What People´s Republic if the Politics of Identity of Nepal is the Reality!
Prakash Bom
October 08, 2008
People´s aspiration for democracy though can awaken historical momentum such as "April Uprising" for nation to initiate its foundation but it alone itself cannot build the nation. For this nation needs visionary leaderships, not as heavily conditioned ideologist such as of hardliner Maoists of Nepal, but insightful and serious about the socio-political and economic reality of nation in relation to the global economics, which cannot be addressed for the good of all without the establishment of multi-party institutions of electoral democracy.
It has always been questionable whether conventionally leading political parties of traditional society such as of South Asian nations that is dominated by caste-based feudal politics are fully committed to the ´Electoral Democracy´ for the multi-party establishment. Historically, political parties have limited their electoral scope conventionally to the elections of Parliament of the nation and to state assembly for governing entire nation with the tradition of appointments dependent of government employees.
The political elites and think tanks have never ever bothered to this time to think over the fact that the local units of government can be more effective for the overall socio-political and economic developments if established with multi-party electoral institutions of local government – legislative, executive and judiciary. As a matter of fact, such an establishment could have benefited both the multi-party democracy and the political parties the most.
Basically, political parties have not yet evolved with their faith and commitment in electoral democracy that can give people right to take responsibility for their own community establishing institutions of multiparty democracy for the local level of governance mechanism.
For example, 73rd and 75th amendments of the Constitution of India, which give people electoral right to form the local assembly for the local resource and development managements have not fully implemented in all states of India except in the big city municipality levels. It is because the amendments have not set the mandatory constitutional provision for state to implement the structure based on the electoral constituencies. It is traditionally re-defined with the feudal Hindu glory of Panchayat ideals.
Basically, it is set to play insignificant role on the electoral constituencies for democratic representations in the government bodies – legislative, executive and judiciary. People of India in overall are still ruled by the tradition of appointment of government employees in their own local constituent, which are basically dominated by the hierarchy of privileged feudal class. India´s marginalized political identities have been confined to the government quota system for their socio-political and economic opportunities.
It is by no means Nepal´s politics of identity for the diverse ethnicity can primarily be addressed with the electoral representations by following the tradition of federal government system of India. For example, the demand of "One Madhes One State" for entire Terai in an Indian framework for a single ethnic homogeneity has become irrelevant for the people of entire Terai.
It is because if the politics of identity for the diverse ethnicity compels the nation to establish not only the political reorganization for all but also the role that diverse ethnicity can play in the nation building processes. If Nepal therefore respects the politics of identity as reality for diverse ethnicity then not a single ethnicity can become the dominant homogeneity to overrule the rest. But the diverse ethnicity with their political identity can play a unique role in state restructuring at the most local level of governance.
Therefore, it is a question how can a conventional political system that has been practiced in the name of multi-party Parliamentary democracy be transformed as per the people´s aspiration under the "Federal Democratic Republic" implementation. Is this the attempt of Maoist hardliners to speak out for "People´s Republic" to achieve this goal? Maoist leaderships have to clear this up all to people of Nepal and international community without underlying conspiracy for one-party totalitarianism. At this point, if Maoists betray multi-party democracy then they will deceive themselves with their grand illusion of totalitarianism.
On the contrary, if Maoists are serious to build nation with their commitments to multiparty democracy then they must mandate the preliminary structures of "Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal" in new constitution by setting up mandatory constitutional provision for the federal states to implement the self-governable and independent local government structure, of which legislative, executive and judiciary bodies can only be represented by the elected representatives of people of the respective constituencies of a local government.
Therefore, for a state to exist within the federal union of "Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal" it must implement the structure of local government based on total number of the electoral constituencies that are set to form a particular state. If the new constitution succeeds in guaranteeing the electoral right of people to govern their own constituencies independent of the intervention of state or central government appointed legislators, executives and judiciaries, then Nepal can indeed become "People´s Federal Democratic Republic". Otherwise, People´s Republic devoid of the preliminary federal structure that lays the foundation from bottom-up as such will be against the aspiration of people.
The preliminary constitutional provision of the federal structure becomes the basis for the state formation that a local government of certain constituencies of a state is independently self-governable – meaning without depending too much on the state and central government for local governance. If the new constitution sets the provision for the local government to be autonomous – meaning self-governable then the politics of identity for diverse ethnicity becomes secondary because the local government can address such issues more effectively in the grass-root level with their electoral representations.
For example, constituencies of a local government with the majority of Madhesi or of Limbuwan or of Sherpa or of Magar or of Tharu will have the majority representations in the bodies of the local government. Therefore, the majority can rule, for instance, the ethnic language preference for the school district of the local constituencies.
Similarly, the ethnocentric demand for a large state such as Madhesi or Himali for homogenizing the rest of all other diverse ethnicity such as Tharu and Dhimal of Terai and Bhote, Thami, Byasi and Sherpa of Himal is out of the context of politics of identity if otherwise it is vested with the interest of external politics. For example, demand of Himali state from Mechi to Mahakali can become safe heaven for Tibetans to rise up against China for liberating Tibet.
Unless all that what we want is to become the ´Big Shots´ to grab the national power of Nepal out of our politics of identity or political ideology or party politics by intentionally self-obstructing the reality of our nation for national consensus to create a new democratic Nepal, it is foolish to get stuck with the ideology of hardliners who dream impossible at the expensive of lives of people. If Maoist hardliners are really as stubborn as feudal lords to make impossible dream to come true in the name of People´s Republic then it is unfortunate.
It is nothing but addiction of ego to dream of impossible for which one had dedicated his or her life for forty years as hardliner Maoist ideologue or Parliamentary smug without the touch of reality for refreshing one´s accumulated memory. Those political leaderships can only act for the people and the nation honestly who can see the socio-political and economic reality free of their preconditioned ideology or dogma or belief to become other than what it is. What is it is what Maoists have committed to multi-party electoral democracy. Deviation from the commitment at the cost of people´s aspiration for democracy is nothing but the utter Maoist deception.
