Extend the parliament, run ministries by committees or go the risky path

A few weeks back I wrote on the plight of our rivers. I was playing in the back of my head with the dimension of the problem, wondering whether there is a solution that is accessible and affordable to us. That pondering remains but has been pushed further back with the recent political situation of the country. Not unusual for an unstable political set up like ours. So let us spend some (more) time thinking about politics. Obviously Nepalese politics is a very frustrating topic, for few substantial and sustainable changes have taken place over the years. Now there will be people out there who do not agree with me in what I just wrote- those of us who believe a lot has changed and a lot is in the process of changing. I argue that although the second is true, i.e. it might be true that a lot is in the process of changing, the first is largely untrue.

The problem is with our mindset

Many people died untimely deaths in the country in the aftermath of the lack of political stability the country has witnessed since the 1990 movement stripped the monarchy of key executive powers. There have been many general strikes, many government changes, many travel warnings issued by foreign representatives, huge losses in national economic output, an unfortunate failure to cash in on the economic leaps of the neighboring giants…the list could go on.

So that does sound like a lot has happened in the political arena in Nepal. It is not completely untrue. But despite all that political chaos remains. Why? I believe that the problem is with our mindset. In our mindset little has changed. Now why do I think so?

First, at the palpable level, little has happened to people living in the country. Why do I think so? To answer that one needs to think about the intersection of the political system with the everyday life of a common Nepali citizen. How does politics affect everyday life? Obviously in the way government administration "serves" the people. And how has that been? Poor, very poor. Government bureaucracy is, with rare exceptions, composed of a bunch of hungry people who treat their job as a means to the satisfaction of their hungry hearts. This was so then and this is so now. I think we can take it for a fact for now and I promise to come up with a discussion on this sometime in the future. And we don't have a place to complain. For in a country where the prime minister makes money by presenting a false airway ticket bill, where do you go to complain? What do you do?

The need for a change

Is there no exit? There is, I would say. And the perception of the need for an exit is the mother of the Maoist movement. Because most of us do feel the need for a change the Maoists stand at this juncture in time as the group representing the interest of the majority of us. Testimony to that are the votes they gathered and the seats they occupy in the current parliament.

No change is a change until we really embrace it

Reforming government bureaucracy is the first thing to do. And how big a reform we need! My perception of the size of the reform needed often justifies a change in the system. Well we have achieved that in a way. Nepal is not a monarchy anymore. The highest executive is elected. Even the president is chosen by an election. The constitution, even though it is just an interim constitution, talks of rights of the people and the duties of the state. Seems like a true democracy. But it is? Does the Nepalese today feel he belongs to a democracy? I don't think so. And I don't feel I live in a democratic system. So where have things gone wrong?

Yes we have changed basic definitions of the Nepalese state. Even the name of our country has changed and we constantly talk of a new Nepal (although it is becoming more and more apparent that the fewest of us, if at all are aware of what we are talking about when we say new Nepal). But let us ask ourselves how strongly we believe in those changes. Question one: Do you know that monarchy is in Nepal anymore? I do. The other part of question one: Do you believe monarchy could return in Nepal? Unfortunately I do (Well here I should perhaps add that Republica, my favorite publishing house as of now declined to publish a piece in which I said that monarchy could return. Their opinion editor argued- monarchy has gone and therefore my writing is not timely). Question two: Do you know Nepal is no more a Hindu nation? Yes. Other part of question two: Do you think Nepal could again become a Hindu nation as early as tomorrow? I do. Question three: Is there democracy in Nepal? Yes. Question three, part two: Do you think a dictatorship could be established in Nepal as early as tonight? I do. Question four: Do you believe India is a good friend of Nepal? Yes I do. Do you believe India intends to get its hands on some more natural resources in Nepal? Do you believe India might be planning to make Nepal into a Bhutan and then a Sikkim? Yes I do. Yes it could. Do you believe if someone said the army is planning to establish a military rule in Nepal? Yes I strongly do.

Well those were my answers. My apologies if my answers do not represent your beliefs. But those were my earnest answers. And I know people who agree with me. In fact more agree than not. And in my opinion the reason is that we as a nation have failed to embrace the changes that we believe to have come about in our system in the last couple of decades.

