On the surface, the present political deadlock in Nepal may appear as a battle between two forces representing parliamentary democracy and communist revolutionaries, but there are deeper meanings and reasons to it. Bear in mind that it was not only the Maoists and the rest of the political parties that were divided on the issue of the then Chief of Army Staff Rookmangud Katawal. The media, civil society, intelligentsia and ethnic and social forces were all polarised into two different camps. Why? 

Historically, negative politics has always triumphed in Nepal. The trend continues till date. Negative politics coerces the independent will of the people and indoctrinates and creates a patron-client relation thereby institutionalising the political culture that dictates and dominates. I say negative because the primary aim of politics is to free its citizens from coercion and ideological indoctrination and provide them capacity and opportunity so that they can make the necessary choices for themselves.  

The present context, therefore, is not polarisation between the “status quoists” and “revolutionaries” in the real sense as propagated by many but between two camps which has a similar objective — capitalise the power. Coercion, dictation, indoctrination and subjugation ultimately become means of achieving their objectives, though the intensity of coercion exercised by different political parties might differ in proportion. Political parties are endowed with a right to forward their ideology and policies, but it is the free will of the people that has to choose from what has been offered to them.

None of the political parties hold the right to decide on behalf of the people. Interestingly; all the political parties in Nepal seem to be making their stand and claims on behalf of the common people. How could they forget that through such a process they are weakening the capacity of the people to make their own choices? Aren’t they holding the people captive by deciding on their behalf? The polarised camps are talking about people’s supremacy, but only by curtailing the choices of the people without allowing them to define what “civilian supremacy” really means to them. 

The real aim of the two political camps is either to eliminate each other instantly or to walk the path of consensus until the constitution is drafted. But they want the new constitution drafted only under their leadership. Both think that history will provide substantial space for them for the contribution and leadership that they would be making towards peace and the constitution making process. Therefore, they are madly vying to lead the government. And in the process, they have divided the masses into poles in order to justify their struggle. But why is that we common people are divided?

The problem is not limited to the political parties alone. Our political parties are, in fact, a reflection of our own society. We people in general want to be indoctrinated and subjugated because we tend to address our interests using our clientele relations with the existing political parties. And we do that because we are neither entrepreneurs nor have as many choices because the sphere of politics dominates both our society and economy. And failing to address the variety of our interests and needs by other means, we submit ourselves to the shades of political ideologies that ultimately define and manipulate us. 

Swinging of commitments towards political power has been a common phenomenon in Nepal. And that is precisely because the swingers wanted to address their respective needs by associating themselves with one or the other power centre. A majority of Nepalis welcomed Bisheshwor Prasad Koirala ascending to power as the first elected prime minister of Nepal. And it was again the same majority of Nepalis that welcomed the action of a despot king Mahendra who grabbed power exactly after a year. The trend continues till date. 

One can easily expect most sections of society to align themselves with the Maoists in present-day Nepal as they are more powerful and influential compared to others. Leftist writers may be very happy, and may term cine artists joining the Maoist movement as a new phenomenon. But they should not be shocked to find the same people deserting the same Maoists once the party becomes weak. It is, therefore, the “economy of politics” that largely dictates the commitment of the majority towards one political party or the other. 

Though hotly debated in the First World countries, questioning the “legitimacy of politics” in a country like ours would be an irrational attempt for at least the next 200 years. But if we could start questioning and discussing the politics of “legitimacy”, many ills facing our society could be collectively addressed. We collectively need to discuss, determine, agree and legitimise some of our core fundamental values in relation to our politics, economy and society. 

Can an elitist democracy bypass and ignore the minority in the name of parliamentary democracy? Can the Maoists or any political force institutionalise violence in the name of change? Is a substantial change possible through violence? What sort of change are we craving for? Can identity-based politics divide and communalise the larger politics? What will be the values and norms binding our modern society? What are the variables determining our modernisation? Is it a rampant attempt to fall at the feet of anything that is Western? Or does modernisation mean collecting and amassing wealth by resorting to any means as defined and practiced in our society today? Is it not the fault of our family, parents and academic institutions to fail to produce students and children who are not only skilful and innovative but also possess sound character? 

Everyone understands that political polarisation hampers peace and the constitution writing process. In spite of such understanding, we are polarised. No one wants polarisation as claimed by all, and yet we are polarised! Polarisation in itself is not a bad idea. But national politics, institutions and actors need to consider the cost attached to such polarisation. And unless we discuss, address and legitimise the standard variables for our lives, society and nation, we will keep polarising on one or the other issue in the future, even at a time when polarisation is undesirable and suicidal. The need of the hour is to have an open debate on what variables and set of standards we want to legitimise for our society, rather than dividing ourselves on the issue of the then army chief. 

Undoubtedly, by ignoring and bypassing all the other political parties and deciding the fate of the then army chief single-handedly, the Maoists have violated and ignored the letter and spirit of the Interim Constitution that guided the political parties to walk the path of consensus until the new constitution is drafted. In response, the coalition of 22 parties compelled the president to walk the unconstitutional path. So there is no question that both camps have committed a grave mistake. And if that is a mistake, civil society and the intelligentsia that have been polarised into two different camps justifying their respective stands are committing an equally great mistake. 

We must restart the entire process of racking our brains. We have to devise a solution to bring the country out of the present deadlock. The time has come for civil society actors, the intelligentsia and development actors to intervene in the process collectively to provide a solution. Let’s face it, if we cannot devise a peaceful solution now, “war” will automatically find its space. World history stands testimony to the fact that “war” has often been argued as a means of moving forward. However, the most important and debated question still remains: How far have we moved forward?

(Sameer is author

of Unfinished Journey: Story of a Nation)

sharmasumit77@gmail.com

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.