Session II :
Miscellany
Chair: Krishna Khanal
Krishna Hachhethu (Political Scientist, Nepal Centre for Contemporary Studies): “In this session we will discuss issues that are important but could not be raised or raised only very tangentially in the previous sessions. Perhaps we did not touch much on the link between democracy and our social structure, social values and social change. How do we understand the social movements that emerged in the post-1990 democratic space?
How was the experience of local body functioning? What about the private sector and multinational corporations? What have been the roles of donors in Nepal? These are the points that we should discuss in this session”.
Ganesh B.K. (Dalits Rights Activist, Dhangadhi): “Perhaps it was a mistake to create clause 127 in the constitution. This allowed the king to play with the constitution. I work in 24 districts in western Nepal on dalit right issues. We have come across ruined inter-caste marriages between dalits and non-dalits. We have come across generations of bonded labourers in the form of haliyas. We tried to enter public temples, but the non-dalits resisted vigorously. There has been violence against dalits when they tried to enter temples. The public system is not effective in upholding the rights of dalits in society. They are seriously underrepresented in the elected and nominated posts in local bodies”.
“The senior leaders of the parties are also continuing with the practices of untouchability. In eastern Nepal, the chamars were blockaded by senior leaders of both the Nepali Congress and CPN (UML).
“Now there is a network of institutions and individuals working on the human rights of dalits in Western Nepal. We organize training for the dalit leaders and party leaders. Now gradually all are realizing that they have to address the issues of dalit human rights”.
Parshuram Khapung (Rastriya Prajatantra Party): “I want to focus on foreign aid and democracy. The donors have become dominant in the name of foreign aid. They have now come up with PRSP—Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. The block grant of 5 lakh to the VDCs has led to a decline in village self-help. In the past villagers used to volunteer in building roads, canals, etc. But no longer now”.
“There is discrimination among the dalit communities themselves. There is the practice of untouchability between damais and sarkis and sarkis and kamis.
“The liberalization policies have increased the gap between the rich and the poor”.
“The upper house should be provided with more power so that it could be effective in the absence of the lower house”.
“We talk about reservations for women. But there are privileged and under-privileged women. Which ones we are concerned about? Parties are also to blame for activating the monarchy. Wasn’t it Man Mohan ji who went to palace and requested the king to stop the dissolution of parliament when Girija Babu dissolved it? This kind of thing has happened many times. I think it is time for self-introspection”.
Lok Raj Baral (Political Scientist, Nepal Centre for Contemporary Studies): “The Monarchy is increasingly becoming an obstacle to consolidating democracy, but we are at our wits end as to how to deal with this situation. We have not been able to internalise democracy. We still think that the king is powerful. We have the Maoists who are also emerging as a powerful force”.
“We are talking about including dalits, janajatis and women but this cannot happen without resolving the central issue—that of the position of monarchy. The parliament has appeared to be rather weak in dealing with the behaviour of the monarchy. Many a time bills passed from parliament did not come back from the palace, but the parliament also did not ask about it”.
“Parties are the most disorganized - both in terms of ideology and bringing people together onto a platform. There is no clarity in values and structures. There is no internal democracy. They are asking for a transparent palace, but they themselves are not transparent. There is no transparency in their finances and other dealings”.
“Somat Ghimire (another participant) also put the blame on us. We are only opinion makers and not policy and decision makers. We are not oriented towards self-promotion either. We do interact with leaders - go to them for interviews, invite them to our meetings and organize trainings for them”.
“As Lord Russell had once said, ‘The constitution alone is not enough as long as there is no commitment and temperament’. Gunnar Myrdal talked about a sub-state syndrome in 1968. But in our situation, it is an anarchic state syndrome, not a sub-state syndrome”.
Naresh Shankar Palikhe (Nepali Congress Activist, Pokhara): “We used to think that we had the one of the best constitutions in the world. The plans and manifestoes of the political parties are impeccable. The main problem is with implementation, and practices. Without addressing the issues of politics, other things could not be done. Good people have to come to politics. The talented people are not in politics—they become doctors and engineers. Perhaps, politicians do not come from the other world. They are also the products of our society”.
