Freedom to be unaccountable

Never in the history of the nation before, were we so weak, so vulnerable, and so helpless like we are now. The reason behind our misery is that we have faulty institutions, unaccountable and irresponsible politicians. Be it home grown political parties or institutions such as the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) set up supposedly for our betterment by the external players, they all are malfunctioning either by design or by default. How does it matter whether it is by design or default as long as it is malfunctioning?

Surprisingly, every institution operating within the geographical boundary of Nepal wants more power and a greater role for themselves. Forget about the political parties that are fighting for themselves rather than poor Nepali citizen for a second, UNMIN too is demanding a greater role now. UNMIN now wants to get involved in what Martin calls as a "security sector reform." Forgetting UNMIN's dismal performance in "insecurity sector reform" (harvesting weapons from the Maoists and getting the real guerillas inside the camp), Martin now wants venture in another arena. What a joke!

By housing underage children and letting the real guerillas that wreaked havoc on peace and security of the nation off the hook, Martin's UNMIN has not only bled the state exchequer but also seriously weakened the security situation. So, the time has come to remind Martin that he should be focusing on the job at hand and execute it satisfactorily rather than seeking a greater role. He got to be told -- do what you are supposed to do well first. It does not make any sense to give additional responsibilities to those who perform a second class job.

As far as political parties are concerned, they are still busy engaging themselves in deal-based politics. The Nepali Congress (NC) longs for bygone era whereby it enjoyed absolute majority and did much less than what it actually could do to change the face of this hungry nation.

During the NC's rule, while the party leaders were getting millionaires by abusing power, rural populace in hinterland were getting brainwashed for armed struggle. NC's top brass didn't care about either of those. NC's top brass, most of who grew up and got wiser reading "Hindustan times" and "Dainik Jagaran" newspapers in Banaras might have thought that, with newfound money and muscle power, like in India, they would remain unchallenged forever. Needless to say, they cared least about the ideological decay.

In the changed political context, the NC, as an institution has nothing new to offer. It neither has enough new faces that can stand up and vouch for social democratic values and pluralism, nor can it utilize the same old tainted faces that abused the power to enrich themselves to energize the democratic base.

The only card that the NC has and which might work well in its favor is, standing up against the political left's grand design to choke people's freedom. There are millions in Nepal that are nervous about the political left's grand design to laden people's democracy.

So, the NC still has a space to operate and a chance to regain its past glory and popular backing. The rank-and-files within the NC should empathize with the suffering of the people rather than surrendering its political space forever for the sake of coalition. The likes of Krishna Sitaula within the NC are playing the politics of fear to bolster their own political footings at the cost of ideology and democracy. They are yet to realize that there is no alternative to the politics of ideology based struggle.

The CPN (Maoist) had a perfect opportunity to become a dominant player in the national politics, which they completely blew off. People had already seen and become fed up off the NC and the UML's misrule. The enormous success that the Maoists achieved in their early days of struggle was partly because the major political parties had failed to fulfill people's aspirations. People wanted a change and the Maoists had to some extent convinced people that they are for a change. The blunder that the Maoists made was that they tried replicating the same formula that Mao had experimented half a century ago even after signing the 12-point agreement. What they failed to understand is that, out of many things, the success of political formula is contingent upon time and space.

There was no need for converting People's Liberation Army (PLA) into a Young Communist League (YCL) and trying to do what Mao did half a century ago after the safe landing. This is mainly because, in the current geopolitical context, you cannot rule by threatening and discouraging people.

Forget about YCL, even the entire PLA will not be able to capture the power and hang in there forever. It is simply not feasible. So, it was a gross miscalculation on the part of the Maoist leaders to try to replicate the same tactics adopted by Mao in China, where people had no clue about democracy and democratic rights unlike in the modern day Nepal. All it needed was, tongue of the UML, which can rotate 360 degrees and adherence to democratic principles. Sooner or later, it would have come to come the power. It took Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) almost 20 years to come to capture power in Delhi. In politics, patience pays off.

For Prachanda and Babu Ram Bhattarai, the ongoing struggle might be an ideological one, but there are tons in their party, for whom, insurgency is a business opportunity. They virtually had nothing to begin with but have every thing -- muscle power and money now. For the sake of their newfound status and money, they will do everything to prolong the war. For them, war and insecurity has economic incentives. Plus, their families are comparatively safe. Why would they care about the safety of others and over all economic progress of the nation, which in their eyes is, run by feudal elites?

Time has come to do a real cost benefit analysis. Is it worth, or for that matter even possible, to keep the dreams of capturing the state alive among the cadres when the reality is that, an ambassador of a neighboring country can make you all crawl to his office to listen to his dictates?

The UML is the one that is in the most awkward position and will be the biggest loser if it doesn't mend its ways. By succumbing to the pressure of extreme left leaning ideologues within the party and tailgating the Maoists, the UML is losing both its support at home and credibility abroad. Why should UML's cadres remain on board when there is no difference between their party and the Maoist party? Sooner or later, they will join the one that is enjoying the limelight rather than guarding a sinking ship. From the stand point of communist ideologues, it makes no sense. Thus, by adhering to the politics of fence-sitting, the UML is doing a disservice to itself and its cadres. It should move away from a politics of fence-sitting to one of active political engagement if it wants to protect its credibility and further erosion of its political base.

