The Absence of Consolidation in Democratic Nepal - Essay Example

Topic: Government, Comparative Politics The Absence of Consolidation in Democratic Nepal The serious effort of democratization in Nepal occurred in 1990 when the constitutional monarchy was established with a multi-party system, legislature and local elected bodies incorporated. This effort did not soar well especially after the Royal tragedy in June 1, 2001 caused the rapid deterioration of the political situation. A caretaker government was created after the dissolution of the Parliament in May 2002, aggravated by conflict with Maoist insurgents. The elections scheduled for November 2002 were postponed. While there was peace efforts made after the ceasefire on January 29, 2003, these were interrupted in August 2003 and the peace negotiations collapsed. The political parties are marginalized and bemoan the unconstitutional nature of the existing government.1 The Maoist abandoned the democratic process in 1996 and declared a "people's war" intending to establish a Maoist people's republic in the place of the constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. The insurgency was low in intensity and rural until the Royal Army was used to contain the insurgency following the declaration of a state of emergency in November 2001. The insurgents now control about 70% of the country. At the pretext of quashing the insurgents, the king declared a state of emergency in early 2005, the parliament was closed down and he assumed all executive and legislative powers. On April 24, 2006, the king reinstated the House of Representatives In early May 2006, the House of Representatives declared Nepal a secular country.2 Despite several governmental efforts, superficial at the best, there was no institutionalization of democracy in Nepal. The very causes that feed the insurgency are also the barriers to consolidation of democracy, some of which are: rural poverty, uneven development between urban and rural areas, endemic corruption, persistent socio-economic inequalities and the frustration at the delivery of public goods and services from the government.3 The obstruction of public development by insurgents create a vicious cycle of poverty and social discrimination compounded by the existing issues of poverty, ethnicity, language, Dalits, gender rights, girl trafficking, ecocide with centralization, misgovernance, more official corruption, Bhutanese refugees, autocratic tendencies of democratically elected leaders, weak accountability to democratic pressures, effects of economic liberalization, etc. These failed to establish links between freedom and modernity with a rationalization of social, economic and political pluralism and failed to construct civil attachments of the bulk of citizens to nationhood, the political society and the key institutions of governance.4 Once a polity has been democratized, the problem of consolidation arises, which is not a mere improvement in the overall quality of democracy. Instead, this quality is a product of appropriate analyses of electoral politics and market mechanisms. '"(d)emocratic consolidation requires much more than elections and markets." Rather, a consolidated democracy is a political situation in which democracy has become "the only game in town"'5 For Schmitter, the consolidation of democracy is "the process of transforming the accidental arrangements, prudential norms and contingent solutions which have emerged during the transition from autocracy into relations of cooperation and competition that are reliably known, regularly practiced and voluntarily accepted by those person or collectivities, i.e., politicians and citizens, who participate in democratic governance."6 According to Linz and Stepan: "A democratic regime is consolidated when no significant party within the polity attempts to create a non-democratic regime, when the majority of the people, even under sever economic crises or deep dissatisfaction, believe that democratic procedures and institutions are the most appropriate way of governing the country, and when governmental and non-governmental forces alike 'become habituated to the resolution of conflict within the specific laws, procedures and institutions sanctioned by the new democratic process.'"7 Lipset uses the term institutionalization interchangeably with consolidation.8 The secularization of Nepal could either be a consolidation process or merely a re-democratization one. The next few years or months will tell but the factors significant to consolidation can, at present, be seen or not be seen in the Nepalese society. Each factor will be taken into consideration in the following discussions. Only the polity which is democratic or democratized can consolidate its democracy or become a consolidated democracy. Starting from this premise, we work our way to the necessities that are required to institutionalize democracy and their presence in the chosen country. Lauri Karvonen asked what characteristics identify a consolidated democracy:9 "The sine qua non of democracy concerns, of course, political institutions and practices. Free and fair elections, competition for political affairs, and effective political institutions must be present in a democratic state. However, democracy cannot be called consolidated if it does not display some further features; these are mechanisms that go to balance and limit majority rule. Extensive human rights and civil liberties, embedded in institutions which go under the common heading Rechtsstaat are necessary in order for democracy not to deteriorate into the tyranny of the majority. It is when majority rule has been reconciled with firm safeguards for individual and minority rights that democracy has become consolidated. It is precisely here that the challenge lies for many newly elected democratic governments: will they be willing to respect individual and minority rights and thereby limit their own power, or will they give way to the temptation to use their democratic legitimacy to persecute minorities and political