http://peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=495

चम्चाराम!

I have promised to Anup jee at my private conversation that I will share my views on his views expressed in the interview. I thought it might be more interesting to post it in a public forum. I will be honoring Anup jee, if more people join me to share their views. So here it is.

I think Anup jee has made a strong case for democracy in Nepal by answering the types of questions that a skeptic of democracy would ask. However, he has not addressed or fails to answer the types of questions the faithful of the 'complete' democracy, the aspirants of 'the democratic republic of Nepal' would ask. In order to open a discussion on that front, I would pick some of the points from the interview that might be related to it.

But before that, I want to pick a very interesting and logical analysis by Anup jee of the theory of the "root cause" of the Maoist rebellion that most 'experts' have produced. Because, like Anup jee, I am also from that rare breed of people who do not believe in this theory.

"Conflict analysts," now part of a virtual cottage industry in Nepal,
like to talk about "root causes" of the violent maoist insurgency.
Their argument is that the "root causes" are so endemic and extensive
in Nepal (economic, social, political, ethnic/caste, regional et.,
etc..) that some sort of violent movement was inevitable. I find this
to be a fundamentally flawed argument, in theory, methodology and also
historically. Nothing is inevitable or automatic in history,
especially organized violent movements?.

?.The "root causes" hypothesis, however, can tell us nothing about why
one set of choices was made over another set. ?In other words,
the "root causes" thesis has no predictive value. At its best, it is
an attempt to impute causes to events after the events have taken
place. In that sense "root causes" is a catch-all category that
explains everything and nothing. Plausible analysis, on the other
hand, actually explains the process and mechanisms by which causes
translate into actions and outcomes rather than simply assert that
"root causes" led to this or that outcome. The latter trend is
dominant in analyses of the maoist insurgency in Nepal.

That's right. Basically and logically, these "root causes" are necessary but not sufficient condition for the rebellion. Here are what I wrote about this theory more than a year ago.

Pick any article/book by the 'experts' on Maosist, you will see they invariably relate the rise of the Maoists to people's increased awareness of their social, cultural and political rights and they prescribe to give the neglected and suppressed class, community and gender their fair share as a long term solution to the Maoist 'Problem'.

While there is no doubt about what we should be doing, I disagree with the link of the issues of social and cultural justices to the Maoist uprising.

It may surprise those who did not have a chance to follow all of my arguments in this forum, but my views in this particular case is very similar to what the most ardent Royalists or anti-Maoists have, that is- No, the Maoist uprising is not about equal rights to women (An US intellectual was asking in a discussion, "look, 40 % [?] of the Maoists cadre are women, isn't that a telling story ?". I think, yes, that is a telling story, but still the Maoist uprising is not about the equality to women.), it's not about economic and political rights of backward classes, janajatis, oppressed castes (although the Maoists have brought a new hope and sense of self-respect and pride to them !), it's not about eliminating exploitation or poverty (although that's the dream the Maoists are selling to the poor !)

Now, many who are sympathetic to the Maoists or those who see with their own eyes the obvious link of these issues to the Maoists ( the latter may include even the Royalists) might have been surprised and would like to know why.

My arguments are simple. A new force arises in history, not necessarily perfect or even just positively expressed, only when the existing forces are inadequate to address the contemporary challenge/s. And that goes with Maoists too.

A lot of issues that our 'experts' link to the Maoist uprising actually can be addressed by the constitutional Monarchy alone. It would just need a little push, that's all. Had it not been for the issue that is beyond the capability of the constitutional Monarchy to tackle, Maoists would have emerged as a pressure group or something like that, instead of as a revolutionary force.

There is something the constitutional Monarchy of Nepal is not equipped to deal with, hence the emergence of the Maoists.

What is that thing ?

Go figure out. This is where you should go to understand the nuclear source of the strength of the Maoists. This is where lies the 'solution' of the 'Maoist problem'.

The inadequacy of Nepali constitutional Monarchy vis a vis other surviving constitutional Monarchy is it's inability to deal with its own inadequacies- with it's contradictory and elusive power sharing on one hand and it's refractoriness to democratic cure on the other. The general directionlessness of the whole decade of our 'democracy' was a direct and indirect result of that. And unfortunately, everybody from the establishment, the King and the political parties alike, were hiding this like a guilt-filled AIDS-patient hides his disease.

Somebody had to come to fix that. Somebody from outside the system. Somebody illegal ! Maoists got that job !

Now to the question of democracy.

These days it's fashionable to claim -- as some US-based Nepali
"analysts" do ? that 1990 yielded a fake form of democracy. In Nepal
too, ideologues on the far right and the far left often outdo each
other in questioning the democratic bona fides of the political system
ushered in through the 1990 Constitution. In truth, I believe, that
the political order that resulted from the Movement for the
Restoration of Democracy and the 1990 Constitution was a genuineacy
democratic system. It vested sovereignty in the people and power onto
an elected government. An autocratic King and the pseudo-party
(Panchayat) that he supported for 30 years were on the full defensive
after April 1990.

