Feel free to include your comment here in the box. See posted comments below:
Please note: Your email will not be posted

Read Posted Comments Here:

Ashok Mathuran:

Restructuring of Nepal for political stability, economic progress and             social cohesion.
   By: Adityaman Shrestha

Nepal has already become, subsequent to abolition of monarchy in 2008, a Federal Democratic Republic. But a new constitution to that effect is yet to be framed and adopted. The Constituent Assembly set a deadline of 16 months in November 2008 to accomplish the job of approving a new constitution. The process of framing a new constitution has started but there are too many issues to be sorted out among the political actors before the task is done. In view of the differences among the political parties on vital national issues, many people have serious doubts on the completion of the job on time. Nonetheless, all efforts must be made to accomplish the work not only within the precinct of the Constituent Assembly but also outside it with the active popular participation. Nepal-Asia Center for Strategic Studies (NACSS) would also like to make a humble contribution in this direction by proffering some suggestions.

Political stability:

Political stability stands out as of foremost importance for overall development of Nepal. It has had some painstaking experiments in democratic governance for almost 60 years especially during 12 years of parliamentary government since 1990 when political stability became by far the biggest casualty. The king’s rule between 1960-1990 and, before that, the Rana rule for 104 years from 1846-1950, provided political stability but they were not democratic. Nepal, after the successful people’s movement of 2006, has reiterated its unshakable commitment to remain democratic as reflected from the declaration of the state as Federal Democratic Republic. So the new constitution cannot but be democratic in nature. But which mechanism of democracy should or would be followed is an open question. That is begging wide debate.

An open debate is going on between the Nepali Congress favoring parliamentary democracy and the CPM (Maoist) advocating for establishing a People’s Republic. Of these two systems, Nepal has experienced the functioning of the parliamentary system but is still ignorant about the People’s Republic. The first parliamentary constitution of 1959 came to an end mainly due to high ambitions of King Mahendra who abrogated it under the emergency power vested in him under Article 157. The second parliamentary constitution of 1990 succumbed to similar royal ambition of King Gyanendra in 2002, which invoked Article 127 to annex all state powers to himself. They are however only the technical explanation of parliamentary collapse in Nepal.

What really led to the failure of the parliamentary system in Nepal especially during the second stint of the nineties was none other than the ineptitude of the political parties. They indulged in excessive power game, pulling down the governments by breaking the parties and floor crossings. Corruption, nepotism, favoritism became the order of the day. On top of it, the political parties did not practice internal democracy, the leadership demonstrated authoritarianism and denied the young generations to come up. There were 12 governments in 10 years of its functioning. As a result of public frustrations over the instability and bad governance, the people did not resist openly the actions of King Gyanendra in 2002. They however revolted against the king because of his own excesses in direct administration.

The second people’s movement of 2006 has restored democracy. But the people are not sure if the same parliamentary system should be adopted. The political wrangling among the parties since the restoration tends to reinforce the popular apprehensions that the parties have not learnt a lesson from the instability they caused before. The weaknesses that the leaders demonstrated before are still seen dominant. It is feared that once a parliamentary system of government is put in place under the new constitution, political instability will too continue thanks to the same old political behavior. Once again public suffering, public frustrations and public disenchantment will set in the fray. So it calls for a rethinking on this system for the sake of political stability in Nepal.

The alternative to this system the Maoists are lobbying is fraught with too many misgivings. A people’s republic is based primarily on one party rule like in China, North Korea, and Cuba leaving no room for political competition among different parties. Nepal is used to competitive politics for considerable time. Opponents suspect that the Maoists are trying to impose dictatorship in Nepal under this system. Such a rule will undoubtedly bring about political stability but that will not be different from that of the past under the Shah and Rana regimes. It could be federal and republic but not democratic in real sense of the term. So it is difficult to achieve a consensus on this pattern of governance in Nepal.

