Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Trust deficit
The following article was published in Republica on September 27, 2013 with the title "Trust deficit".
We are a nation fragmented and in conflict. We are divided by competing ideologies such as One-Madhes, One-Midwest, One-Farwest, Tharuhat, Kochila, Mithila, Limbuwan, etc. Language, identity and ethnicity dominate federal restructuring debates. In the past, violence was perpetrated by different groups in an attempt to get favorable outcomes.
The Far-west suffered a month-long shutdown when water and milk tankers were not allowed to ply the streets. Bombs exploded during Muslim and non-Muslim confrontations in Janakpur. Thankfully, the CA’s time expired, and relative peace has been restored since.
Leaders espousing different political, ethnic and identity lines will soon start ramping up their ideological rhetoric to gain votes once again, with complete disregard for the possibility that their rhetoric and riling of the masses could disrupt this relative peace.
These leaders have not used this peaceful period to make their cadres and constituents aware of their stance on federalism and boundary delineation. The same goes for ethnic and identity activists. Instead, what we have got so far is constant criticism of the Regmi-led government, and the news that our next CA is also going to be 601-member strong. Yet, nobody has been able to suggest with believable clarity how many states we should have.
This is not to say that there have been no positive gains so far. Intermediaries, peaceniks and mediators were busy brokering compromises and solutions between different actors before the CA was dissolved. As a result, many contentious issues about what should and should not be in the new constitution have been resolved, and parties involved in drafting the constitution have made note of those resolutions. The probability of those same issues being contested in the new CA (which will also probably serve as a parliament) is very low. This presents us with a real chance of having a much more productive CA after the proposed election.
However, this does not mean that it is going to be a smooth ride. On the ground, Nepali public is cautious of two major decisions that political parties have taken: secularism and federalism. A significant proportion of the population still wants Nepal to be a Hindu state, and this support becomes stronger as we move westwards, with the Far-west appearing to be the most supportive of a Hindu state. As for federalism, the country seems to be evenly divided into those who support federalism, those who support a unitary state, and those who remain undecided.
Secularism and federalism are not controversial ideas. They have been part of the democratic practice wherein all groups of citizens are given equal respect and space for their development and growth. They are ideas that have been used to promote harmony and self-determination worldwide. Yet, the fact remains that federalism and secularism are opposed by a significant population of our country.
There could be two possible reasons for this opposition. Either the majority of Nepalis clearly understands the consequences of having a federal and secular republic, and wants to forestall those consequences. Or the majority does not clearly understand the consequences of a federal and secular republic, and opposes the ideas of federalism and secularism in keeping with their ‘risk-averse’ behavior. This second reasoning, in my view, holds more water.
The majority of Nepalis is not aware of how the country can benefit from federalism and secularism. Political, ethnic, and identity leaders have not informed their constituents on why the leadership believes what it believes on federalism and secularism. It appears we are headed towards federalism not because we understand and want it, but because our leadership wants it.
Because our political process appears to ignore popular opinion, it has become a source of increasing distrust. Our political representatives have made a number of unpopular decisions. For example, Madhav Kumar Nepal was defeated from two different constituencies in the last CA vote, demonstrating people’s distrust of him as a leader. Yet he was made the Prime Minister. Although that was a politically and legally acceptable decision, it also made a mockery of democratic values.
Seeds of distrust have been sowed not only between people and their political representatives, but also between and among common people. Nationwide public opinion polls show that each passing year sees more respondents reporting worsening relationships between Nepalis of different castes, ethnicities, religious groups, and political affiliations. Increasing inflammatory rhetoric and political divides have further entrenched these worsening relationships, giving rise to distrust and negativity.
This negativity and pessimism can’t be good for future dialogues and compromises that will be needed in order to get the desired changes. It is time our political leadership realizes that it is difficult to bring forth change, reform, and progress if the public distrusts one another.
Every new change brings with it a set of expectations. The brokers of these new changes are responsible for realizing and managing such expectations. Failure to help realize and manage such expectations will not only breed discontent among the masses that supported to bring that change, but also sowed distrust of the leadership. We have seen this happen after the 1950 and 1990 democratic movements when the public was promised a lot more than what was eventually accomplished.
Politicians blamed strong opposition from the monarchy for mismatch of expectations and accomplishments in those two periods. However, the same cannot be said of promises that were made to the public by recent movements and their leaderships. Failure to manage expectations from the Maoist conflict, numerous ethnic and identity movements, and recent democratic movements can only be blamed on poor leadership and their wretched, empty rhetoric.
Generalized trust displayed by people is a strong function of institutions—the police, legal system, bureaucracy, and government. It would be wrong to dismiss increasing public distrust with usual fatalistic disdain of “that’s how we Nepalis are”. Culture should not be a measure of trust in a society. We can no longer blame ethnicity, religion or customs for increasing distrust of political parties. It is time for our political leadership to ditch their inflammatory rhetoric, and work towards regaining the lost public trust.