I probably know some of US-based Nepali "analysts" Anup jee is referring to. In all fairness, I sincerely think that 'fake/genuine' characterization of our democracy is a matter of semantics rather than a matter of fundamental assertion. The fundamental assertion, as far as I can see, is related to 'complete/incomplete' form of democracy. Still further, if one looks at a high resolution picture of the debate, there is no disagreement on the matter of incompleteness of our democracy between the 'middle' argument and the 'left' argument. Their disagreement is only in the importance they give to the 'incomplete' portion of our 'democracy' and whether that, among other things, accounts for the 'failure' of our 'democracy' or not.

Many of the ingredients that make for a stable democracy were, in
fact, in place in post-1990 Nepal: a democratic constitution,
entrenched political parties, relatively fair elections, high voter
mobilization and participation, a free and vibrant media, conscious
civil society (including NGOs), a dynamic private sector..

By saying 'most of the ingredients', Anup jee probably acknowledges the existence of 'missing ingredients' too. And this is exactly what I would like to be the topic of the discussion here.

... In addition, a political culture of peaceful transfer of power was well
underway, including within the United Marxist-Leninist Party (UML).

This one is not very clear to me. Are we talking about the transfer of power from the monarch to the political parties or about intra-party power transfer ? In any case, I think this is very critical part of the argument leading to the question of republicanism, which by definition is a complete transfer of power from the monarch to the political parties. I will elaborate on my assertion sometime later, but I want to claim here that the 'political culture of peaceful power transfer' stopped right after the promulgation of the constitution and it started to go in the reverse direction, slowly at first, then gaining the speed and we don't have to talk about what's going on now. Elaboration later, but I want to make two important points right now. One, by power, I mean real power, not just power in technical sense. Second, that reverse transfer of power occurred in subtle way rather than with a bang except for in recent time.

A minor, but still very important, factor is lack of intra-party democratic culture in the country. It is interesting to note that most of the 'middle' intellectuals often do not talk about it as if this would argue against democracy in Nepal as such. Skeptics of democracy ko ta ke kura garaai bho ra ? They make it a point for 'disqualification' of Nepal for democracy ! I have been talking about it in a larger debate of how this and many other 'weaknesses' in our democratic institutions, rather than arguing against our qualification, in fact argues for the NEED of total democracy to correct these weaknesses in this forum for three years now. And I do not mind to repeat the debate again, if skeptics of democracy would like to join in. Any rajtantrabadi haru ?

Now about the missing ingredient of our 'democracy', the most Anup jee wrote is:

I hasten to add that there were flaws, some of them very significant,
in the post-1990 political order. In my mind there were two principle
sources of flaws. First, there were exclusionary provisions in the
Constitution on issues like language, religion, and gender equality
which made the document less acceptable across the nation than it
could have been. Second, independent of constitutional issues,
successive regimes in Kathmandu simply ignored good governance and the
practice of democracy.

I disagree. I am not saying that they were not flaws. What I am saying is that these are not the PRINCIPLE SOURCES of flaws. The principle source/s of flaws is/are elsewhere. I will come to that source shortly. Here let me put my views on the flaws Anup jee pointed out.

The 'exclusionary provisions in the constitution on issues like language, religion and gender equality'. It is interesting to note that Anup jee later in the interview has rejected the 'root cause theory' of 'the experts' on the Maoist problem, which is based exactly on this principle flaw. As I happen to share Anup jee's doubt on the social-economic root cause theory about the Maoists, I think, no further discussion is necessary for now. This constitutional flaw on the issues of social cultural nature is not the principle source of what we see today.

Now the flaws related to democratic practice, transparency, good governance etc. There is no question that these are the core of democracy itself and we have failed spectacularly in them. But the point is these are not the SOURCE, but rather the CONSEQUENCES of the flaws that exists in the brand of democracy we chose.

The source of all of these consequences is the real power the monarchy retained. That accounts for incomplete destruction of Panchayati culture which accounts for how our political parties became partly Panchayati parties, that accounts for why the Maoists emerged and succeeded to become so powerful which accounts for you name it.

Let me tell to general readers that Anup jee and I have exchanged our views, although not in detail, on other occasions too, and I am aware that Anup jee does not subscribe to 'Monarchy explains all' kind of school of thought. So this posting is also to extend that exchange.

The following para looks like Anup jee's central thesis on what went wrong in our system and how we can right them. And his theory is one that tries to explain things without touching the monarchy.

