 |
|
Year
14, Volume II, Issue 1, Published On Monday Febuary 17, 2003 (Magh 05,
2059), New York, USA
|
| Home >> (Year 14 Volume II Issue 1 Dated Feb 17 2003) >> Economics |
CRISES IN NEPAL: FROM POVERTY TO CONSTITUTION EN ROUTE TO THE REPUBLICANISM
Surendra R. DevkotaÓ
Though living on the other edge of the globe, events of Nepal always distract the mind and attention for a while. The bloodshed, politics, and power are becoming daily buzzwords. So I tried to review what is politics? Aristotle's word for ‘politics’ is politikę, which is short for politikę epistęmę or ‘political science’. It belongs to one of the three main branches of science, which Aristotle distinguishes by their ends or objects. Introspective science is concerned with truth or knowledge for its own sake; practical science with good action; and productive science with making useful or beautiful objects. Politics is a practical science, since it is concerned with the noble action or happiness of the citizens. Politics is concerned with power. Politicians seek to gain power and control the government of the state.
After that I went further and figured out some political philosophies based on different dictionaries and encyclopedia. I sorted some of the contemporary political philosophies relevant to Nepal.
Anarchism: Anarchism is a theory of
society without state rule. It is a theory of society without any coercive
authority in any area - government, business, industry, commerce, religion,
education, the family. Anarchism does not preclude social organization, social
order or rules, the appropriate delegation of authority.
Communism: A system of social organization in which property is
held in common by members of a community rather than being owned privately by
individuals. In the twentieth century Karl Marx used the term to refer to a
movement, which he thought would emancipate the working class from
capitalism. This system aims for a
situation in which every individual will be free to fulfill his or her
potential, and to live on an equal footing with everyone else. But its chosen
means is the centralized control of the means of production, distribution, and
much else besides.
Conservatism: The conservative
approach seeks to preserve the status quo rather than engage in wholesale
revolution or overthrow existing institutions. Conservative thinkers have held
a large variety of views on such matters as religion, ethics, and the concept
of human values. In general, conservatism possessed a keen sense of the darker,
more egoistic sides of human beings.
Democracy: A system of government by the people. It is the best form of government for political equality, serves welfare, autonomy, equality, and agreement. The negative claim for democracy is a variant of Winston Churchill's quip that democracy is the worst form of government other than all the other forms we know. There are many forms of government. In a monarchy supreme power is placed in a single person. In an oligarchy, power is placed in the hands of a few people. In an aristocracy rule is placed in the hands of the best-qualified people. In a democracy the power is placed in the hands of the wealthy. In a democracy power is placed in the hands of the people.
The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors. As Benjamin Franklin wrote, "In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns."
Constitutionalism: Constitutionalism is the idea associated with the political theories of John Locke and the "founders" of the American republic. It views that government can and should be legally limited in its powers, and that its authority depends on its observing these limitations. How can a government be legally limited if law is the creation of government? How a government can be self-limiting. There must be protected in written rules – Constitution, which establishes a stable framework for the exercise of public power. It is a "living tree" which grows and develops in tandem with changing political values and principles.
I also learned the difference between two concepts: sovereignty and government. Sovereignty is the possession of supreme (and possibly unlimited) power and authority over some domain, and government is as those persons or bodies through whom sovereignty is exercised. One should understand about constitutional democracies where the people's sovereignty is thought to be unlimited but the government's power is constitutionally limited.
Thereafter, I recalled some of my knowledge of high school history studied at Luintel School, Gorkha. I also gathered some recollections, our forefathers who helped the King P. N Shah’s unification movement. A draft family genealogy my own also revealed that one of forefathers affiliated with Bhimsen Thapa’s infantry was killed in a battle with English army in the western Nepal. I still feel proud when Krishna Prasad Bhattarai told me about my father’s involvement in the 2007 movement to control Gorkha. There were days that many people of different walks of life and their forefathers had contributed in different ways for the betterment of Nepal. Why did different walks of people contribute in different ways in different time? I further confused on who is answerable to martyrs?