“For a politician, winning an election has become everything. They lose everything when they lose an election. In this situation the ministerial post is quite attractive - it gives money and privilege in society”.
“In Nepal, the main problem with foreign aid is again that of implementation. It is misappropriated at different points - in the form of bribery to the bureaucrats, commission to the politicians, etc.. Again the central question is that of efficient management - be it in politics or foreign aid. We need to increase our capacity”.
Subodh Pyakurel (INSEC, Kathmandu): “I think the problem is not with our constitution, but with the leadership. We need to go for a mixed system of electoral representation. In some places we can go for a first past the post system while in others we can go for a proportional representation system”.
“State responsibility is indicated in the guiding principles in the constitution. They are not seriously implemented. The civil society is also not mature enough to intervene in national life. We were involved in the Kamaiya issue and the dalit issue. We demanded that the Kamaiyas be paid money by the landlords according to the minimum wage set by the government but this did not happen. We also demanded that kamaiyas stay in the present place as they have been living there for a long time and they should be the owners of that land. This also did not happen”.
“The dalit campaigns are successful in places where dalits and non-dalits worked together. The local bodies should be empowered and provided with adequate resources. They have to have the right to revenue - through some kind of revenue sharing arrangement”.
“In Nepal the private sector is the most anti-national. It is the one who welcomed the Kings move in 1960. It is the one who welcomed the king’s move on October 4th, 2002. It is always dependent on the state for its growth - it has not been independent”.
“The donors in Nepal are very dominant. They decide on the pattern of expenditure and the issues on which investment has to occur”.
“After democracy, the army had come up with revising the rule of their operations, but we did not pay serious attention to it. This was a grave mistake. Now the army is run under the command of the king. This is an anomalous situation”.
Pahalman Chepang (Nepal Chepang Association, Chitwan): “The opening of the 1990s provided an opportunity for us to speak out. The leadership no doubt did not pay attention to the poor, dalits, janajatis. They did not pay attention to their education, health, culture and customs. Therefore democracy is stuck in trouble now”.
“Nepal Chepang Sangh (Nepal Chepang Association) now has its organization in four districts in the mid-hills: Gorkha, Dhading, Chitwan and Makawanpur. Its office is in Pulchowk. We have now decided to call ourselves Chepang. We were called prajas in the past as that was the name given to us by the then queen visiting our area some years ago. We are not studying our own culture and religion”.
“Our economic status has not yet improved. The policies of community and leasehold forestry is creating problems for us as our land is not registered for long. Therefore we are now starting a campaign for our land rights. Another major issue is the lack of citizenship certificates for us. Almost 80 percent do not have it”.
Ramesh Shrestha (Political Scientist, Patan Multiple Campus, Kathmandu): “Perhaps change does not come quickly. My own elder brother used a bamboo pen for writing. In my school days, there were only a few dalits in schools. Now there are many. It is easier to work at local levels, because people have direct contact with leaders—at the VDCs, DDCs, etc”.
Ram Das Chaudhari (BASE, Nepalgunuj): “BASE works in the mid-western and far-western regions. It has been involved in the kamaiya movement. I think this movement was only partially-successful. Historically, kamaiyas were just like any labourers. But because of debt-bondage, over time they got converted into permanent bondage. In the 1930s, Tharus owned as much as 90 percent of land in Dang. But now it is the opposite. There has been massive disenfranchisement of Tharus in the region and perhaps everywhere”.
“After 1990, many organizations came into existence. BASE is one of them. We started with consciousness-raising, literacy and income generation activities. In 1999, after the promulgation of a local governance act, the local bodies declared a minimum wage. This minimum wage became the basis for reinvigorating the kamaiya movement for liberation. It started on May 1st on the occasion of international Labour Day. Kamaiyas filed a petition at the local bodies asking for the full implementation of a minimum wage provision. The VDCs could not decide as the local landlords were more powerful. They then went to the local administration office. In the mean time the local NGOs and parties also backed their demand”.