Embracing change

When it comes to change the man living in conditions that are (by his own standards) comfortable to okay is by nature status-quoist. Or so it seems to me. Therefore changes do not easily establish themselves and have to be vigorously institutionalized. There is no easy way as to how to make the general populace believe in change. And the one and only way is to communicate change. A change in the system itself needs to be communicated by the bureaucracy of the system. This is yet to happen. In my opinion, an important notion is that the population will only accept a change that it has brought about. It might well be that the changes (although they are only in the name of the country and the possession of the then Royal Palaces) were wished for by the people, but when it came to defining those changes less than a thousand people were involved. And that is the biggest tragedy of our time. Most if not all of those who declared the change have shown their dark sides and the logical question that comes to the head of a layman is "why should I believe in the changes brought about by someone representing me, if he never takes care of me as he himself promised, if he turns out to be using me to reach where he is now?" Such a question is in my opinion the reason as to why Mr. Paras Shah receives a grand welcome with garlands and even as to why we fail to dismiss that our own Army might be conspiring against us. It would have been a costly affair but had we all been asked as to whether we would want to keep the king or not, want to stay a Hindu country or not etc. we would have felt that the decision is ours and whatever the decision that came out of such a referendum, we would have accepted it better, protected it better. Personally I don't enjoy hearing an old grand mum in the neighborhood saying the king's rule was better. For all that matters to her it really was. Kids did not die in the street in the crossfire, teachers did not rape and kill students, people did not come in gangs to rob, and neighbors helped each other. At least she wouldn't know. And I have no answer to her.

In the same line, that the Maoists are the largest party in the parliament has not been accepted by the other political parties. Else they would have involved them in the government at any cost. Now the last two years were not for political parties to implement individual party policies. It was rather time to form the nation, to form the constitution while running a consensual program that all representatives in the parliament could agree upon. Did that happen? No. Forget about nation-defining and constitution building, our parliament has remained exactly the same as before- busy in securing a seat in the cabinet, busy in amassing wealth for themselves…oh let's not talk about it and get further frustrated. But you see the ways of the parliament clearly show that the change has not even been embraced by the parliament. Ridiculous!

The Maoists are a force

Accept it or not, the Maoists are a force. That has been demonstrated by the success of the general strike they have called. And look at the number of people who have come out into the streets. Now I wouldn't want to think these are all fools or people bought by the Maoists. I would agree if someone suggested the Maoists have so much money as to buy people for a few days, but I still don't believe so many people would come to the streets with personal ambitions alone. There are certainly the frustrated lot within them who have "nothing to lose" and are by that definition of the original communist ideologues potential communists. Whether they are communists or not is again a point of no concern for now but they are there in the streets and are a massive force and they represent the desire for change.

The way forward

Based on what I have heard about them and what I have read of them, definitely not most of the "leaders" of the Maoists party but certainly many of the people out in the streets are ready to "do or die". And that is the spirit that in my opinion should prevail. That the government should go- I do not doubt that. I have always hated the way the government was formed (see previous posts). Tragically enough the first government of the new Nepal was toppled by a government constituted of people who lost in popular elections. The government has failed to deliver. In the interim period the role of the government should have been to serve the process of constitution building. And the government has failed at that. So even if it had been successful otherwise the government should be labeled a failure if it ruled in a time allocated for constitution building and no constitution was built in that time. This is a situation where there is no room for blames and excuse. It's like the job description of the parliament reads it should create a constitution, the parliament failed to do so and some from the parliament still want to stay as the executive power of the country. Madhav Nepal's idea that the government formed from the parliament cannot be removed from the street does have some point in it, but no point at all during this interim period. His logic is no more than the voice of the desire to stick on to power. In fact if he were a true leader he should have resigned way back for it is not just yesterday or the day before that we started talking about the constitution not being ready in time. So Madhav Nepal should resign and the parliament should figure out a way to extend the time for constitution building. Because we have had terrible experiences with individuals in the cabinet, during the interim period, the government could even be replaced by little committees from within the parliament that take care of the different ministries. The reason is simple- in this interim period we, the people, are not waiting to evaluate one party or the other. Through this parliament we want to have our system defined in a constitution. So collective leaderships within ministries would be justifiable. Perhaps each ministry could be looked after by a committee composed of people from different parties. The committees could then take decisions on matters of general interest and misuse of authority would become minimal. This would very much be in the spirit of the creating common grounds for understanding between different parties.

Do or die

If Makune doesn't resign and stays stubbornly then comes the possibility of anything happening. In that case the Maoists might like to try to force their way into the Singhadurbar and declare themselves the rulers. The worry for them then is the Army and the police. The police is in my understanding no more an institution (please forgive me, I will work hard on believing in the police once again), thanks to its constant politicization and should therefore not be a problem on the way of the Maoists but the Army is certainly confused as to its loyalty. At least the top brass who knows the land and the king to be its priority might retaliate and, in case the Maoists actually try and grab executive power, might even want to rule. Even then an army dictatorship or a Maoists absolute rule would certainly be better than stalemate we unfortunately have had to get used to. How the world beyond our borders reacts to that will then determine our fate. And one possibility is that our national identity might die. Or maybe we flourish as a nation much better than we are today.