After the restoration of democracy in 1990 we witnessed the chaos of politics in the name of people. The Nepali Congress, which ruled most of the time, failed to govern honestly and for the poverty-stricken people. Visionless politicians started a money laundering business. I realized and still believe that my country is not poor due to lack of resources, because of bad policies introduced by different vested interests. The vested interests of almost all political parties and their leaders as well as bureaucrats were ‘to maximize their own utility, needs and wants’. Meanwhile, a tiny fraction of society started to revolt against the control of resources by ruling elites and started to mobilize the frustrated mass. The cumulative impact of all of these resulted to the end of an era of new democratic Nepal after the present King became the chief executing officer of Nepal, on October 4 2002, by announcing through the state owned media, " I have taken over the executive powers of the kingdom under Article 127 of the Constitution as the Prime Minister was incapable of holding the elections as promised by him earlier".
I believe that the 1990 Constitution of Nepal is raped by all kinds of political forces in Nepal at different time. The scar of rape is unrecoverable and inexcusable because it maligns the chemistry of constitutional content. Implicitly, the present breeds of political masses are failing to catch people’s aspirations. It is evident that the visionless and selfish gangs incurred in different time period ruined Nepal. In the meantime, everybody is studying King’s political maneuverability. But options are limited either to reverse to autocratic rule or to harmonize with political forces. King seems inspired by the conservatives. One should be aware of that the very side effect of the Conservatism could be Constitutionalism. I believe that the following two quotes are sufficient to read present political mess in Nepal. "An hereditary aristocracy... will change the form of our governments from the best to the worst in the world” Thomas Jefferson to George Washington (1786, ME 6:3). "I conscientiously believe that governments founded in [republican principles] are more friendly to the happiness of the people at large, and especially of a people so capable of self-government as ours." --Thomas Jefferson to David Howell (1810, ME 12:436). (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0400.htm).
My simple understanding is that poverty is being game of politics for different political actors in Nepal. The ruling elites never felt shy to see the mass poverty. For example, according to a Poverty Report of the UNDP ([1]) poverty has increased since the late 1970s, mostly in rural areas where 85 percent of the population resides. Poverty increased at the rate of 3.1percent between mid-1980s and the mid-1990s- the highest rate in South Asia. The very unanswered question is why the poverty level is not arrested in spite of huge national and international efforts. Has development really failed in Nepal? Who should take the responsibility?
Although HMGN spent five decades of development planning, out of nearly four thousands villages, alias village development unit, more than four-fifth villages are still lacking of basic needs of development such as a primary health care facility, a post office, a telephone, technical advisers for agriculture, infrastructure etc. What happened to the past efforts? For example, why population growth is still a great threat to the development in spite of a huge investment and a top prioritized agenda in each successive plan since seventies? The population growth data indicates that during the last five decades the average annual population control was 0.011 percent. Unfortunately, it won’t be any surprises to find the people who are completely unaware about the proper uses of contraceptives. Much noise could be heard at the seminars organized in the cities. The village, a unit for the socioeconomic development, has nothing available in terms of economic cum development structure. The local needs and center’s contribution is in opposite direction. The flows of problem and resources are in opposite direction like juxtaposing two pyramids (box 1). The past fifty years developmental efforts to the village level could not bring a substantial change in the living standard of the people. The development planning and policies in Nepal are for the elite class and by the elite people.
Flow of resources
from center to village Ministries Departments District
Offices Village level Center Districts Villages Flow of
problems from village to center
Box
1
The genuine problem of Nepal is poverty, and Maoists are trying to capitalize this. Maoist is a cumulative output of failed governance vis-ŕ-vis development in Nepal. Had all stakeholders sincerely considered the poverty at villages, the country would have never witnessed the bloodbath of fellow denizens and foul players of the political games. People are fed up with the patch up developmental works, which are not only deceptive but also sources of money laundering to the ruling elite staying in city centers. All sort of resource and its allocation are controlled at the center. Therefore, in order to break the vicious circle of poverty and under development, villages should be converted in to an economic and development institute. To harmonize the villages, the district unit (a group of villages) can play a complementary role. The village and district are politico-administrative units, which have to deal lots of socioeconomic problems, but have insignificant role in resource allocations. Village and district units should be properly institutionalized with clear mandate of resource mobilization. They must be a complementary unit so that they will be empowered by both economic and development planning and implementation facilities. A true decentralization should focus the village economy including human capital.
To sum up, it is now question of sincerity of ruling elites including politicians to fellow denizens. The mesh of the present crises is intertwined with the politico-economics, and means and ends of the governance. Nepal is an example of the victim of the development, where different rulers complement with each other to control all kinds of resources. Publics wish that the King should not put off the path of democracy. Otherwise, the King may not be able to resist the evolving sentiments of republicanism in the country - a very emerging genuine feeling among different walks life.