“Kamaiyas came all the way to Kathmandu and stayed in dharna in front of Bhadrakali. This forced the government to declare their liberation. They came back home. But the declaration was not clear in many aspects. Only after six months of this declaration, a bill was brought into the parliament for kamaiya identification and providing support to them. Their identification was not complete. That left many real kamaiyas out from the enumeration. The government had promised to provide land, 10 thousand rupees and wood for building a house. This has not been implemented yet. Eighty percent of Kamaiyas have got land, but only 20-30 percent have got wood”.
“Of the total population in Bardiya, 61 percent are tharus, but there is only one tharu chairperson of VDC. We are now consciously working on the issue of political representation. In the district profile, the tharu language is not even mentioned even if more than half of the people speak this language”.
Krishna Prasad Sapkota (Association of the District Development Committees Nepal (ADDCN)): “The constitution did not have detailed provisions regarding the local bodies. The new act that was brought about immediately after the political change in the 1990s only changed the name and not the substance. The government wanted to strengthen the parliament only. This has led to the exclusion of people in the governance process. It is not easy in a multicultural, multiethnic country like Nepal. Only through local autonomy can this be addressed”.
“The local bodies have to be made economically independent and resourceful. Some people argue that local autonomy is not possible under the present unitary system. But this is the case in many Scandinavian countries. In Denmark 70 percent of the government budget is mobilized by the local bodies. In Switzerland, the figure is 72 percent. In Philippines, it is 60 percent. But in our country it is only 3.6 percent”
“There are conflicts between the district development committees and the central government in many places. The central government is concerned about running the primary schools, whereas some DDCs are even contemplating the establishing of universities. Democracy cannot flourish unless there is real decentralization and devolution of power and resources”.
Anil Bhattarai (Nepal South Asia Centre): “Indeed, decentralization is necessary for democracy. In terms of institutional infrastructures, we have a lot. But institutions function only within the social context. In a situation of unequal social relations, institutions also will be dominated by the socially powerful groups and people. But we have to look at how things are changing because of the conscious efforts of people at various levels. We have some friends here in this meeting who can tell us about their experiences. The changes occurring at the grassroots have deep implications for the participation of people in politics and institutions. The block grant of 5 lakhs to the VDCs definitely provided an impetus for greater public ownership in the decision making process but in places where there are organized efforts by people, there have been changes. In the initial days, the organized pressure led to better functioning of the elected and administrative bodies. Later the grassroots groups in some places began to realize that they also have to get into electoral politics to change the current decision making process. If we look at tendencies in some places such as Saptari, Nawalparasi, Parbat, we see this trend but the macro issue of democracy is ever more relevant here. Without the basic framework of democracy, the micro initiatives cannot be effective. We saw this during the emergency period. People were not allowed to organize meetings. Elections are not happening. So gradually there is erosion in the initiatives. Therefore, it is imperative for the grassroots groups to also think seriously about the macro democratic issue”.
Prem Suwal (Nepal Workers Peasant Party, Bhaktapur): “The local governance act is not functional. The Bhaktapur municipality wanted to renovate the Pachpanna-Jhyale Durbar (The palace with fifty five windows) on its own, but it was not allowed to do so as it comes under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education and Culture. Now after the term of the local bodies was over, the Department of archaeology is doing the renovation itself. We tried to establish a higher secondary school also, but this was not allowed permission”.
“Donors are interested in expanding their interest. For example we had tried to collaborate with the Asia Earth project, through which Asian and European municipalities would collaborate on certain projects. Bhaktapur Municipality tried to work with a European municipality on a 5 crore project, out of which 2 crores would come from Bhaktapur Municipality and the rest from this Asia Earth project. This three crores included the salary of the country director, training and travel whereas the 2 crores was to be spent on actual work. We said we will appoint the local country director, but they did not accept this. We had to cancel the project itself over this”.
“The recent nominations in the municipalities and district development committees is an attempt to bring back the Panchayat rule. The Congress government did not want to extend the terms of the local bodies”.
