Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | News Flashes | Scoop Features | Scoop Video | Strange & Bizarre | Search

 


Laba Karki: Illiberal Democracy In The Making

Illiberal Democracy In The Making In Nepal


By Laba Karki

The restored parliament’s sudden imposition of revisionist ideology into Nepal’s government without a referendum and without the general will and consent of the people is shocking and utterly misguided in its vision. Moreover, its undoing of centuries-old blend of nationalism with the Royal symbolism and the elimination of the bicameral powers in the parliament are blueprints for an “illiberal” democratic government in the making in Nepal.

Like the mythical dragon, the restored parliament -- awoke from its long hibernation -- flexed its muscles, and breathed out fire by proclaiming itself “supreme.” It declared that all the provisions of the Constitution and laws that contradicted its proclamation as “nullified”, and warned that anyone trying to oppose the proclamation would face serious consequences. But it did not stop there. Taking some wind out of the Maoists’ sail, it declared Nepal, the only Hindu state in the world, a secular state.

Further, reminiscent of the “Reign of Terror” (1793-1794) during the French Revolution, the restored parliament in its purported attempt to cure the ailment afflicting Nepal’s democracy purged itself from its arch enemy - the Royal institution. As such, the parliament has prescribed itself a self-inflating pill of ideology: Reign supreme without the Royal clutches and enjoy unrestrained and perpetual power without any liability.

However, the parliament’s grab for power and declaring itself supreme are symptoms of mob-ruled democracy. Did the ex-parliamentarians represent the “general will” of the majority of Nepalese people when it unilaterally maligned and wounded Nepal’s spirit? Or, did the ex-parliamentarians represent the will of the traitors and bullies, the cultural rapists and the Maoist extremists? Or, is the majority in the restored parliament covertly guided by the will of the foreign imperialists to destroy Nepal’s religious tradition and heritage?

While Alexis De Tocqueville (1805-1859), who championed liberty and democracy, admitted in his book “Democracy in America” that democracy was the best form of government, he argued that democracy poses serious flaws and risks. These were among others: “the tyranny of the majority, the mediocrity towards which it impels mores and the loneliness of the individual lost amidst an endless, faceless crowd.” To De Tocqueville, a majority in the parliament, just like a single absolute monarch could abuse its powers and this abuse becomes the “tyranny of the majority”.

Similarly, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), an influential English liberal political thinker argued that while “government of the people” is an ideal to be aspired to, such an ideal is often not the case in fact. He insists that those exerting the power of government, elected officials and bureaucrats, often develop their own vested interests. They are constantly influenced by those constituencies in ways that are at odds with the interests and liberties of people. Mill is not merely addressing the issue of “who should rule?” he seeks to establish limits on the power that government can legitimately exercise over individuals.

Thus, De Tocqueville’s and Mill’s political theories are more relevant now than ever for Nepal because we are witnessing threats against liberty from within the institutions of democracy itself.

A basic principle of all “liberal” democratic system is that the power of the government is not absolute. Further, all liberal democracies are marked by clear separation of powers, rule of law, and protection of fundamental rights. In a liberal democratic government, the elected parliament is limited in its powers by the Constitution, which in turn is limited ultimately by the “general will” and fundamental rights of the citizens. Importantly, the Constitution is the “Supreme Law.” Thus, the restored parliament has clearly overstepped its constitutional authority and committed an “ultra-vires” act. And, when a state commits an illegal and immoral act, it ceases to exert genuine authority over individuals.

Additionally, in a liberal democracy the judiciary has the power to exercise “Judicial Review” whenever there is a breach or violation of authority by other branches of government. Judicial review is an invention of U.S. law as a way of enforcing the constitutionally mandated separation of powers between branches of government and the individual liberties guaranteed in the constitution.

Nepal ’s judiciary already has the power of judicial review under the 1990 Constitution to check abuses by the executive and the legislative branches. Therefore, in the spirit of true liberal democracy, and for the sake of the “general will” of the people, there is the need of the hour for Nepal’s judiciary to intervene and declare the parliamentary “proclamation” an unjust, unconstitutional act and save democracy in Nepal from abuse and exploitation. If the parliament can overstep its constitutional authority, then the Constitution becomes a meaningless document, and the purpose of going for constituent assembly is futile.