The present debate is centered on ideology, which, in fact, is not correct way of resolving the conflict and differences among the political actors in Nepal. We have learnt from our experiences that no political ideology works in the context of our country. Kings tried absolute monarchy that did not succeed. Political parties tried full-fledged parliamentary democracy. That did not work. We witnessed guided democracy during the Panchayat system. That too did not last. Therefore, it is waste of time to indulge in ideological controversy. What is necessary is to look for a mechanism that is democratic and workable in our conditions so that our prime objective of political stability is achieved. So we can explore some other options for this purpose.

Option:

One of the options is to adopt a presidential system under which the people directly elect the chief executive for a specified period of four or five years and the people also elect a legislature with an independent judiciary already in place. There will be separation of powers in three branches of the government. The President will be free to select his team of cabinet from political parties as well as from non-partisan people. There will be unicameral legislature with not more than 100 members for executive monitoring, law making, financial sanctioning and judicial censure. As there will be a federal system with extensive autonomy, many of the politicians will be accommodated in the regional legislative and executive branches. (See Paper 2 on Federalism in Nepal) The center does not need a voluminous body like the current Constituent Assembly.

The President who will stay for full tenure of office can be removed from office under exceptional cases of disability and misdemeanor. He/she will not be like a titular head like in the parliamentary system. He/she will be in full charge of the government and its policies like in a presidential system of the US, the Philippines, the Maldives, etc. This will provide political stability enabling the government to carry out its policies of economic development. Nepal suffered from the lack of such leadership resulting into economic mess and inability to fight poverty. Such an arrangement will also provide the President to use the best talents of the country in framing and implementing policies in various fields. Nepal needs to use such talents from within or without the political arena to cope with the complexity of problems arising from globalization.

Economic progress:

For economic progress, it is again necessary, like in political context, not to stick to ideological hang-up the political leaders often tend to be. We have observed in the broader arena of the world how ideology has been set aside to move forward in economic progress. China, despite being strictly communist in political ideology, shunned the state control over the economic activities and let the private enterprise flourish. Teng Shiao Ping turned the economic policy around from China’s state control leading to economic boom. Although the political authoritarianism of the Communist Party of China remains unchanged, the economic scenario underwent tremendous transformation with more than 10 per cent growth for many years. As a result, China is on the verge of emerging as the second largest economy of the world and as one of the super powers within few decades.

On the other hand, the United States was forced to abandon its fully market-driven policy in the wake of the economic downturn and inevitable recession. The crisis in the Wall Street forced the government to intervene and rush a rescue plan with $700 billion to help the American economy regain its robustness. The measure is nothing less than a socialist move to save the private banks and businesses with taxpayers’ money. Ideologically, the government, the Congress and the intellectuals fight shy of admitting the rescue operations being socialist but they are nothing less than that. Americans, like the people in many countries elsewhere in the world, have come to realize that traditional ideological principles cannot be adhered to in their pristine shape in complex globalized conditions.

If big economies cannot follow their political ideology, there is no point in arguing that a small economy of Nepal should follow it. So neither the Maoists should be smitten of the socialist theories nor the liberal parties like the Nepali Congress should be obsessed by the free market. Fortunately, both the political parties along with other parties are not advocating any ideology-driven economic policies. Nepal has been following a policy of mixed economy for many decades irrespective of varied political systems. Latest to join in this bandwagon is the CPN (Maoists), which has agreed to the principle of partnership between the public and private enterprises.

The underlying understanding is that the government would play the role of a facilitator letting the private sector operating as the main actor. To make this relationship run smoothly, it is necessary for the government to remain corruption free, bias free and nepotism free. The private sector, on its part, should be shorn of making fast money by hook or by crook as in the past. The traditional collusion between the state and the business/industry in cheating the people for their personal benefits should, of course, come to an end. Corruption has sapped the national vitality of Nepal for long standing as the biggest obstacle to economic development. It is not possible to fight it only on institutional strength by creating and strengthening anti-corruption agencies. The cleaning process should start right from the top of the political hierarchy, the President and the Prime Minister.

