Relaxing the noose
There is this notion amongst intellectuals in Nepal debating the state-society relationship that a stronger state negatively affects the strength of civic society. The notion comes out of years of experience in the form of oppression from the hands of strong states. This is especially true in Nepal since oppression and repression were commonplace during the Rana rule and the Panchayat system. However, a stronger state need not always imply a weaker civic society.
A stronger state would represent a stronger democracy, rule of law, and enforcement of fundamental humanitarian as well as constitutional principles. In this sense, a stronger state is actually beneficial for civic society since it ensures stability, practice of rule of law, and security of its citizens. In turn, the nation’s citizens and civic society would have greater freedom and independence to practice and preach their voices, arguments and discussions, in the private as well as public sphere, without having to worry about being persecuted for a particular set of beliefs, principles, and actions.
While an active civic society needs a strong state, and a strong state needs a well-organised, knowledgeable and informed civic society to act as a critic, the problem has always been rooted in finding a balance between the state and society. Which is better: a stronger state and weaker civic society, or a stronger civic society and weaker state? Therein lays the problem plaguing the Nepali state and society today. Nobody in Nepal seems to know with certainty what the right balance should be between the two, and whether one stronger and one weaker is even a preferred option. Questions thus abound that remain unanswered, at least satisfactorily.
It is during such a tug of war that roles of independent and non-profit institutions become all the more important. There are institutions that are independent, publicly funded and non-profit, and which work to bridge the gap between the state and the civic society. Such intermediary institutions ensure that the state does not violate the fundamental principles of democracy: equal rights and voices to the citizens, and universal freedom and liberty. Existence of, and active actions from, such institutions are all the more important because democracy is a majority rule, and whenever there is a majority rule, there remains a tendency within the majority to stomp on the rights and values of the minority.
This is what caused the current state of crisis in Nepal. Disdain and neglect of the rural poor by the urban ruling elite for the past several decades was a prime reason for the emergence and success of the Maoist rebellion. Indeed the Maoist insurgency was brutal, but we have to realise that it was borne out of frustration among several minorities in the hills, mountains, and rural Nepal. The educated and ruling elites in Eastern and Central Nepal had been ignoring the need for development of a large chunk of Nepali citizens, and in their eyes, a revolution was needed to be heard. Whether that revolution was
able to bring them any relief is another matter entirely.
The state and the civic society need institutions to act on the public interest and ensure that revolutions like the Maoist rebellion do not repeat. However, success in that front has been lacking, as is evident from the rise of different groups in Nepal claiming to fight for the rights and freedom of different ethnic or regional communities.
A second issue that has to be considered, besides determining just who needs to be stronger between the state and the society, is just how strong or weak the bond between the state and the society needs to be. Currently, reports have surfaced claiming that Nepal has entered a fragile state, and could collapse. They have cited unstable politics as the main reason. Amidst such reporting a tendency to try and strengthen the bond binding civic society and the Nepali state may emerge. But this could be exactly what we don’t need.
On the contrary, the state-society bond should be relaxed. Various outfits all over Nepal, for example the one-Madhes outfit, have been fighting for a particular region or ethnicity’s rights and freedom. Their struggle has focused on loosening the bond between the federal state and the regions or ethnicities. They
have been demanding autonomy—economic and governance—from the centre. That is, they are demanding that the bond binding the central Nepali state and the regions or the ethnicities, be loosened. Such examples suggest that it’s time to rethink the format and strength of our state-society relationships.
The current impasse in the implementation of the peace accord, and the dillydallying by political parties, runs the risk of increasing frustration levels among the citizenry. The crux of the argument is that the eagerness and vigor in trying to mend the broken state-society relationship has to be visible to the Nepali citizens who have been watching with interest for the last few years.
Khanal is with The Asia Foundation.
The opinions expressed are personal
Posted on: 2012-01-19 07:55
Post Your Comment
Today's Paper
The Kantipur in Print
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
Abin
All of them discussed the issue. The result was the same...and we have committed to continue discussions on the issue till midnight.
ADVERTISEMENTS
OUR PUBLICATION :
