Jana Andolan
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Nepal in Transition A Study on the State of Democracy Nepal in Transition A Study on the State of Democracy Lead Author Krishna Hachhethu Co-authors Sanjay Kumar and Jiwan Subedi © International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance January 2008 This is an International IDEA publication. International IDEA publications are independent of specific national or political interests. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the views of International IDEA, its Board or its Council members. The map on page 8 does not imply any judgement on the part of International IDEA on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement of such boundaries, nor does the placement or size of the country or any territory reflect the political view of International IDEA. Application for permission to reproduce or translate all or any part of this publication should be made to: International IDEA SE 103 34 Stockholm Sweden International IDEA encourages dissemination of its work and will promptly respond to requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications. ISBN 978-91-85724-35-2 Printed by: Dongol Printers Foreword In 2004, International IDEA and the State of Democracy in South Asia/Nepal Chapter had done a survey on the state of democracy in Nepal. Three years later, they conducted a follow-up survey to gauge the people's changing perceptions of democracy and other related issues. The 2007 survey findings have shown marked differences in the people’s opinions from the opinions prevalent in 2004. This shift in perspective is shaping Nepal’s new political direction. The tumultuous developments that have taken place in Nepal in recent years have been characterized by many positive trends such as the tendency to reexamine the nature of the Nepali state and the elite structure, popular aspirations for bringing about positive changes in the country, and above all, a growing desire for peace and stability. The changes brought about in the imaginative domain of the Nepali people by the 10-year long Maoist insurgency and the subsequent incorporation of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) into a pluralistic democracy are in themselves significant developments. And even though the CPN-Maoist dismisses the western parliamentary or presidential models of democracy and professes to follow janabad, and even though the CPN-Maoist changed its ideological position only because it realized that its doctrinaire position was neither feasible nor acceptable to the rest of the world, the party’s entering the political mainstream can be viewed as a triumph of democracy. The current transitory phase is a critical period for the country: there are many challenges to be overcome, but these fluid times also offer many opportunities to meet these challenges. The challenges seem daunting in view of the heterogeneity of political groups and their petty politicking to get themselves recognized as real political forces. But ideologically, there is not much of a difference among the principal political parties, including the CPN-Maoist, as most of them have accepted multiparty competitive politics, republicanism, popular sovereignty to be guaranteed by the duly elected Constituent Assembly (CA), and the upholding of the people’s freedoms. Still, sometimes these convergences can be overshadowed by the divergent strategies the political parties adopt to realize their partisan interests, frustrating the common people; and setbacks like the postponement of the CA elections for a third time, coupled with the uncertainties prevailing in the country, have raised doubts that the period of transition might be subverted. But no matter how the current transitory phase plays out, the Nepali political landscape is likely to undergo a significant transformation, given that the ideological content of politics is being supplanted by the rise of ethnicity, regionalism and other forms of loyalties. Where that transformation would lead to depends on how imaginative, bold and confident the political parties would be in managing the transformation, but some positive changes are bound to occur. The growing rising awareness of the people would doubtless help to ensure some sort of a culture of accountability among the political parties and the rising trends of regionalism, ethnicity and other elements of identity would force the political parties to address the legitimate demands of regional and ethnic groups. Nepal in Transition has tried to explore many important issues related to transitional politics: the issues of monarchy, inclusive democracy, and the transformation of the Maoists from an insurgent group to a mainstream party that engages in competitive politics. The survey has also studied the new phenomenon of the rise in ethnic consciousness among Nepalis, a phenomenon that demands vigilance and deft social engineering from the major political actors in the transition process, and the dynamics of ethnic and national identity. The discriminatory character that the Nepali state has had, ever since the state was formed, encouraged the politics of exclusion, and only privileged caste and class groups have enjoyed power and access to resources. Jana Andolan II has given us an opportunity to rectify this and many other outmoded characteristics of the Nepali state, and the survey catalogues the people’s expectations for positive changes. I am confident that the messages conveyed by the survey results, if paid heed to and acted upon by the political actors, would help to smooth the transition underway in Nepal. Nepal's recent developments are being watched by the world: people everywhere would like to see the democratization process bear fruit and would like to see a nation that was riddled by conflict transform into a peaceful, thriving democracy. The coordinator of the survey, Dr. Krishna Hachhethu, and his team members deserve appreciation for creating a report that will help everyone understand the democratic machinery that’s working to bring about a better Nepal. Lok Raj Baral Professor & Executive Chairman Nepal Centre for Contemporary Studies (NCCS) Kathmandu, Nepal January 2008 vi Nepal in Transition Preface What does democracy mean to people? Which institutions of governance are trusted by the population? How are people’s views affected by tumultuous events in their country? The cross-sectional surveys in this study were used for mapping citizens’ opinions, attitudes and behaviours in Nepal during the critical period of 2004 to 2007. The surveys aimed to create a snapshot of the views held by the people on what democracy meant for them, people’s confidence in institutions of governance, levels of political activity, people’s views on the status of minorities, on personal safety and the material condition of their families and the country. The two surveys together allow us also to identify political and social trends during these critical years of transition. There is a debate in Nepal, as elsewhere, about the purposes and relevance of surveys, especially in times of transition. To be sure, surveys are but one method for gauging people’s opinions—there are many other methodologies that can be used to achieve the same ends, but surveys can be helpful in understanding popular perceptions and common sense. Furthermore by giving people the forum to express themselves, such studies broaden the scope of democratic discourse: by their very nature surveys capture the voices prevalent at the grassroots levels and bring to the fore the opinions of people that may never otherwise be entertained by the media and other disseminators of information. This survey has been complemented by qualitative interviews with some of the respondents, which should help readers understand the contexts that informed the responses. The study is also complemented by interviews with representatives of Nepali elites and a survey amongst the members of Parliament/Legislature. In the course of conducting this survey, a tangential benefit for the country has accrued as well: more than two hundred university students were trained in surveying methods, and this crop of surveyors could indeed help future researchers seeking to undertake studies on the nature of Nepali democracy. I do believe that these results will serve as an invaluable databank for researchers well into the future. Decades from now, researchers will be able to marshal these findings to come to a conclusion about how the Nepali people felt about democracy, security, politics and the economy in the period of 2004-2007. Furthermore, in a country like Nepal, where scientific data are hard to come by, this study will contribute to bulking up the body of Nepal’s historical archives. One of the most important findings of the study is that Nepali people do share the global citizenry’s aspirations for democracy: In both the 2004 and the 2007 surveys, the majority of the respondents said that democracy, rather than any other form of governance, was suitable and desirable for Nepal. The positive implications of such a finding should, however, be tempered by our acknowledging the fact that the promise of democracy in Nepal has yet to be converted into a viable, working democracy—and the disappointment expressed by the respondents about Nepal’s inability to do so should be taken into account. Still, the study has shown that the people greatly support the on-going peace process and the processes of democratization, which will hopefully fire up the national politicians and the members of the international community to