In my analysis, rather than constitutional issues per se, it is the
latter set of issues relating to ineffective governance, failure to
enact reforms, persistent corruption and cronyism, infighting within
and between political parties that has led Nepal down the path of
gross political instability.

Anup ji is right as far as the IMMEDIATE cause of the gross political instability or whatever we call it for today. But he is silent about the cause of the cause. To make it more interesting from logical point of view, let's test this theory by applying it to the Panchayat regime. Panchayat regime is exactly how is described above. It was an ineffective governance, it failed to enact reforms, there was persistent corruption and cronyism, there was it's own version of infighting between various goots. If we agree, then whom are we supposed to blame for that ? Surya Bahadur, Marich Man, Lokendra ? I think this is where Monarchy-is-not-to-be-blamed theory le phel khaanchha.

Granted today's His Majesty's Government is more powerful than yesterday's His Majesty's Government was. But by how much is the question. Sufficient ? I have argued in my signature article 'Why Republicanism' ( - http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/column.cfm?extraid=622 ) that this power is insufficient and this insufficiency eventually lead to the directionlessness and corruption of our political parties. I believe Anup jee might have chance to read that piece. I will be grateful if Anup ji notes particularly my quasi-sociological arguments that we are talking about the COLLECTIVE FAILURE of all political parties over a long period of time and if that might indicate a serious flaw in the system rather than some unlucky and weired co-incidence that all of the people in the system happened to be corrupt-minded.

If political parties and the post-1990
leadership had managed to enact basic reforms and to provide the
public with a clean and effective government, then although the maoist
leadership may have tried, it is unlikely that they would have
succeeded in waging a national armed campaign. In other words, a new
and revised constitution alone will be insufficient for bringing long
term stability to Nepal. Sweeping reforms in targeted sectors and
sustained good governance I think are the building blocks for peace
and stability in Nepal.

In the underlined sentence above, Anup has answered a question nobody has asked. Or put it this way, he has not answered the question everybody is asking.

The question nobody has asked is this: Is a new and revised constitution sufficient for bringing long term stability to Nepal ?
The question everybody is asking is this : Is a new and revised constitution necessary for bringing long term stability to Nepal ?

I will wait for Anup jee's answer for further discussion.

And lastly, because Anup jee is not eager to appreciate the importance of the question of monarchy in our political crisis, his prescription for the solution of the Maoists problem has become too idealistic and vauge, at least to me. It sounded like 'Sabai milera ramro kaam garema, Maobadi samasyaa aafai hal hunchha'.

The maoists can be convinced to negotiate in earnest if the
legitimacy and strength of the state are not in question. Unity among
the constitutional forces and a strong national reaffirmation of
democracy is, I believe, the only mechanism by which state power in
Nepal can be reasserted. The middle ground of politics in Nepal is
weakened. Only a sustained resurgence of this middle ground can
compel the maoists towards a peaceful resolution. Some in Nepal
believe, mistakenly, that putting up a robust state response against
the maoists means suspending democracy and resorting to stong-arm
autocracy. But doing so achieves exactly the opposite effect ? i.e.,
the maoists gain support and supporters every time state
heavy-handedness and scepter of autocracy rear their heads in Nepal.
And by extension, maoist advocacy of "total change" loses appeal when
democratic institutions accountable to the people are seen as both
legitimate and effective. Actions based on this line of thinking, I
believe, will deter maoists from pursuing the unattainable "total
victory," and encourage them to approach negotiations as strategic
rather than merely a tactical end.

When we talk about the national reaffirmation (I would rather call the final and full affirmation) of democracy, the question of the monarchy invariably comes into it. Khoi ta tyo kura ? Unity among the constitutional forces ? Raja ra party haru ko ekata ? I am not sure if that is possible. Even if that is possible, let us not forget that it did not solve the Maoist problem. As far as the Maoists are concerned, there was unity among political parties and the king until the asoj kanda and all of them were 200% legitimate forces then. So we already saw this unity is not sufficient to 'solve' the Maoist problem.

View/Share this post only

Oops.. sabai italics bhayechha. Here is the correct one. Repalce the last posting with this one

_______________


The following para looks like Anup jee's central thesis on what went wrong in our system and how we can right them. And his theory is one that tries to explain things without touching the monarchy.

In my analysis, rather than constitutional issues per se, it is the
latter set of issues relating to ineffective governance, failure to
enact reforms, persistent corruption and cronyism, infighting within
and between political parties that has led Nepal down the path of
gross political instability.

Anup ji is right as far as the IMMEDIATE cause of the gross political instability or whatever we call it for today. But he is silent about the cause of the cause. To make it more interesting from logical point of view, let's test this theory by applying it to the Panchayat regime. Panchayat regime is exactly how is described above. It was an ineffective governance, it failed to enact reforms, there was persistent corruption and cronyism, there was it's own version of infighting between various goots. If we agree, then whom are we supposed to blame for that ? Surya Bahadur, Marich Man, Lokendra ? I think this is where Monarchy-is-not-to-be-blamed theory le phel khaanchha.