Last but not the least, the problem lies within us and we should seek solution from within. The crux of problem is that, political parties want to enjoy power without being held responsible to the constituents. Surprisingly, they want to remain in power forever without seeking people's mandate. There is very little that foreigners on ground and consultants that charge hefty amount can do when it comes to correcting such self-serving behavior of Nepali politicians. Unless the freedom to be irresponsible and unaccountable is curbed, the ongoing mess will continue in some form or the other. Does anyone have a better idea on how to curb the existing irresponsibility and unaccountability amongst the Nepali politicians?

Social capital, Law and Democracy

By Dr Hari Bansha Dulal and Stefano Foa

Violence breeds violence. In Nepal, the seeds of violence were sown in February 1996 when CPN (Maoist) carried out simultaneous raids on government offices, police posts, and private businesses. Since then, such violent behavior has become ingrained in the Nepali society. What was started by the Maoist insurgents has now sprouted across several groups, some with separatist agendas, and others simply taking advantage of the breakdown in the rule of law to make a fast buck.

Like leaders in many developing countries, the Nepali political elite has spent this time selling dreams of imminent prosperity to a largely illiterate Nepali populace, while ignoring the mounting security dilemma.

While lawlessness continues, politicians talk as if a peaceful democratic transition can be taken for granted. But it cannot. The fact is that most countries fail during their first attempt to establish democracy. This is just as true in Europe - where fledgling democracies collapsed in France, Italy, Germany and Spain - as it has been, since the 1950s, in wave after wave of decolonized nations in Africa and the Middle East. The few developing nations, such as India or Botswana, that have maintained some degree of democratic continuity from the start, are the exceptions and not the rule.

Why do some regimes undergo successful transition, while others collapse into anarchy and despotism - and what lessons can this yield for Nepal?

During periods of democratic transition, politicians tend to overstate their positive impact in the short-term, while underestimating or ignoring the longer-term negative consequences that their actions - or inactions - can have.

First among these is the effect that the failure to combat lawlessness and instability has in undermining a country's stock of 'social' capital - that is, the relations of inter-group solidarity and cohesion which allow negotiation, compromise, and agreement between opposing factions. In Nepal, the consequence of the failure to stem the vortex of violence and lawlessness is that the country is fragmenting into an archipelago of competing power factions, and unless these centrifugal forces are contained, the country will drift further and further from a social compact.
Second, violence and insecurity also erode other forms of social capital which are essential for making democracy work. Chief among these is the maintenance of a healthy civil society, in the form of the newspapers, professional associations, women's groups, and community forums. Such associations are essential in enabling citizens are able to formulate their interests, debate policy, and place pressure on local representatives to deliver better services and more accountable governance.

Robert Putnam's classic 1993 study on civic involvement in Italy showed that such networks are critical in ensuring effective local governance and economic development, and more recently, further studies by Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel have confirmed this view. Across the world, they find that countries which in the early 1990s began their democratization process with a civic culture of independence and citizen activism have had a greater success in maintaining effective and accountable institutions.

On the other hand, where civil society has been passive or cowed, the potential for regression toward despotic and unaccountable rule is strong. In Nepal, widespread violence and intimidation are producing exactly this result, as citizens retreat behind closed doors and the possibility of a public space is being eroded.

Unfortunately, the Maoists do not want a healthy civil society, as they know that independent groups based upon horizontal association would be a threat to the kind of authoritarian regime they envisage. Were farmers, minorities, tradesmen, and professionals able independently to articulate their interests and engage through the democratic process, the chances of garnering support for a universal proletarian state would become slim.

Yet, the longer the lawlessness persists, the more difficult will it become to restore a culture of fairness and respect for the law. Not long ago, Nepal was known as a peaceful land, widely touted as Switzerland of Asia. Today, this no longer rings true. According to data from the World Health Organization, by 2002 the homicide rate in Nepal had already reached 15 per 100,000 - twice the rate in Bangladesh, three times the rate in India, and five times that of China. If deaths from conflict were also included, the figure would rise to almost 20 per 100,000. This not only makes Nepal among the most violent societies in Asia, but among the most dangerous in the entire world.

Were order restored now, the country could return somewhat to the safety and security of bygone years, but the longer the anarchy continues, the more difficult will such a recovery become. An alarming precedent in this regard has already been set by Cambodia, a country whose social fabric has since the 1970s been torn asunder by insurgency and political stagnation. Their conflict has left families estranged, villages uprooted, and orphans on the streets. In Cambodia today, the Maoists may be gone and a veneer of political stability may have been restored. Yet violence and criminality have become engrained within the culture. Weapons and explosives are widely available, and at 17 per 100,000 this once peaceful land has among the highest homicide rates in Asia.

Nepal is a country once rich in bonds of trust, solidarity, and mutual support. These are now being eroded. If the land is to achieve both development and democracy, it cannot wait for solutions to arrive. Just like economic capital, 'social capital' is a resource that takes centuries to accumulate, but only a decade to destroy. The loss can be stopped now, but critical toward doing so is the restoration of the rule of law. Once protection is provided to all groups in society, demands for separatism will wane. Once violations of life and liberty are reprimanded, the culture of impunity will disappear. Once citizens are able to associate freely and without fear of intimidation, the prospect of a healthy civic life will be restored. But action must be taken now. The longer the social fabric is worn away, the more difficult will it be to sew together again.