Home >> South Asia >> Nepal & Bhutan  Email  Print Nepal: Democracy Of The Beggars Dr. Raman Raj Misras - 8/23/2005 Beggars beg because they cannot earn. And what the beggars get, they cannot keep for long. So it has been with the advocates and promoters of democracy in Nepal. They have twice in history received their brand of "democracy" by the grace of India. Of course, there has been a heavy geopolitical price to pay for it, whether it be for the Delivered Democracy of the fifties or the Imposed Democracy of the nineties.
Nevertheless, how the beggars of democracy handled this imported democracy with its concomitant results and its ramifications have come to be itched in the psyche of the Nepali people. To the general people, a system is what the system gives: call it democracy or whatever. If a system called democracy produces deleterious consequences, the general people are not fools to fall for the word called, "democracy". Democracy, as a word, may still enchant the minds of the intellectuals directed by bookish idealism rather than feasible realism. Democracy, as a word, may still be chanted by nefarious politicos to further their vested interests. Democracy, as a word, can still be advocated by quislings (Lhendup Dorjees) to promote the interest of their foreign masters. But it has been seen twice in our history that democracy received, as largesse is hard to sustain.
It is a fact that Nepali democracy, as approved by India and the West has never came to be, through a referendum. It is a pity that this Nepali democracy was never endorsed by a referendum. It is natural that a geopolitically imposed democracy could not dare to subject itself to be endorsed by the people through a referendum. It is also natural that any system not legitimised by a referendum can be challenged, with full justification, as by the terroists now or forever by anyone else in the future. To pre-empt any such challenges to such democracy, not mandated by the people, it has to produce beneficial results.
After the Cold War, the occidentals have taken up as their mission to deliver and/or to impose their democracy on the entire world. Perhaps this is in consonance with their evangelic zeal to carry "the white man's burden" as during the colonial era. Geopolitics, capacity of the recipients, the feasibilities, the vested interests of charlatans chanting the mantra of democracy, and the deleterious consequences seem not to be under consideration. Some ignorant Westerners have accused the Nepali "democrats" of giving a "bad name to democracy". This unjustified accusation seem not to consider the fact, that which never had a good name to start with, cannot possibly be given a bad name.
But it has been amusing to see the very same incompetent supporters and advocates of democracy, the same charlatans who, as had been said to have corrupted democracy, once again begging for "democracy" form India and the West. India, of course, can comply as it suits her geopolitical interests. She would not comply with such request for Bhutan because it does not serve her geopolitical interests. She would not even dare to dream of effectively advocating for democracy in Myanmar or China because she knows her place. The West, with the eye to the vast market in India, in this age of globalisation, may support India^s geopolitical interests under the veneer of "democracy", even if they maybe cognizant of geopolitics of this Sub-Continent and the realities of Nepal. Or, maybe, simply because, even the charlatans and fools chanting the mantra of democracy is dear to them.
But no matter, imposed democracy, is not sustainable. Yet Nepal may not be an independent and a sovereign a country to be able not to comply with such dictated democracy. Still, the beggars of democracy will not be able to keep it for long. Simply because, as said before, the beggars cannot keep that which they receive for long. And as our history have shown twice, that the beggars of democracy cannot maintain the democracy they receive as largesse. Still in this day and age one have to give priority to "democracy" as certified by the West, over and above good governance, well-being of the people, perhaps even over and above peace and security.
Therefore, with due deference to the current dictates of India and the West, it would be prudent to maintain a democracy as certified by the occidentals. We do not possess oil like Saudi Arabian, nor are we capable like China, nor protected like Bhutan. So Nepal cannot possibly be exempted from any democratic prescriptions dictated by the West. Hence, we are compelled to comply and accept the dictated democracy and not dare to think of seeking to develop our own system of polity. We will have to have "democracy" even if it produces deleterious effects. And the West with their ready-made cliché of "a transitional phase" will condone our sufferings without enlightening us, as to how long we may have to endure such "a transitional phase". Here again, we will have to suppress our own culturally handed down knowledge about the future of saplings with glossy leaves as opposed to saplings with dull leaves.
This, of course, means Nepal is not independent to make our own system of polity. We cannot entrust our polity to representatives of civil societies, or to the representatives of the variety of indigenous communities and localities. We are not free to entrust our polity to the variety of "modern" ethnic organizations, nor to any representatives of the religious organizations or to any representatives of any professional organisations. And not at all to any traditional representatives as historically established by our forefathers and enjoined by our religious scriptures. Not even to any set of independent representatives. The only "representatives" accepted as such by the West are those that have a signboard with a word, "Party" on display. No matter that, at the present time, no one in the "Parties" are mandated to rule by the people, we must still accept them as the "representatives", because the Indians and
occidentals say so.
So obey we must, obey if we can, the dictates of India and the West to maintain the "democracy" as approved by them. Still, would it be imprudent to expect from the international high priests of Democracy to permit us not to entrust their democracy to the same set of previous "representatives", who did not and who do not comprehend democracy to the extent of translating it into reality? Is Nepal independent and sovereign enough for India and the West to permit us to maintain their democracy, by those parties and their leaders who can sustain and cultivate democracy, instead of those that have to constantly beg for democracy from India and the West? Perhaps not. Charlatans and quislings maybe preferred once again, in accordance with the geopolitical interests of India and the wisdom of the West.
|