It has always been questionable whether conventionally leading political parties of traditional society such as of South Asian nations that is dominated by caste-based feudal politics are fully committed to the ´Electoral Democracy´ for the multi-party establishment. Historically, political parties have limited their electoral scope conventionally to the elections of Parliament of the nation and to state assembly for governing entire nation with the tradition of appointments dependent of government employees.
The political elites and think tanks have never ever bothered to this time to think over the fact that the local units of government can be more effective for the overall socio-political and economic developments if established with multi-party electoral institutions of local government – legislative, executive and judiciary. As a matter of fact, such an establishment could have benefited both the multi-party democracy and the political parties the most.
Basically, political parties have not yet evolved with their faith and commitment in electoral democracy that can give people right to take responsibility for their own community establishing institutions of multiparty democracy for the local level of governance mechanism.
For example, 73rd and 75th amendments of the Constitution of India, which give people electoral right to form the local assembly for the local resource and development managements have not fully implemented in all states of India except in the big city municipality levels. It is because the amendments have not set the mandatory constitutional provision for state to implement the structure based on the electoral constituencies. It is traditionally re-defined with the feudal Hindu glory of Panchayat ideals.
Basically, it is set to play insignificant role on the electoral constituencies for democratic representations in the government bodies – legislative, executive and judiciary. People of India in overall are still ruled by the tradition of appointment of government employees in their own local constituent, which are basically dominated by the hierarchy of privileged feudal class. India´s marginalized political identities have been confined to the government quota system for their socio-political and economic opportunities.
It is by no means Nepal´s politics of identity for the diverse ethnicity can primarily be addressed with the electoral representations by following the tradition of federal government system of India. For example, the demand of "One Madhes One State" for entire Terai in an Indian framework for a single ethnic homogeneity has become irrelevant for the people of entire Terai.
It is because if the politics of identity for the diverse ethnicity compels the nation to establish not only the political reorganization for all but also the role that diverse ethnicity can play in the nation building processes. If Nepal therefore respects the politics of identity as reality for diverse ethnicity then not a single ethnicity can become the dominant homogeneity to overrule the rest. But the diverse ethnicity with their political identity can play a unique role in state restructuring at the most local level of governance.
Therefore, it is a question how can a conventional political system that has been practiced in the name of multi-party Parliamentary democracy be transformed as per the people´s aspiration under the "Federal Democratic Republic" implementation. Is this the attempt of Maoist hardliners to speak out for "People´s Republic" to achieve this goal? Maoist leaderships have to clear this up all to people of Nepal and international community without underlying conspiracy for one-party totalitarianism. At this point, if Maoists betray multi-party democracy then they will deceive themselves with their grand illusion of totalitarianism.
On the contrary, if Maoists are serious to build nation with their commitments to multiparty democracy then they must mandate the preliminary structures of "Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal" in new constitution by setting up mandatory constitutional provision for the federal states to implement the self-governable and independent local government structure, of which legislative, executive and judiciary bodies can only be represented by the elected representatives of people of the respective constituencies of a local government.
Therefore, for a state to exist within the federal union of "Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal" it must implement the structure of local government based on total number of the electoral constituencies that are set to form a particular state. If the new constitution succeeds in guaranteeing the electoral right of people to govern their own constituencies independent of the intervention of state or central government appointed legislators, executives and judiciaries, then Nepal can indeed become "People´s Federal Democratic Republic". Otherwise, People´s Republic devoid of the preliminary federal structure that lays the foundation from bottom-up as such will be against the aspiration of people.
The preliminary constitutional provision of the federal structure becomes the basis for the state formation that a local government of certain constituencies of a state is independently self-governable – meaning without depending too much on the state and central government for local governance. If the new constitution sets the provision for the local government to be autonomous – meaning self-governable then the politics of identity for diverse ethnicity becomes secondary because the local government can address such issues more effectively in the grass-root level with their electoral representations.
For example, constituencies of a local government with the majority of Madhesi or of Limbuwan or of Sherpa or of Magar or of Tharu will have the majority representations in the bodies of the local government. Therefore, the majority can rule, for instance, the ethnic language preference for the school district of the local constituencies.
Similarly, the ethnocentric demand for a large state such as Madhesi or Himali for homogenizing the rest of all other diverse ethnicity such as Tharu and Dhimal of Terai and Bhote, Thami, Byasi and Sherpa of Himal is out of the context of politics of identity if otherwise it is vested with the interest of external politics. For example, demand of Himali state from Mechi to Mahakali can become safe heaven for Tibetans to rise up against China for liberating Tibet.
Unless all that what we want is to become the ´Big Shots´ to grab the national power of Nepal out of our politics of identity or political ideology or party politics by intentionally self-obstructing the reality of our nation for national consensus to create a new democratic Nepal, it is foolish to get stuck with the ideology of hardliners who dream impossible at the expensive of lives of people. If Maoist hardliners are really as stubborn as feudal lords to make impossible dream to come true in the name of People´s Republic then it is unfortunate.
It is nothing but addiction of ego to dream of impossible for which one had dedicated his or her life for forty years as hardliner Maoist ideologue or Parliamentary smug without the touch of reality for refreshing one´s accumulated memory. Those political leaderships can only act for the people and the nation honestly who can see the socio-political and economic reality free of their preconditioned ideology or dogma or belief to become other than what it is. What is it is what Maoists have committed to multi-party electoral democracy. Deviation from the commitment at the cost of people´s aspiration for democracy is nothing but the utter Maoist deception.
Print
Share
Email