opponents." According to Lipset,10 the only necessary factors to sustain democracy are capitalism and legitimacy among a chosen set of legitimacy, executive and electoral systems, civil society and political parties and rule of law and economic order which are actually aspects of the first two. Capitalism or economic order is obviously absent in the Nepalese checklist. Nepal came late to modernization in education, medicine, infrastructure, telecommunications, electricity, industry or civil service.11 The country remains dependent on agriculture as its primary economic activity, employing 80% of its population to cultivate the 20% cultivatable area of its territory focusing on rice and wheat. The surplus of the lower Terai lowlands can only be used to supply the food deficient hill areas. The growing carpet and garments industry increased merchandise exports but dented the previous years' deficits by only 4% in 2000-2001. Nepal's gross domestic product per capita: purchasing power parity is only $1,400 (2003 estimate). Around 42% of its population is below poverty line (1995-96 estimate) and an unemployment rate of 47% (2001 estimate). The revenue collection is only $1.153 billion but government expenses reach to $1.789 billion including capital expenditures of $NA (FY05/06 esimate).12 According to Przeworski, Alvarez, Cheibub and Limongi13, "Once a country has a democratic regime, its level of economic development has a very strong effect on the probability that democracy will survive." They pointed out that poor countries with annual per capita income of less than $1000 are very fragile. Once democracy is in place economic affluence is a sufficient condition for it to survive and in poorer countries, democracies can survive if they generate economic growth with a moderate rate of inflation. Inflation rate also threatens democratic stability.14 Economic performance is crucially important for the survival of democracy. Democracy is much more likely to survive in countries where income inequality is declining over time.15 All of the above are true to Nepal and points directly to the lack of democratic consolidation. Legitimate governance is directly related to political learning and cooperation of the citizenry and this affects habitualization of democratic processes. The lack of election in Nepal since 1999 puts the legitimacy of the parliament and most elective executive officers in a questionable status. The reinstatement of the Parliament by the monarch does not help this legitimization. There could be improvements on this issue due to the secularization of the state but that is yet to be seen especially when 70% of the populace have Maoist sentiments. Previous insurrections in 1950, 1979 and 1990 were not revolutionary and intended only for the establishment of a multi-party system. The upsurge of Communism forced the government to use unconstitutional methods and marginalized much of the existing parties. Suffering from factionalized political parties, with leaders competing for power and position regardless of political purpose, governmental instability, poor governance and lawlessness ensued. The emerging political class developed symbiotic relationship with the bureaucracy and lost interest in social transformation. Swamped by piling problems, both globally and popularly, Nepalese leaders lose credibility and legitimacy. Corruption and compromise of power, lack of professionalism and explicit standards in political leaders cause crises in governability.16 The awakened political consciousness of the Nepalese people, which was the most important factor in its democratization, educated them that civic and human rights are attainable goals. The problem is in remaining within and cooperating with a democratic system that barely exists in a government full of bureaucrats full of self-interest and corruption and an inviting Maoist solution. The Nepalese political parties are fragmented with their own interests in power-grabbing and monopoly and pursuing each other's necks. Their political ideologies prevent their intentions to unite. Long standing political parties are experts not only with democracy but also with subversion of democracy. Political learning cuts both ways.17 The internal disunity in each political party has further reduced the possibility of democratic stability and output efficiency. Political institutions index the effectiveness of popular representation. Systems of representation, arrangements for the division and supervision of powers, and methods of organizing interests, as well as legal doctrines and the rights and duties associated with citizenship are reflected in the institutions and their services. It is not necessary to discuss the possible relevance of the country's parliamentary system's possible contributions to the maintenance of democracy because from the past years they have only acted as the king's rubber stamp. This view may likely change in the following years with the recent developments. The survival of democracies depends upon their institutional systems. Both parliamentary and presidential systems are vulnerable to bad economic performance, with presidential system having more likelihood of surviving.18 The International Commission of Jurist called for international community action to restore human rights and rule of law lost by the direct assumption of power by the Nepalese monarch on 1 February 2005, suspending almost all rights in a new state of emergency and removing most of the last democratic checks and balances on the Army. The king's far-reaching action has added a new layer of human rights violations to the existing patterns of gross and systematic violations suffered by the Nepalese people at the hands of both the government security forces and the Maoist insurgents. Nepal's obligations under the major rights treaties to which it is a party and to its very own constitution remain unfulfilled.19 The popular representation espoused by the Nepalese constitution remains un-enforced, even under the present parliament which