Dipta Shaha was a few years junior to me at high school. We have always got along just fine as we do today. I need to say that first. Because that knowledge elevates the debate, and the readers have a right to know perhaps. We are people who get along. And I do think Dipta Shaha is for democracy. It is just that we disagree on the true nature of the Maoists, that of the current regime, and as to what democracy means in Nepal's context, and we greatly diverge as to our trust levels of the seven party alliance. But that does not prevent me from admiring the lucidity with which he writes, or the sound arguments he presents. I am thankful for this opportunity of being able to debate him. He emailed me the article. I informed him I was taking it to debate.
The Four Major Powers India, China, America And Dipta
Dipta, your very title suggests you are for democracy. You are not for autocracy. You are not for an executive monarchy. You are not for military rule. That is your stated position. That does narrow down differences a bit. But then we diverge. One of us sure does not seem to grasp the basics of democracy. And I would like to argue here that person is you.
I am for boycotting the February 8 polls because (1) it is being conducted by this regime that I consider illegitimate, (2) after the king did not reciprocate the ceasefire and did not treat the 12 point agreement between the other two forces as a starting point for dialogue with them, now I am staunchly for a democratic republic, so I am no longer thinking in terms of a constitutional monarchy, because that is what peace and democracy mean to me, (3) I accept the seven party alliance as the legitimate leader of the democratic forces in the country and they are for it, and it is the democratic camp that is my political home, (4) it is my political analysis and firm conviction that only a constituent assembly is a meeting point for the three forces in the country, and (5) I as a Madhesi am for a constituent assembly with or without the Maoists: the 1990 constitution betrayed us.
Elections happen in democracies. Democracies are not possible without elections. Those two statements are true. But just because a country holds elections and hence it is a democracy, that just is not true. Pakistan is an example.
Mahendra was a virus. Gyanendra is a mutated virus, but a virus nevertheless. Who ever elected Gyanendra?
I gave some time to Fernando Ferrer when he unsuccessfully ran for Mayor of New York City a few months back. His Republican opponent used scare tactics to rally the crowd behind him. Federal officials denied, but Bloomberg kept insisting there were terror threats against the city subway system. (Bloomberg: No Mr. Security) That was a right wing thing to do. If you can get the people scared enough, they will come under your thumb. Now that elections are over, all those extra police personnel are gone. Suddenly the city has become safer.
I think the king uses the Maoist threat the same way.
I know what the Maoists are. I have been one of the few people - perhaps one person - to have really talked to the Maoists at an ideological level. I have tried to incorporate their emphasis on classlessness in the constitution I have proposed for the country. (Proposed Republican Constitution 2006) I would not be surprised if I have read up on the Maoist ideology more than Gyanendra and Pyar Jung put together.
I know what "power flows through the barrel of a gun" means.
But if they be an ideological group that is willing to evolve, why is the king opposed to the idea of such an evolution? If they are a violent group incapable of change, is the idea to physically exterminate them? How many of them are there? Is it possible to physically exterminate them? Do they derive their power more from their ideology than their gun? And if they do, even if they are not capable of change, are not ideologies political advents? And so does that not show there is only a political solution to the insurgency?
Even if the Maoists are not capable of giving up on classic Maoism, the solution is still to engage them at an ideological level, politically. Expert upon expert has said there is no military solution. If the king disagrees, he should say why.
Even if there were a military solution, it should not be sought, that is what I think. Because lives will still be lost on both sides, and that will be such a waste.
The reason we have to talk about this at length is because it makes no sense to hold any kind of polls as long as the Maoist insurgency is still rife and so widely on that.
The king is in denial.
He is also perhaps incapable of making a jump from seeking a military solution to seeking a political solution. And even if he were to decide to seek a political solution, he lacks the political skills. And if he were to delegate the task to those around him, he has surrounded himself with people whose careers come to an end for life as soon as democracy is established in the country, so none of them see it in their self-interest to seek a genuine solution to the insurgency. They need a low intensity war to go on indefinitely.
Let's face it. The king is a militarist.
For the king to say the autocracy in the country will get worse if the parties do not rubber stamp his 2/1 move by participating in the polls is like the racists in the US South telling blacks they should not complain or the racism might get worse!
Is it technically possible to hold the elections? Why are we even asking that question?
The king obviously does not know one end of the cow from another. He does not know democracy. He does not know human rights. He does not know elections. How can you relentlessly attack free speech and claim you are for democracy? How can you take the global lead on human rights abuses and claim you are for democracy? Unless you are fundamentally dishonest, or you have a fundamental character flaw? That leaves some room for the possibility that maybe the king believes his own lies.
February 8 does have its democratic benefits. It strengthens the seven party alliance and it cements the civil society with it. The Maoists also get closer to the alliance. The international community gets to witness the farce, and they will end up even more disgusted with this regime's histrionics. February 8 further isolates the king. There will be a total bipolarization. But that's about it.
Or the regime could fall before that. The news today is of curfews and banned protests inside the Ring Road, designed to foil the January 20 rally. That could be the beginning of the decisive phase when a million people surround the Narayanhiti until the king abdicates the throne.
And we will both be spared this debate!
Poll Opponents Further Autocratic Designs
- Dipta Shah
Advocating a one-sided view is completely within an individual’s right. But for the view to be credible, it must be substantiated by supporting evidence, not rhetorical questions or conjecture. Inadvertently, the superimposition of selective individuals’ rights’ to pass as collective will is where the logic presented by opponents of planned elections falters.
