From Far & Near
By Shashi P.B.B. Malla
Most Nepalese have seen the writing on the wall. We all are aware that an overwhelming majority of Nepalese are literate. They know what is happening in our country, the neighbourhood and the wider world.
They are acutely aware first, that the current Communist regime is ruling the country haphazardly and inefficiently. In the last parliamentary elections, they achieved the trust of the people and a rock-solid majority to take the country to new heights. But they have been an utter disappointment. They have not only lost the ‘mandate of heaven’, but also the ‘mandate of the people’. There is absolutely no hope that the comrades will mend their ways and return to the path of good governance – actually, their intentions may have been noble, but right from the beginning they started on the wrong path and lost their way. Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli and his co-chair in the Nepal Communist Party (NCP), Pushpa Kamal Dahal [who previously proudly paraded his nom de guerre ‘Prachanda’ or the ‘Fearless One’, but is now no more than a broken reed] are acting like the blind leading the blind [and both have fallen into the ditch – Mathew, 15:14].
Second, it has also become crystal clear to all [except those with ideological blinkers, or with vested interests] that the political system adopted and grudgingly accepted by the people, has not functioned as expected. Federalism as such has malfunctioned, or not functioned at all. People will laugh if we call our political system a functioning democracy [or to use the Nepali word: ‘Loktantra’, which has already achieved a bad connotation]. Judging the tenure of the current government, it would be more correct to term it an ‘authoritarian kleptocracy’ ruled by and supported by a cabal of shady crooks!
In such a dire situation of the country, there is no dearth of apologists and sycophants coming forward to defend a failed regime!
“Ghost of the Crown”
A columnist of The Kathmandu Post, Achyut Wagle (8 December) concedes that there is growing desperation and disenchantment among the masses and that the trust deficit in the existing political parties and leaders is at the highest. He also derides the main opposition Nepali Congress as being ‘toothless’ and instead colluding with the ruling party CPN. This is, of course, damning.
He also admits that in this terrible situation, exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, the government’s apathy is woeful – more so as there seems to be “no credible alternative democratic force emerging, even in the distant horizon.”
Wagle has no thought about the way forward, he remains a staunch supporter of ‘new democracy’ or ‘Loktantra’, and opponent of the monarchy in all its forms. His simple maxim: “The risks associated with a return to the past far outweigh its touted, fictitious benefits.” This is quite a facetious approach, as he does not elaborate on his last point.
Wagle, as also Dr Yonzon [see below] suffer from historical amnesia. They conveniently forget that without the exploits of Prithvi Narayan Shah, modern Nepal would not have come into existence. The territory would have been subjugated by the East India Company, become a British colony and today part of the Indian Union.
And without King Tribhuban championing the cause of democracy and supporting the [then progressive] Nepali Congress in their revolutionary movement (1950-51) against Rana autocracy, who knows what course history would have taken?
“In defense of [a/the] secular republic”
Another ersatz critic of the present (dis)order is Dr Chhering Yonzon writing with the above heading in my Republica (11 December). He is absolutely right, of course, when he writes that Nepal is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-lingual, cultural nation since ages and that our diversity has been our unity and strength.
However, he goes off the track with historical facts. His assertion that the Shah monarchy “suppressed and smothered the identity and culture of various groups and communities for centuries” is downright wrong! The Gorkhali King Prithvi Narayan Shah had commanders from many ethnic groups in his ‘army of national unity’. This tradition was continued later. When he conquered the ‘Emerald Valley’, he in no way suppressed the Newari culture. In fact, he adopted many aspects of it. Even his ascension to the throne of the Kingdom of Nepal was marked by the supreme symbolism of receiving ‘tika’ (or holy red mark) from the Newari ‘Living Goddess’ or Kumari from the Buddhist clan of Shakyas.
The writer claims that the historic Constituent Assembly ratified the constitution that possessed progressive tenets such as republic, federalism, secularism and proportionate inclusiveness in state organs as main pillars. These political principles are not progressive per se. Just thinking/writing about it does not make it so. If they are not implemented rigorously, what is the point of enshrining them as ‘shining examples’ in the constitution? As they say so tellingly: ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’!
The writer also argues that the supreme advantage of a republic lies in the fact that a Madhesi has already been elected to the high office of president, and a woman currently occupies this post. And in the not distant future, a Dalit , a person from the so-called untouchable caste could very well be president. This is a specious argument at best, and an attempt to paper over systemic discrimination at worst.