Many political scientists consider advanced economy, sizable middle class, and high literacy rates as essential prerequisites for a functioning liberal democracy. Although this condition is still premature in Nepal, a proposed solution to the current crisis is to emulate the European model of government, especially England - the birthplace of modern “liberal” democracy.

England is a constitutional Monarchy with a functioning multi-party representative democracy. The Queen is the head of state and the prime minister, whose power derives from elections, is the head of government. England followed a gradual approach to a representative government. As Zakaria points out, England offers the classic example of “liberal democratization” by a gradual extension of suffrage well after the essential institutions of democracy and constitutional liberalism were already in place.

Nepal worked out this model in the 1990 Constitution. But the ex-parliamentarians have not yet understood and digested the true meaning of liberal democracy and constitutional liberalism in Nepal’s context. The principle laid in the constitution is simple: Just like the moon keeps the earth from wobbling from its axis, the Monarchy restrains and balances the parliament from abusing its authority. Without understanding the basic rules of the game set by the Constitution, one cannot attempt to master the art of governing, let alone lead for Nepal.

Further, the parliament is deluded in thinking that it has finally conquered its enemy. The real enemy of the people in Nepal are: illiteracy, instability, infirmity, illegality and inefficiency of the government - factors which gave rise to Maoists. The Royal institution was not the real enemy of the people. Like Tocqueville said, it is easier to believe a lie than a complex truth.

The parliament has not only expedited the growth of illiberal democracy but also energized the Maoist operations openly. Without the fear of the King, the Maoists continue unabated with their criminal acts and armed struggle. However, with the army and police forces losing morale and lacking the spirit to fight, the restored parliament will be unlikely to prevail against the Maoists. Owing to the ulterior and selfish motives lurking behind our politicians, gone are the days when the Nepali people rejoiced and prided in their unique identity, Gurkha bravery, religious tolerance, peace, security and civility derived from the moral authority of the Monarchy.

In conclusion, “If Rome and Sparta perished, what state can hope to last for ever?” said Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), one of the most influential thinkers of the enlightenment period in Europe. Such is the nature of the political monster of Nepal, which is dragging Nepal to its sad fate of Maoist totalitarianism.

*************

The author, a Ph.D., J.D., is practicing attorney in Virginia, USA.

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Top Scoops Headlines

 

Werewolf: Artificial Intelligence: Real Anxieties?

The movie Ex Machina feels so current there are powerful moments of recognition – despite the seemingly unlikely scenario of a walking, talking artificial intelligence (AI). Right now Google is enlisting its massive databases, drawing on the contents of every email and Internet search ever made, in the service of what has been called ‘the Manhattan Project of AI’. More>>

ALSO:

Open Source, Open Society: More Than Just Transparency

Bill Bennett: “Share and share alike” is the message parents drum into children. But once they grow up and move out into the wider world, the shutters start to come down. We’re trained to be closed. Dave Lane, president of the New Zealand Open Source Society, says that explains the discomfort people find when they first encounter the open world. More>>

ALSO:

Werewolf: Journalism, History And Forgetting

Compare that [the saturation coverage of WWI] not just with the thinly reported anniversaries last year of key battles in the New Zealand Wars, but with the coverage of the very consequential present-day efforts to remedy the damage those wars wrought, and the picture is pretty dismal. More>>

ALSO:

Werewolf: Climate Of Fear

New Zealand, promoting itself as an efficient producer, has been operating as a factory farm for overseas markets with increasing intensity ever since the introduction of refrigerated shipping in 1882. The costs to native forests and to bio-diversity have been outlandish. The discussion of impacts has been minimal... More>>

ALSO:

Greek Riddles: Gordon Campbell On The Recent Smackdown Over Greece

There had been a fortnight of fevered buildup. Yet here we are in the aftermath of the February 28 showdown between the new Syriza government in Greece and the European Union “troika” and… no-one seems entirely sure what happened. Did the asteroid miss Earth? More>>

ALSO:

Keith Rankin: Contribution Through Innovation

The economic contribution of businesses and people is often quite unrelated to their taxable incomes. EHome, as a relatively new company, may have never earned any taxable income. Its successors almost certainly will earn income and pay tax. Yet it was eHome itself who made the biggest contribution by starting the venture in the first place. More>>

ALSO:

Get More From Scoop

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Top Scoops
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news