Trust Deficit
We are a nation fragmented and in conflict. We are divided by competing ideologies such as One-Madhes, One-Midwest, One-Farwest, Tharuhat, Kochila, Mithila, Limbuwan, etc. Language, identity and ethnicity dominate federal restructuring debates. In the past, violence was perpetrated by different groups in an attempt to get favorable outcomes.
The Far-west suffered a month-long shutdown when water and milk tankers were not allowed to ply the streets. Bombs exploded during Muslim and non-Muslim confrontations in Janakpur. Thankfully, the CA’s time expired, and relative peace has been restored since.
Leaders espousing different political, ethnic and identity lines will soon start ramping up their ideological rhetoric to gain votes once again, with complete disregard for the possibility that their rhetoric and riling of the masses could disrupt this relative peace.
These leaders have not used this peaceful period to make their cadres and constituents aware of their stance on federalism and boundary delineation. The same goes for ethnic and identity activists. Instead, what we have got so far is constant criticism of the Regmi-led government, and the news that our next CA is also going to be 601-member strong. Yet, nobody has been able to suggest with believable clarity how many states we should have.
This is not to say that there have been no positive gains so far. Intermediaries, peaceniks and mediators were busy brokering compromises and solutions between different actors before the CA was dissolved. As a result, many contentious issues about what should and should not be in the new constitution have been resolved, and parties involved in drafting the constitution have made note of those resolutions. The probability of those same issues being contested in the new CA (which will also probably serve as a parliament) is very low. This presents us with a real chance of having a much more productive CA after the proposed election.
However, this does not mean that it is going to be a smooth ride. On the ground, Nepali public is cautious of two major decisions that political parties have taken: secularism and federalism. A significant proportion of the population still wants Nepal to be a Hindu state, and this support becomes stronger as we move westwards, with the Far-west appearing to be the most supportive of a Hindu state. As for federalism, the country seems to be evenly divided into those who support federalism, those who support a unitary state, and those who remain undecided.
Secularism and federalism are not controversial ideas. They have been part of the democratic practice wherein all groups of citizens are given equal respect and space for their development and growth. They are ideas that have been used to promote harmony and self-determination worldwide. Yet, the fact remains that federalism and secularism are opposed by a significant population of our country.
There could be two possible reasons for this opposition. Either the majority of Nepalis clearly understands the consequences of having a federal and secular republic, and wants to forestall those consequences. Or the majority does not clearly understand the consequences of a federal and secular republic, and opposes the ideas of federalism and secularism in keeping with their ‘risk-averse’ behavior. This second reasoning, in my view, holds more water.
The majority of Nepalis is not aware of how the country can benefit from federalism and secularism. Political, ethnic, and identity leaders have not informed their constituents on why the leadership believes what it believes on federalism and secularism. It appears we are headed towards federalism not because we understand and want it, but because our leadership wants it.
Because our political process appears to ignore popular opinion, it has become a source of increasing distrust. Our political representatives have made a number of unpopular decisions. For example, Madhav Kumar Nepal was defeated from two different constituencies in the last CA vote, demonstrating people’s distrust of him as a leader. Yet he was made the Prime Minister. Although that was a politically and legally acceptable decision, it also made a mockery of democratic values.
Seeds of distrust have been sowed not only between people and their political representatives, but also between and among common people. Nationwide public opinion polls show that each passing year sees more respondents reporting worsening relationships between Nepalis of different castes, ethnicities, religious groups, and political affiliations. Increasing inflammatory rhetoric and political divides have further entrenched these worsening relationships, giving rise to distrust and negativity.
This negativity and pessimism can’t be good for future dialogues and compromises that will be needed in order to get the desired changes. It is time our political leadership realizes that it is difficult to bring forth change, reform, and progress if the public distrusts one another.
Every new change brings with it a set of expectations. The brokers of these new changes are responsible for realizing and managing such expectations. Failure to help realize and manage such expectations will not only breed discontent among the masses that supported to bring that change, but also sowed distrust of the leadership. We have seen this happen after the 1950 and 1990 democratic movements when the public was promised a lot more than what was eventually accomplished.
Politicians blamed strong opposition from the monarchy for mismatch of expectations and accomplishments in those two periods. However, the same cannot be said of promises that were made to the public by recent movements and their leaderships. Failure to manage expectations from the Maoist conflict, numerous ethnic and identity movements, and recent democratic movements can only be blamed on poor leadership and their wretched, empty rhetoric.
Generalized trust displayed by people is a strong function of institutions—the police, legal system, bureaucracy, and government. It would be wrong to dismiss increasing public distrust with usual fatalistic disdain of “that’s how we Nepalis are”. Culture should not be a measure of trust in a society. We can no longer blame ethnicity, religion or customs for increasing distrust of political parties. It is time for our political leadership to ditch their inflammatory rhetoric, and work towards regaining the lost public trust.
Labels: election, ethnic federalism, federalism, secularism, trust
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