Bhaskar Gautam (Martin Chautari, Kathmandu): “Since there were many teachers from Tribhuvan University, I had thought many issues would be raised about this institution but this did not happen. I want to raise two issues about education: the question of generating quality human resources within institutions and the issue of ‘qualified’ people in politics. Baral sir said that we do not have a democratic temperament. But saying this is not enough. We need to ask, why is this the case? I think if we probe deeper, institutional failures would loom large”.
“Naresh ji said that our politics is not good because good people did not come to politics and they went to such field as medicine and engineering, instead but if we analyze how the doctors and engineers are operating, we will soon reach a conclusion that they are not qualified in the sense we had expected. They are as corrupt as any politician. So it is not only the 'talented' people not coming to politics. It's again the failure of institutions. For example, how democratic is the functioning of TU itself? Are students allowed to explore critical thinking? These are fundamentally related to the functioning of institutions?”
“Political parties have not converted themselves into good institutions. Either the charisma of an individual or group-ism became dominant. This happened because they did not invest enough in creating leadership at various levels. This is true about the NGOs and other social organizations also”.
Lok Raj Baral (Political Scientist, Nepal Centre for Contemporary Studies): “The social disparity has increased and this is palpably visible in the educational sector. None of our parliament members, ministers, party leaders send their kids to government schools. Eighty five percent of common people send their kids to government schools. This is quite worrying. I think even if we solve the Maoist problem, conflicts are here to remain because of this”.
Prof. Peter R deSouza (Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), Delhi): “There is a vibrancy in politics in Nepal and this is what we are taking back with us. Most of the institutions were related to the functioning of political institutions—the monarchy, parliament or political parties. Suggestions for their reform were made. I think these suggestions were based on fundamental principles of inclusion and there is a realization that large sections of the population are left out from mainstream politics. The principle of accountability, the principle of autonomy and the principle of representation are central to democracy”.
“I got a sense that de-institutionalisation is taking place - the challenge is to re-institutionalise. Some argued for expanding the state. This might sound a bit out of place in the present context when there is a dominant argument for shrinking of the state but we definitely need to create more institutions and we need to reform the existing ones but politics was at the centre of the discussion”.
“I sense that not much was discussed on reform of the market and economy. The discussion in that sense was quite state-centric. Moreover, the position was left of the centre - with almost everybody present here. That’s very interesting for me. There was nobody having a conservative position, or even free-market liberalism. This could be because of a particular historical legacy”.
“The state institutions are dysfunctional, but the challenge is to reinvent them. We cannot go to the old days where the state was all dominant. The state has also to negotiate and collaborate with other agencies - the community, the market and the civil society. There are different types of civil society also - some are nationally active while some are more local and community based”.
Krishna Khanal (Political Scientist, Tribhuvan University): Closing remarks of the chair. “Peter raised this issue of economy. I think our discussion was state-centric and the economy and private sector in Nepal are inextricably tied up with the state. The private sector always sought state patronage for its own progress. The donors have played a big role in making the state institutions dysfunctional. For example, they do not want to support the university departments in conducting research, but would be willing to pay hefty money to the professors if they do the research through some private NGOs. I think what is happening is that individuals are operating, donors are operating, but all at the cost of public institutions. This process is furthered with donor policies and money”.
THE SUMMARY OF THE DIALOGUE
The backgrounds of the participants and the current political context were reflected in the discussions over the two days. It was a moment of learning for the organizers, too. The organisers had their own set of objectives which included finding opinions and experiences of participants on the five components of democracy - the promises, design, functioning, outcome and future agenda. Therefore, it was assumed that the discussion sessions could be organized dealing with these components in a linear sequence. This simply did not happen. By the end of the first session, it was quite clear that the initial objective of discussion happening in a linear sequence was out of place. For example, in the first session the discussion was to focus on the promise aspect of democracy but during discussion the participants not only commented on the promises and aspirations, but also dealt with design, functioning, outcomes and the future agenda of democracy. All these are so inextricably linked with each other that it was not possible to have a discussion on these separate components one at a time.