Vital Difference between Absolute & Constitutional Monarchy
Most apologists of the current political dispensation and diehard ant-monarchists [and of course Communists] are not capable of distinguishing between absolute and constitutional monarchy.
In an absolute monarchy or kingship, the monarch actually ruled and did not merely reign.She/He had an absolute, perhaps divinely ordained, right to do so, and who acquired this right by heredity. The extreme form was that of the French King Louis XIV who said of himself: “L’etatc’estmoi” [I am the state]. In modern times, this form has more or less died out, although today’s Rama X of Thailand has such authoritarian tendencies.
Contemporary monarchies – like in the UK, the Scandinavian countries and Japan – are starkly limited in their powers and functions and anchored in the country’s constitution, hence are termed ‘constitutional monarchies’.
They ground their general support in the general utility of the institution in a particular context. Many believe that it is best to have a head of state who is ‘above’ politics and does not have to compete for that role. In the Nepalese context, this has not been the case. The present incumbent, Bidhya Bhandari especially has not been exemplary.
Many also consider the ruling family as the symbolic embodiment of the country’s rich history, as is undoubtedly the case of Nepal. The Nepalese monarchy was indeed a shining example of the country’s sovereignty. The perspicacious English journalist and constitutional commentator Walter Bagehot [1826-77] distinguished between the ‘dignified’ and the ‘efficient’ parts of the constitution. He considered the monarchy as a ‘dignified element’ which legitimizes the authority of the state and justifies principles which would otherwise prove divisive.
Bagehot would have argued that there is no ‘living reality’ to the current Nepalese Constitution – no ‘dignified’ part exists to give popular legitimacy to the inconspicuous cabinet – the ‘buckle’ [clasp] which fastened the legislature to the executive.
One can, therefore, ask a very simple question. Historically speaking, what has been the contribution of various Nepali politicians since 1951, compared to that of the outstanding ones of the Shah monarchs?
Our current political system can be compared to that of an old building in a great state of dilapidation and disrepair. Unfortunately, the very structure was also built on unsound foundations. Everything seems to be falling apart. Even the water pipes and the electricity lines are decrepit. Can such a building be spruced up and made habitable?
However, the fundamental point is that the building was made on the orders of foreigners, who had no business in poking their noses in the affair at all. And then to cap it all, many of the construction workers were trained in that foreign country and told to build as per the specifications dictated to them. Even building-plans were provided from the foreign source. Could the completed building have been made to last, or be pleasing to the genius of the Nepalese people?
Thus, the only way out of the morass or to be specific ‘the Kathmandu Swamp’ is to demolish this structure of ill repute and build anew.
The Nepali Congress Enters the Equation
This Monday, the main opposition party, the Nepali Congress finally came out of their self-induced slumber and organized mass demonstrations in all 77 districts. This was allegedly an attempt to expose the Oli administration’s failures and hold it to account.
However, this will probably remain a one-day highlight without any repercussions. A former parliamentary speaker, Daman Nath Dhungana questioned the very motives of the party. He maintains that instead of holding street protests, it should have agitated for convening the House and held the government to account from Parliament (The Kathmandu Post, 15 December).
Various factors hinder the grand old party from asserting itself:
- The leadership is confused, according to a central level member
- There is no political space for the next generation of leaders
- The two feuding heads Deuba and Ram Chandra Poudel have tarnished the image of the party
- There is no ‘inner-party democracy’ functioning
- There is something fishy about party chairman Sher Bahadur Deuba’s close proximity to PM K.P. Sharma Oli and their ‘tacit understandings’
- The party is not willing to admit its historical mistake of abandoning the grand alliance of ‘democratic socialism’ with constitutional monarchy (forged during the Revolution of 1950-51), and of being hopelessly manipulated by the Indian establishment [as all other parties] after 2006. However, at least one leader, Dr Shashanka Koirala has conceded the necessity of holding a referendum on the Hindu State [and constitutional monarchy?].
Thus, until and unless the ‘Young Turks’ do something and do it fast, the party is destined for oblivion!
The Way Forward to New Horizons
Observing all the protests and demonstrations throughout the country, it is clear that nothing much has actually been achieved to dislodge the power-hungry apparatchiks and comrades, in spite of the manifest sound and fury. Our dark and dreary ‘winter of discontent’ will continue.
The organizers and ‘leaders’ of the protest movement will have to step up and escalate its activities. There has to be transparency and the leaders have to formulate their aims and come out into the open. They could as a first step, constitute a ‘Council of Elders’ to advise them on the way forward.
The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com
Login to add a comment