Democracy For Nepal: The Blame Game

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

The Blame Game

Some people badmouth the political parties endlessly. They blame the parties for the Maoists, they blame the parties for the king. They blame the parties for the 1990s as if that was a dark period in Nepal's history when facts prove otherwise: just look at all the infrastructure work that got done. Dark compared to what? The Panchayat? The Rana rule?

It is one thing to criticize the political parties. After all, it is that right to free speech that we are fighting for when we are fighting for democracy, a right that neither the king nor the Maoists allow. But it is quite another thing to pour your resources into attacking the political parties when those resources should be directed against the autocratic camps in the country.

The political parties did not give birth to the monarchy and its inherent autocratic tendencies. The political parties did not give birth to the ideology called Maoism.

Infighting is a symptom of powerlessness. When we attack the parties, we democrats are engaging in infighting. We have to counter that tendency so as to strengthen our democratic camp.

It is not true the monarchy and the Maoists are stronger than the ideal of democracy. A democracy would be one where the country is lead by someone who is directly elected by the people who is Commander In Chief of the army and is sworn to uphold and protect the constitution. Protecting democracy would be the army's prime responsibility. Attempts to sabotage democracy would amount to treason. Both brute physical force and rule of law would be on democracy's side.

But that democracy we have never had.

It is sad the king did not reciprocate the Maoists' ceasefire. And it is sad the king did not appreciate the 12 point agreement between the Maoists and the political parties. But then it is hard to understand the king's actions if you look at him through the eyes of the democrats. The monarchy is out to preserve itself and expand its base. The country is a small price to pay.

People like Girija Koirala, Madhav Nepal, Sher Bahadur Deuba and the rest have been duly elected by their respective parties. It is one thing to criticize their specific words and actions, but it is quite another to be dismissive of them. Girija is not the reason the king has the country under his claws, the king is the reason.

We should focus more on the future agenda in the democratic camp. If we did not like what the country had in the 1990s, we should work to offer an alternate vision for where the country should go down the line.

But even that is kind of secondary. The immediate challenge is to help the movement for democracy the best we can. Attacking people in the democratic camp is hardly the way to go.

There are three worst case scenarios I see.

The king imposes martial law. That would hurt him further, but he could do it as an act of desperation.
The king could get ousted, and the army could stage a coup and take over. Pyar Jung could end up the Nepali Musharraf.
The king could get ousted, the army could get disbanded, and the Maoists could decide they want a communist republic after all, and they want it now. Nepal could end up a one party state of the Maoists.

I don't see either of these unfolding, really. But we have to watch out. And we have to proactively prevent them. We do that by putting forth a sophisticated, effective, robust democracy movement. We have to act like we are going to reoccupy the center.

My Proposal To The Saturday Symposium At Columbia

Visitors

11 January