra-party democracy has on the emergence of a leader, can we truthfully ignore what he did to perpetuate his hegemony within NC and its implications on the emergence of future leaders?

GPK repeatedly inducted people implicated for political corruption in his cabinet. Instead of using people like Pradeep Giri, whose potential to this date remains unexplored, he repeatedly chose to be surrounded by the same herd irrespective of their fading public persona. This led the emergence of a political caste – a sort of Brahminical caste. His turning of blind eye to massive political corruption ultimately created an ethical disequilibrium as the lines between good and evil thinned. It had a disastrous consequence on the moral fabric of the nation. Corruption trickled down to courtrooms, which is the last thing that a young nation struggling to remain requires. Dozens of judges are currently under investigation for corruption charges. We, as a nation, have been slipping in all indicators related to good governance, accountability, corruption, and this is not an effect of a single overnight incident. It a ripple effect of institutional failure resulting from letting the corrupt herd manipulate the system to their advantage.

Importance of social justice and equality never got GPK’s attention. The practice of nominating a handful of politicians belonging to ethnic minorities for important ministerial and other important positions to showcase ethnic equality, which had been the norm during the Panchayat era, continued unabated. When the time came to recognizing equality eventually, he signed an agreement with groups from a particular region, which was dead wrong. What the nation needs today is a comprehensive equality policy, not the oiling of squeaky wheels.

One of GPK’s greatest failures was not to understand the real intentions of the Maoists. They made him sleepwalk tirelessly to fulfill their own agendas and double-crossed him when it came to fulfilling their promise of supporting him for the first president of Nepal. His unabated appeasement of the Maoists created more problems than it solved. Whether his judgment was clouded by his failure to understand that appeasement never brings peace or by the Maoists coordinated lewd acts carried out in concert with his inner coterie shall always remain a subject of speculation.

When it comes to the prospects of democratic consolidation, he left the nation far worse off than the one he had inherited in 1991. He had a ‘clean slate’ back then. He could have utilized the opportunity to build and strengthen institutions, nurture the rise of competent politicians by promoting intra-party democracy, extract the loyalty of citizenry through big social reforms and comprehensive equality policy, and contain the decay of law and order through strict handling of the Maoists. We might have been better off compared to where we would have been otherwise, but we are way behind from what we could have achieved had GPK been a more thoughtful and visionary persona. GPK was really good at seizing the opportunity, but when it came to translating them into success for all, that is where he failed, and failed miserably. He has left us a country, where the promise of the dividends of democracy and the resultant expectation of it by Nepalis remain illusory.

Setting the Record Right

Scores of people have written about Girija Prasad Koirala (GPK) since his demise. From incidents such as the flight that they took together with GPK to the advice that they gave him were meticulously recollected in order to highlight their association. Strangely, people did not hesitate to reap creative mileage from his death. Instead of sincerely highlighting his achievements and fallacies, which is important to set the record straight, they used the opportunity to toot their own horns. The rarest and the biggest example of duplicity came from none other than the Maoist duo Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Baburam Bhattarai. It was quite obnoxious to learn that the Maoists duo that lured him with presidency, but eventually double-crossed him in the last minute, considered his passing away as a demise of a guardian. Hypocrisy at its best!

GPK might not be anywhere near in terms of moral virtues that Mahatma Gandhi had or selflessness that Nelson Mandela practices, but to fight relentlessly for democracy for decades is not something that everyone can or will be willing to do. One may argue that living in the proximity of one of the world’s greatest socialist thinkers like B P Koirala could have planted the virtues of democracy in a megalomaniac, but understanding virtues of democracy alone is not enough when it comes to making democracy work for the common men, which is what happened in the case of GPK. I am not particularly enthused at discussing GPK’s checkered past, considering that he is no more with us and that culturally we avoid talking about someone’s shortcomings after their demise. But, in weighing his achievements and fallacies, I find it important that between the eulogies, the unending praises and the references to GPK as a “maverick” that we take a moment to step away and be just to history. Revisionist history, especially in matters that may frame the future of modern Nepal, can be harmful, and, hence, must be avoided at all costs.

Making mistakes is human. In between birth and death, certain things are bound to happen one of them being mistakes. Like everyone else, GPK had his share. What sets his mistakes apart from common men’s is that they could have impacted the dreams of millions of Nepalis clamoring for a just, prosperous, and peaceful Nepal. They could have had far reaching consequences. Political pundits that churned out articles left and right after GPK’s demise made an interesting argument about what would Nepal be like had GPK not stood for democracy? But that is only one side of the coin. Given the fact that he had already achieved what he fought for the good part of his life through restoration of democracy in 1990, his ability to provide democratic dividends to the citizenry also needs to be evaluated—thoroughly.