Granted today's His Majesty's Government is more powerful than yesterday's His Majesty's Government was. But by how much is the question. Sufficient ? I have argued in my signature article 'Why Republicanism' ( - http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/column.cfm?extraid=622 ) that this power is insufficient and this insufficiency eventually lead to the directionlessness and corruption of our political parties. I believe Anup jee might have chance to read that piece. I will be grateful if Anup ji notes particularly my quasi-sociological arguments that we are talking about the COLLECTIVE FAILURE of all political parties over a long period of time and if that might indicate a serious flaw in the system rather than some unlucky and weired co-incidence that all of the people in the system happened to be corrupt-minded.

If political parties and the post-1990
leadership had managed to enact basic reforms and to provide the
public with a clean and effective government, then although the maoist
leadership may have tried, it is unlikely that they would have
succeeded in waging a national armed campaign. In other words, a new
and revised constitution alone will be insufficient for bringing long
term stability to Nepal. Sweeping reforms in targeted sectors and
sustained good governance I think are the building blocks for peace
and stability in Nepal.

In the underlined sentence above, Anup has answered a question nobody has asked. Or put it this way, he has not answered the question everybody is asking.

The question nobody has asked is this: Is a new and revised constitution sufficient for bringing long term stability to Nepal ?
The question everybody is asking is this : Is a new and revised constitution necessary for bringing long term stability to Nepal ?

I will wait for Anup jee's answer for further discussion.

And lastly, because Anup jee is not eager to appreciate the importance of the question of monarchy in our political crisis, his prescription for the solution of the Maoists problem has become too idealistic and vauge, at least to me. It sounded like 'Sabai milera ramro kaam garema, Maobadi samasyaa aafai hal hunchha'.

The maoists can be convinced to negotiate in earnest if the
legitimacy and strength of the state are not in question. Unity among
the constitutional forces and a strong national reaffirmation of
democracy is, I believe, the only mechanism by which state power in
Nepal can be reasserted. The middle ground of politics in Nepal is
weakened. Only a sustained resurgence of this middle ground can
compel the maoists towards a peaceful resolution. Some in Nepal
believe, mistakenly, that putting up a robust state response against
the maoists means suspending democracy and resorting to stong-arm
autocracy. But doing so achieves exactly the opposite effect ? i.e.,
the maoists gain support and supporters every time state
heavy-handedness and scepter of autocracy rear their heads in Nepal.
And by extension, maoist advocacy of "total change" loses appeal when
democratic institutions accountable to the people are seen as both
legitimate and effective. Actions based on this line of thinking, I
believe, will deter maoists from pursuing the unattainable "total
victory," and encourage them to approach negotiations as strategic
rather than merely a tactical end.

When we talk about the national reaffirmation (I would rather call the final and full affirmation) of democracy, the question of the monarchy invariably comes into it. Khoi ta tyo kura ? Unity among the constitutional forces ? Raja ra party haru ko ekata ? I am not sure if that is possible. Even if that is possible, let us not forget that it did not solve the Maoist problem. As far as the Maoists are concerned, there was unity among political parties and the king until the asoj kanda and all of them were 200% legitimate forces then. So we already saw this unity is not sufficient to 'solve' the Maoist problem.

Nepe ji writes:"A lot of issues that our 'experts' link to the Maoist uprising actually can be addressed by the constitutional Monarchy alone."

I would have appreciated more if he had given a few examples of those
single quoted 'Experts'.

I disagree that "The general directionlessness of the whole decade of our 'democracy' was a direct and indirect result of that." When we talk about democracy, its
direction is already fixed, that is democracy --freedom--, I don't think we need
more elaboration in the definition of democrcacy. What ever happened (some
wrong parts) in last dozen of years in Nepal, these were happened in the course
of finding a right direction to Democracy, while destination remains again as
democracy. The parliamentary parties were trying several different course
and in the middle of route the Maoist forces came and hijacked the whole
system. So, I disagree with you that

"Somebody had to come to fix that. Somebody from outside the system. Somebody illegal ! Maoists got that job !"

The section of leadership in those parliamentarian parties who are honestly
trying to find right track to the projected destination "democracy" will finally
lead and fix the problem. Maoists will be proved wrong and they are not
in favor of democracy, lets not forget this. Anyone who says that Maoist
leadership is for democracy, then you are trying to confuse peoples.
In that case the definition of your democracy and freedom might be
different.

GP

Kina duita thread Nepe ji?

Is Dr. Anup related to Keshar Jung Rayamaji?