is not elected. Civic education is an important key to democracy and the creation of civic culture deepen democracy in both private and public life. Civic education affects socialization (the awareness of social responsibility), humanization (responsibilities beyond borders) and participation of citizens in public life (social transformation). There increase in civic education in Nepal that came with democratization. The existence of diversity, politicization, polarization and factionalism enfeebled the Nepalese civil society. Its institutions have been reduced in their ability to set and pursue distinctive, autonomous institutional goals. It is incapable of bargaining with economic and political societies and international regimes. They remain acting as interest groups and unable to participate in consolidation of democracy.20 The failure of the Nepalese government to strengthen the civil society has eroded not only state autonomy but also atomized the family and the community. Massive social disempowerment afflicted the citizen and challenged the rule of law. Debasement of the autonomy of voluntary organizations made the citizen dependent on centralized, patronage-based, paternalistic authority and permeated its decision-making. The cyclic relationship between underdevelopment and civil society reinforced poverty. It is true that from the current state of Nepal's democracy much work has to be done, in terms of values formation in both the institutions and the individuals. The government must be able to regain the trust of the citizens in order for them to cooperate in nation-building. This is only possible if enough food in on the table. Sincere action in the form of public service, proper enforcement of law and reforms must be seen to occur before the minorities will take their places in the democracy. The insurgents must turn their swords into ploughshares and introduce a violence-less ideology in the open that will integrated into the mainstream politics without the fear of losing the fruits of democracy even if the Communists would take the reigns of the state. When this happens, it may be said that Nepalese democracy has become consolidated, institutionalized and habitualized. The authors of the two volumes of Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies, concurring with Linz and Stepan, define consolidation as a point in which democracy becomes routinized and deeply internalized in social, institutional, and even psychological life, as well as in political calculations for achieving success. Their definition covers behavioral, attitudinal and institutional dimensions. Behaviorally, consolidation occurs when significant actors in the polity avoid the use of non-democratic, illegal, or unconstitutional means to achieve their respective ends. Attitudinally, consolidation exists when a majority of public opinion holds the belief that democratic procedures and institutions are the most appropriate way to govern collective life in a society such as theirs. Antisystemic disloyal oppositions do not exist. Institutionally, a democratic regime is consolidated when all significant actors is a polity are subjected and habituated to the rule of law, the procedures and institutions of the democratic process. For all the members of the particular polity, democracy is the only game in town.21 In Nepal as in any other country, the institutions and ideals in the form of the constitution and laws may already by installed but whether they work is a long way still. BIBLIOGRAPHY Dev Raj Dahal, July 2001. Civil Society in Nepal: Opening the Ground for Questions. Center for Development and Governance. Kathmandu, Nepal. Diamond, L. Developing Democracy. Toward Consolidation. Baltimore:JHPUP, 1999. European Commission External Relations Directorate General. Nepal & The European Community Cooperation Strategy 2002-2006, Country Strategy Paper 13 November 2003. International Commission of Jurists. Nepal: The Rule of Law Abandoned. March 2005. www.icj.org/IMG/pdf/NepalReport2005.pdf [17 May 2006] Karvonen, L. and Anckar, C. Party Systems and the Consolidation of Democracy: A Comparative Study of the Third World, paper prepared for BCPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, Institut d/Etudes Politiques de Grenoble, 6-11 April 2001. Linz, JJ. and Stepan, A. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore:JHPUP, 1996. Linz, J and Stepan, A. Toward Consolidated Democracies, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 7, Issue 2, 1996. Linz, J. and Stepan, A. Toward Consolidated Democracies: Five Arenas and Three Surmountable Obstacles, paper presented at International Conference on Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies Trends and Challenges. Taipei: Institute of National Policies Research, 1995. Lipset, Seymour Martin. The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited: 1993 Presidential Address, American Sociological Review 59 (1994). O'Donnel, G. Illusions about Consolidation, journal of Democracy, Vol. 7, Issue 2, 1996. Przeworski, A. Alvarez, J. et.al., What Makes Democracies Endure Journal of Democracy 7.1 (1996) Schedler, A. What is Democratic Consolidation Journal of Democracy, Vol. 9, Issue 2, 1998. Schedler, A. How Should We Study Consolidation Democratization, Vol. 5 Issue 4, 1998. Schedler, A. Measuring Democratic Consolidation. Sudies in Comparative International Development, Vol. 36, Issue 1, 2001. Schimitter, P. On Civil Society and the Consolidation of Democracy: Ten General Propositions and Nine Speculations about their Relation in Asian Societies, paper presented at International Conference on Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies Trends and Challenges. Taipei: Institute of National Policies Research, 1995. Wikipedia. 19 May 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nepal [17 May 2006] Wikipedia, 19 May 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal [17 May 2006]. World Factbook, 16 May 2006. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/np.html [17 May 2006] Read More