Given the international goodwill he enjoyed and respect he commanded at home, at least in the early days of restoration of democracy, what would have Nepal looked like had he understood the importance of intra-party democracy, strengthening of institutions, quelling political corruption, enhancement of social justice and equality, and strict handling of the process of mainstreaming the Maoists, to name a few?

GPK ruthlessly destroyed the political career of his contemporaries. Ganesh Man Singh and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai’s political careers were cut short to promote his own. Had he allowed intra-party democracy to take root, NC would not have been left with just mediocre leaders that they have today. The party does not have a dynamic leader that can effectively energize the base, forget about energizing the nation and bringing it together. Intra-party democracy fosters emergence of competent leaders. When GPK became the prime minister in 1991 for the first time, the current president of the United States was a visiting Law and Government Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School. None beyond his family and friend circle really knew him. It is the transparent intra-party political system that allowed an African-American man and the son of a single mother with limited means to become the president of the most powerful nation on earth. Given the role that intra-party democracy has on the emergence of a leader, can we truthfully ignore what he did to perpetuate his hegemony within NC and its implications on the emergence of future leaders?

GPK repeatedly inducted people implicated for political corruption in his cabinet. Instead of using people like Pradeep Giri, whose potential to this date remains unexplored, he repeatedly chose to be surrounded by the same herd irrespective of their fading public persona. This led the emergence of a political caste – a sort of Brahminical caste. His turning of blind eye to massive political corruption ultimately created an ethical disequilibrium as the lines between good and evil thinned. It had a disastrous consequence on the moral fabric of the nation. Corruption trickled down to courtrooms, which is the last thing that a young nation struggling to remain requires. Dozens of judges are currently under investigation for corruption charges. We, as a nation, have been slipping in all indicators related to good governance, accountability, corruption, and this is not an effect of a single overnight incident. It a ripple effect of institutional failure resulting from letting the corrupt herd manipulate the system to their advantage.

Importance of social justice and equality never got GPK’s attention. The practice of nominating a handful of politicians belonging to ethnic minorities for important ministerial and other important positions to showcase ethnic equality, which had been the norm during the Panchayat era, continued unabated. When the time came to recognizing equality eventually, he signed an agreement with groups from a particular region, which was dead wrong. What the nation needs today is a comprehensive equality policy, not the oiling of squeaky wheels.

One of GPK’s greatest failures was not to understand the real intentions of the Maoists. They made him sleepwalk tirelessly to fulfill their own agendas and double-crossed him when it came to fulfilling their promise of supporting him for the first president of Nepal. His unabated appeasement of the Maoists created more problems than it solved. Whether his judgment was clouded by his failure to understand that appeasement never brings peace or by the Maoists coordinated lewd acts carried out in concert with his inner coterie shall always remain a subject of speculation.

When it comes to the prospects of democratic consolidation, he left the nation far worse off than the one he had inherited in 1991. He had a ‘clean slate’ back then. He could have utilized the opportunity to build and strengthen institutions, nurture the rise of competent politicians by promoting intra-party democracy, extract the loyalty of citizenry through big social reforms and comprehensive equality policy, and contain the decay of law and order through strict handling of the Maoists. We might have been better off compared to where we would have been otherwise, but we are way behind from what we could have achieved had GPK been a more thoughtful and visionary persona. GPK was really good at seizing the opportunity, but when it came to translating them into success for all, that is where he failed, and failed miserably. He has left us a country, where the promise of the dividends of democracy and the resultant expectation of it by Nepalis remain illusory.

Lessons from Bhutto’s Assassination

Benazir Bhutto gave her life for the sake of democracy in Pakistan. Was it worth it? Absolutely yes. Could she have averted her untimely death? You bet. All she had to do is, resort to a deal-based politics like the one that is being practiced in Nepal. She could have averted her assassination by allowing murderous assassins to dictate the course of her country. Her fault: she tried swimming against the tide of religious fanaticism. She courted death in order to regain political space lost to the fundamentalists, unlike in Nepal, where the so-called democrats are selling out ideology and democratic principles for the sake of political survival.

Bhutto, unlike our own "mainstreamers," refused to join hands with ideologues and religious fanatics in Pakistan. She rather chose to fight against them in order to make Pakistan a true democratic state. After living in the United States and the United Kingdom, she must have known the difference between living in a "liberal democracy" and the country held hostage by radicals. In a liberal democracy, for example India, a catholic woman from Italy is accepted and trusted to run the show. Whereas in society infested by political ideologues and religious fanatics—Pakistan—, daughter of the very soil fighting for people's freedom and democracy gets gunned down. Ideologically bankrupt politicians of Nepal should try to understand what the ultimate price could be if the brainwashed ideologues that embrace Mao's ideological fanaticism remain unchecked and are allowed to infest our society. Benazir's assassination holds grave lessons and warnings for Nepal.