The biggest economic challenge of Nepal is providing jobs to as many as 300,000 young people who land in the labor market every year. Any economic policy or measure should be directed towards creating as many jobs as possible. No government in Nepal of whatever character can ever create sufficient number of jobs for them. It is precisely for this reason that the government should make it a point to emphasize foreign investment in Nepal and manpower export in different countries.

Foreign investment can be a big economic booster by mobilizing and facilitating the non-resident Nepalese abroad. It is to be recalled here that the fast economic development in China and India owes much to the non-resident Chinese and Indians coming back for investment in their respective countries of origin. In this context, economic diplomacy should be the cardinal feature of our foreign missions. The objective of our international relations should be to send out as many people as possible for as much benefits as possible and to bring in as many investors and tourists as possible. New avenues of employment should be explored abroad especially in the fields of security, health care, entertainment and education.

Social cohesion:

Needless to say that Nepal is a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-religious country. There are more than 100 ethnic/caste groups who speak more than 92 languages. (There are dozens of ethnic groups and many, who speak different languages and dialects). Such versatility should have been an asset for a country like Nepal but, on the contrary, it acted as a source of conflict. Instead of recognizing and respecting them properly, the state imposed a single language, single religion, and single culture on the people smoke screening them as a symbol of national unification and unity. The cultural barrier also caused patronage to some sections of the society in the state mechanism debarring the larger chunk access, affordability and equality in participation in governance. Public awareness of such discriminations grew over the years with the popular resentment articulated in non-violent as well as violent actions. Therefore, social cohesion is not possible without addressing these issues under the new constitution.

A cursory glance at the socio-political scenario shows that the high castes Hindus from the hills (Brahmins, Chhetris and Thakuris collectively called Khas people) dominate other communities though they make up only about 31 per cent of the population. They occupy 80 per cent of the prominent positions in politics and bureaucracy to the detriment of other communities. The Mongol-Kirat nationalities had 22 per cent population but had only 7 per cent representations. The Madhesis constituted 30 percent but had only 11 per cent share in public offices. The dalits (12% population) have no representation in positions worth the name. Women, on the other hand, suffer from gender discrimination in education, health and economic resources. The trend of social marginalization grew more and more pronounced with the passage of time. Between 1959 and 1999, the Brahmin-Chhetri share went up from 59 per cent to 62 per cent in three branches of the government. On the contrary, the representation of the Mongol-Kirat went down from 16 to 13 per cent and that of the Madhes from 20 to 17 percent.

Much exercise has already been done to rectify the anomalies in order to develop social harmony and cohesion in Nepalese society. The foremost measure was to declare Nepal a secular state before the Hindu monarchy was abolished. It was in due respect of the popular aspirations that Nepal has been declared Federal Democratic Republic. While we will deal with the mechanism of federalism in a separate paper, we will enumerate here the prime principles and policies that need to be adopted under new constitutional and legal dispensation. The main objective is to create an inclusive society in which all communities and groups could feel a sense of belonging and find an opportunity to participate in national activities.

As federalism is going to be the basis of restructuring the state of Nepal, it has to grant equality in linguistic rights to the people by adopting the 3-language policy as in many multi-lingual countries. The three languages will be one mother tongue of indigenous community, Nepali language and English language for international communication. Equitable representation by quotas in state apparatuses and institutions should be provided to various ethnic groups by legal and affirmative actions. Cultural rights of the Janajatis and other groups should be recognized and promoted. The question of citizenship has more or less been resolved with the distribution of citizenship certificates. However, facility should be created to provide it to the deprived classes. In order to uplift the suppressed communities, basic education and health care must be made available. Dalits deserve greater attention of the state in the new structure for their upliftment in social status, education, health, and political and administrative participation. There are special areas where the grievances of the women need to be addressed like right to their body, right to education and health, right to property, safeguard against domestic violence, etc.