The basic thrust behind opponents of municipal polls is the fear that if held, such elections may “legitimize the February 1 putsch.” If the legitimization of February 1 is of primary concern, how do municipal poll opponents reconcile their demand for peace and democracy (at the earliest opportunity) with their rejection of a fundamental democratic enabler? How better to move towards democracy and peace than to re-invigorate the democratic process and resurrect civilian bodies to enforce law and order?
Opponents of municipal polls claim that the current government has no “right” to hold elections (in the name of democracy and peace). By extension of this logic, it’s not just the present government, but all governments (and public office aspirants) that do not have the said “right.” Qualifying general shut-downs and the forced closure of educational institutions with a call for peace and democracy are also abuses of certain “rights.” What justification is there for those who wish to infringe upon others’ “right” to vote?
As for speculation regarding whether municipal polls will represent popular will or yield tangible results, there’s only one thing to be said: One will never definitively know unless elections are held.
If opponents of municipal polls are under the illusion that the will of the 7-Party leadership and their cadre substitute for collective national will (or that voter turn-out and vote counts will be intangible), they are mistaken. Such individuals may want to interact with workers from the 7 Parties and probe what progress (or lack thereof) has been made in attempts to incite the public (over the past 3 years).
The claim that the King hoodwinked the political parties (and continues to do so) may hold some merit. However, public apathy at the Parties’ call to inundate urban centers demonstrates that the general public is not as easily hoodwinked by spent political masters.
That the 7 Parties have no choice but to rely on forced Maoist support (to demonstrate turnout at their VDC-level programs) is an indictment of the lack of public faith in Party leadership. The only fool-proof means available to challenge this claim is to hold elections. Of course the antithesis of this logic holds that the only way to keep the truth from emerging is to boycott (or prevent) elections.
Even the staunchest opponents of municipal polls readily admit that elections are quintessential to a democratic set up. Where such admissions falter is when the same opponents claim that the act of holding elections does not qualify a state for democratic status. Clearly, this is a circular argument that leads to academic discussions over “degrees of democracy.”
But no matter how the argument proceeds, the basic premise that elections are integral to democracy, remains. So what’s better? Holding municipal elections (that form the basis for Parliamentary elections) or not having elections at all? Arguing in favor of the latter may be a “hard sell,” especially in light of the fallacious logic this argument rests on: Elections cannot be free and fair unless they are held by “us” and not “them.”
Some opponents of the upcoming municipal polls are quick to recommend elections to a constituent assembly as an alternative. While in theory this recommendation holds merit, some practical issues arise.
For example, if held now, will a constituent assembly not resurrect the same group of people who one, were crucial in engineering the King’s ascendancy to power and two, who opted for violence over participation in democratic processes? What time-frame will elections to a constituent assembly require? Are armed Maoists to be accepted as members of an interim government? Why the push to draft a new constitution when constitutional amendments can achieve the same results? Which body is to supervise such elections?
For many municipal poll opponents, the answers to the questions above are found (with great optimism one might add), in the beaureacratic mess that is the UN system. No doubt, there are some areas where the UN’s services are unparalleled. Unfortunately, peace making is not one of them. And, in Nepal’s case, neither is solving the Bhutanese refuges crisis.
Eternal optimists who view the UN as an agora of instant solutions may like to re-visit the UN’s performance in peace making and peace building operations. Case studies can be found on Somalia, Sarajevo, Kosovo, Rwanda and Iraq. For an international body that has proved ineffective in solving even non-violent issues in Nepal, unflinching faith in the UN’s ability to lend resolution the Maoist insurgency (and subsequently hold elections), is suspect.
All too often, opponents of the upcoming elections resort to glorifying the 7-Party’s boycott of polls and the Maoists’ threat to exact “people’s punishment.” Should the Maoists’ revert to their previous tactics of assassinating political opponents, individuals who knowingly sanctify such behavior are on record for indirectly encouraging such violence.
Municipal poll opponents would fare much better if they presented the public with facts rather than contradictory, circumstantial evidence. Should Party leaders’ categorically own up to their past blunders and publicly propose transparent methods to prevent future abuses, public support may still be decisively won over.
Furthermore, should the 7-Parties truthfully explain to the public that they are unable to contest polls outside of Kathmandu, even this approach would generate empathy. However, a rejection of polls based on the fear of legitimizing the February 1 takeover is bound to be counterproductive to the Parties’ already tarnished image – domestically and internationally.
Also, the amount of promotion that opposing municipal polls does for absolutist designs, is inexplicable. It’s superficial stands like these that resonate democratic intent but subtly encourage autocratic extensions. For any autocrat (anywhere in the world), what better opponents to have than those who reject polls designed to empower the people? What better enemies than those whose interest in self-preservation outweigh those of an autocrat’s?
Without a doubt, after towing the 7-Party line and rejecting polls, opponents of upcoming elections will be at the helm of conspiracy theories (should results favor those loyal to the current government). Whose fault will it be then for not having participated in elections? How much analysis is required to understand that uncontested candidacy implies guaranteed victory? Furthermore, what good can possibly come out of delaying scheduled polls?
It is foolish to think that a rejection of polls has not been factored into the “grand design” – the best of luck to those who feel they are undermining autocratic aspirations (and augmenting their own) by rejecting polls.
In The News
Parties to continue peaceful protest despite the government's prohibition NepalNews
Home owners ask government offices to vacate their houses: Report
Seven party alliance speed-up anti poll drive
Parties urge Maoists to follow 12-point agreement
Visitors