Prof. deSouza pointed out at the end of the discussion that there was not much discussion about the market and private sector. This was obviously the result of the fact that not many people - in fact no one represented the private sector in the meeting. No one was invited but as Prof. Krishna Khanal pointed out at the end, the private sector in Nepal cannot be separated out from the state, and therefore, the focus on the state was understandable. Nepal is in a situation where the basics of democracy—the core questions as Prof. Lok Raj Baral has termed them - are yet to be resolved. These are the questions of the position of the monarchy in Nepali politics. This is increasingly becoming so in the present political context when the King is exercising his extra-constitutional power. Why did this situation come into existence? For many the failure of the political leadership is the prime reason behind this. The failure of the political parties in democratising themselves was pointed out by many, including those in the higher decision making position of the parties. For example, Mr. Narahari Acharya, a central committee member of the Nepali Congress, candidly accepted the failure of the political parties in democratising themselves. This does not, however, mean that the king acted out of necessity. Many pointed out that the monarchy in Nepal is obviously at loggerheads with the basic functioning of democracy. As Krishna Prasad Sapkota, Chairperson of Kavre District Development Committee and chair person of the Association of District Development Committees Nepal (ADDCN) has raised, “In democracy people can punish the political parties for their wrongdoings, but how will we to punish the king if he does wrong”.
If one looks at history, it becomes obvious that the monarchy has always tried to subvert democracy and the latest attempt cannot be an exception to this. Again the role of the political parties and political leadership comes at the forefront. After all, it was their losing popular support, the rampant corruption that gave an opportunity to the monarchy to assert itself as it had the army under its control.
Civil society was also not discussed in detail during the two days. But some fundamental questions were raised. Somat Ghimire's ironic remark that civil society is also functioning as landlords was quite illuminating - for the majority of the NGOs are controlled by a narrow elite, as was claimed by Sanjaya Sherchan, a janajati activist. The control of institutions in society by narrow elite, mostly upper caste Brahmin males is what has been contested by janajati, dalits and women’s movements in Nepal.
The restructuring of the polity has become a public political agenda because of their assertion. For many the current unitary structure of the state is not conducive for promoting democracy in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious society as ours. Prof. Krishna Khanal, Mr. Narahari Acharya, Parshuram Khapung are clearly of this position. Mr. Krishna Prasad Sapkota, on the other, hand asked for a deeper understanding before proposing such alternatives. His argument was that what is required is greater devolution of power and resources to the local bodies. Maybe the autonomous district councils can go a long way in ensuring participation of the large hitherto excluded sections of the population in Nepal.
The promises made by various political actors--parties, state, civil society have remained unfulfilled, as was clear from the discussions. “Why?” This was a contentious issues. Is there something to do with the design adopted? Or the functioning of the institutions? Perhaps, both, as pointed out by participants in the discussion. Parties failed not only because individual leaders were corrupt and unaccountable, but also the very structures of political parties were clearly undemocratic. So was the case of civil society, as is generally understood in terms of NGOs and other non-party and non-state institutions that flourished in the post 1990 liberal political milieu. The state in Nepal has remained non-transparent, overly centralized, and therefore, largely unaccountable to the majority of the population. The future agenda, therefore, focussed on some of the fundamental bottlenecks of the Nepali state in terms of its democratisation. Many proposed that the monarchy and palace as institutions have to be reformed and made transparent. For Political parties democratisation is at the centre of the argument. Proposals for electoral reforms, devolution of power and the creation of federal and/or regional structures are some of the concrete ideas presented by different participants.
The Exclusion of different groups of people remains at the heart of the failure of political actors to address many societal issues, as was presented by some social activists. Within institutions, a democratic culture presupposes certain educational processes, which emphasized critical thinking, independence and democratic values as argued by Bhaskar Gautam of Martin Chautari. “We are always bemoaning the sad state of affairs in our institutions, but where does the reasons lie?” he asked. “Perhaps, within our own institutions. Have we tried to seriously change, say, the university system or departments within it?”
The discussion ended with a desire among most of the participants to continue this not only at national level, but also at various levels. Perhaps, this needs to go to regional level discussions, as proposed by Parshuram Khapung of Rastriya Prajatantra Party. Or among the grassroots activists also, as proposed by Somat Ghimire. The dialogue has already started to generate a few ripples!!
----- END OF DIALOGUE -----
|