Be it Mao's ideological fanaticism, which is embraced by the Maoists in Nepal or Bin Laden's brand of "Islamofascism" practiced by the religious fanatics in Pakistan, they are equally dangerous for liberal democracy. Religious and political fanaticism and liberal democracy do not go together. In Pakistan, with Bhutto's assassination, religious fanatics have succeeded in uprooting the seedlings of democracy completely. Whereas in Nepal, political fanaticism practiced by the Maoists and replicated by the groups led by secessionists such as Jay Krishna Goit and Nagendra Paswan have greatly reduced prospects of democratic consolidation. The chances of democratic consolidation appear bleaker than ever.

Out of many factors that propelled the rise of political fundamentalism in Nepal, the most important one is repeated subversion of democratic process by the political elites. The constant manipulation of people and the political processes by political gladiators has pauperized the society and wallowed the people in abject poverty. Needless to say, the never ending episodes of deal making in the dark corridors never allowed the country to escape from political instability and a cyclical legitimacy crisis.

Besieged by a multitude of hostile forces, the politicians in Nepal are politically insecure. They are so completely engrossed in the struggle for political survival that they want to subvert the genuine political processes. One recent example of such cowardice is Madhav Nepal's disclosure in Biratnagar. He wants the SPA to 'reserve' seats for top SPA leaders during the upcoming Constituent Assembly (CA) polls. What a mockery of democratic rights of people of Nepal.

Madhav Nepal's recent statement makes it clear that there are many politicians in the so-called mainstream political parties who want to construct a "kleptocratic" regime in which they can steal from the citizens, deceive and undermine them, even though they need them to survive politically. Don't you think these air-headed idiots need a basic course on rights of voters in democracy?

Two years after bringing down an autocratic monarch to his knees, Nepal continues to grapple with complex challenges of national reconciliation, national reconstruction, economic reform, and democratic consolidation. Sad but true, the citizenry is still anxious to see and enjoy the dividends of democracy. The political insincerity of the SPA and the Maoists have bogged down the democratic process to such a degraded level that only those who can muster and unleash enough violence and control the institutions of state can win the political wars for power.

The insensitive and autocratic monarch is sure to go. He deserves the axe that has fallen on his head, no doubt about it. People should face consequences for their actions/inactions. Only then they will start behaving like rational beings. Furthermore, what values can a shrewd king and his rowdy son add to the process of democratic consolidation in Nepal?

That said, let me make it clear that the route that the SPA has taken to unseat Gyanendra is dead wrong. It reflects political vendetta more than anything else. Deciding the fate of an institution through constitutional adventurism is a horrendous idea. The SPA should have allowed people to decide the fate of monarchy in Nepal. This is mainly because one of the major factors responsible for political instability in Nepal is the failure of the political elites to sufficiently adhere to the basic tenets of democracy and constitutionalism.

Nepal is notoriously emerging as a country where nothing works. Inability to embrace a workable political system stems from the opportunism and lack of vision of the politicians like Madhav Nepal within the SPA. They remain bereft of viable political ideology on which the nation's political future can be anchored. This bankruptcy in ideology and vision has made the SPA look more like a syndicate than a political alliance dedicated towards fulfilling peoples' desire for peace, stability, and democracy.

Today, both in Pakistan and Nepal, democracy is put on trial by brainwashed radicals. In Pakistan, by assassinating Benazir Bhutto, to some extent "Islamofacists" have succeeded in aborting democratic dreams. There is a big probability that both Pakistan and Nepal will end up as illiberal democracies. But Pakistanis have at least a reason to be satisfied. They had a leader, Benazir, who gave her life fighting for democracy. She at least tried to save the nation from falling into the hands of radicals unlike our own so-called democrats who have flushed ideology and democratic principles down the toilet for political survival.

The basic difference between Bhutto and the so-called democrats in Nepal is that, Bhutto believed in the tenets of democracy. Unlike pseudo-democrats in Nepal, she knew that fanaticism and democracy do not go hand-in-hand. She never acted as a "useful idiot" at the hands of radicals like our politicians in Nepal. She always adhered to democratic principles and had vowed to wipe them out. Scared to death, radicals had no choice but to assassinate her.

While our own Girija Prasad Koirala, who has given everything but his beloved prime ministerial chair to the Maoist radicals, is awaiting a natural death (whose death, I doubt, will be of any inspiration to those who truly believe in liberal democracy in Nepal and abroad), Bhutto died a hero, a martyr and an inspiration for many both at home an abroad. While Pakistanis are mourning the loss of their beloved and revered leader Benazir, we, the Nepali people are forced to watch painful sale of our democratic dreams.