Oped»
Crisis of state
JUL 27 -
As the country struggles to elect the prime minister, the crisis of national leadership and statesmanship has become an obvious reason for the failure to manage the ongoing
political dilemma. Without visionary leadership, institutionalisation of the political transformation is virtually impossible in transitional and post-conflict situations, and political instability easily flares due to unhealthy competition among leaders combined with their short-term mindset for power and prestige. Statesmanship, through personal influence, sincerity and legitimacy, can play an important role in bringing opponents together for constructive discussions on disputed issues.
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a statesman is, “one versed in the principles or art of government; especially one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies, and one who exercises political leadership wisely and without narrow partisanship.” Similarly, historian Charles A. Beard noted in American Mercury that “the statesman is one who divines the long future, foresees the place of his class and nation in it, labours intelligently to prepare his countrymen for their fate, combines courage with discretion, takes risks, exercises caution when it is necessary, and goes off the stage with a reasonable degree of respectability.”
Post-conflict countries are especially vulnerable due to increasing instability, lawlessness and anarchism. Unwanted incidences could easily happen, creating social and political disturbances
instrumental to instigating violence. Therefore, strong leadership is required to end hostility, establish communications, improve relationships, build trust and hold dialogues in difficult situations.
A statesman is trusted by the
people and political actors alike and maintains respect and credibility in the national, and sometimes international, political spectrum.
One basic characteristic of a statesman is a leader who rises above partisan politics to formulate long-term strategies aimed for the best interest of the nation and its people rather than a particular group or party. Such statesmen also possess the influence to resolve problems and prepare a foundation for positive outcomes within and outside their own constituency, with the capability to deliver judgment based on impartiality.
Rising above personal and party interests is a constant challenge for those who are trained to defend their party positions and ideology, particularly in developing countries. Nearly every country has gone through a difficult transition in terms of political or humanitarian crisis, but only those countries with national leaders possessing statesmanship were able to effectively transition and wisely use available resources and energy to contribute to the nation-building process. Unfortunately, countries with minimal leadership competency and the absence of long-term strategies have either entered into violent conflict or have been unable to escape the cycle of political instability.
The country may encounter difficult hurdles to fulfill public aspirations in the absence of committed leadership. In this context, looking to some examples would be helpful to understand the importance of the statesman’s role in transforming a nation from hostility to peace or economic chaos to stability. These include George Washington and John Adams in securing US independence from the British and during the constitution-making process, Abraham Lincoln in ending slavery, and Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression: all of these men in US history have demonstrated extraordinary leadership. Similar leadership that surpasses self or party interest include Nelson Mandela and FW De Clark in ending the apartheid regime, Mahatma Gandhi and Jawahar Lal Neharu in institutionalising the democratic system in India, and Xanana Gusmao and Jose Ramos Horta in securing East Timorese independence.
In Nepal, national leadership has been an absent, but critical element and has been politically, not nationally motivated. With a limited capacity to prepare national development strategies, leaders are often found incompetent in institutionalising political changes. Due to the legacy of repressive regimes and power-centred politics, emergence of national leadership has remained a far-off dream of the people.
Great opportunities have been missed time and again for Nepali individuals to emerge as statesmen: the restoration of the democratic system in 1990; the establishment of a democratic polity in 2006; and particularly after the signing of the November 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Many party leaders missed these opportunities to rise above party lines and become respected nation-building figures.
Increasing distrust and confrontation in politics have created a severe vacuum contributing to the dissolution of any possible culture of consensus or preparation of a joint problem-solving approach. The ongoing crisis and political stalemate is an example arising from incompetent and failed leadership. National leadership does not grow from power-centred or partisan politics based on conspiracy theories. It can only evolve through the willingness to compromise, exhibiting openness and establishing precedents based on principles and values. Without visionary and national leadership, the political crisis will continue to rear its ugly head.
Therefore, the present leadership from all political sectors must address the current political stalemate and
stand up against all odds of partisan politics to engage in people-centred politics rather than self-centred focusing. As former US Vice-President Hubert H. Humphrey said, “the essence of statesmanship is not a rigid adherence to the past, but a prudent and probing concern for the future.”
(The author is a conflict resolution specialist )
Shobhakar Budhathoki
peace_sb@yahoo.com
Posted on: 2010-07-28 08:05
Headlines
Advertisements
