Friday, May 3, 2019
Humanity and Power
The following opinion piece was published in Republica on April 7, 2019. The direct link is here.
Humanity and power have an inverse relationship. If that sounds like too strong an opinion, let us see two related examples. First, the Armed Police Force’s vehicle escorting Lokendra Bahadur Chand brushed a scooter riding female in the street. The police vehicle did not stop to check if the scooter rider was alright. The police force issued a statement saying it would investigate the incident, only after a mass of uproar in the media. Second, in a similar case from a few years ago, a police vehicle escorting Madhav Kumar Nepal drove on the wrong side of the street and killed a two-years old girl. The killer driver was fined Rs 1,000 for reckless driving. The police force washed its hands off the case.
Alright, so the Nepal Police cannot be trusted to uphold the rule of law. But, what did our ex-prime ministers, who were being escorted, do in those cases? We have no idea what Lokendra Bahadur Chand has done. We know what Madhav Nepal did. He felt sorry enough to send over Rs 2, 00,000 to the family of the child. However, Bamdev Gautam, the Home Minister at that time, blamed the parents for letting the child go into the street. He did not blame the police for driving on the wrong side of the street. Apparently, when you escort an ex-prime minister, rules of the road don’t apply.
Someone once said, and I paraphrase here, “If you do not stick to your values when they are being tested, then your values are not values, they are hobbies.” If Nepal is a country with rule of law, it should apply to everyone. It should apply to the commoner, the police, and the politicians. It should apply in all circumstances, not selectively. Bamdev Gautam’s action was a disgrace, unbecoming of his position at the time. Bamdev Gautam, Madhav Nepal, and Lokendra Bahadur Chand could have used their power to ensure proper justice was carried out in the cases.
Do you lose your humanity after gaining a position of power? Nepal Police’s official motto is Truth, Service and Security. It has strayed away from that motto so many times that the motto has lost its meaning. Police officers have acted above the law in numerous instances. Forget about the top brass in Nepal Police, even a low-level policeman cannot be touched by the rule of law in this country. Justice is especially difficult to come by if police officers are involved as perpetrators or abettors. Ask Nirmala Panta’s parents.
There is a healthy contingent of Nepalis who like to make social media posts showing foreign leaders not engaging in escorting practices and not halting traffic. Most often, it is the photo of the Dutch Prime Minister who rides a cycle to work by himself, sans visible escorting. There is the Japanese Prime Minister whose escorting crew follows the rules of the road, and does not halt traffic. The Japanese practice even became a plotline in the Hollywood movie, London Has Fallen.
However, what this social media contingent misses is the inhumanity displayed in other ways. Scandinavia has long been seen as the place where liberal democracy has flourished. However, many Dutch, Swedish, and Danish political leaders have capitalized on hate, and have developed hate-filled extreme right-wing politics in recent times. Japanese politicians would rather see their country’s population decline than admit foreign immigrants. Ingrained xenophobia does not allow them to see foreigners as equals. Japanese governments only recently started recognizing Japanese minorities. The United Nations has reported that hiding behind those deep bows in the Japanese population is xenophobia, which refuses to see the non-Japanese as equal human beings. The result is that 40 percent of foreigners looking to rent apartments are turned down for being non-Japanese, according to the Justice Ministry’s own survey.
The province of Quebec in Canada is trying to enact a law banning religious display of faith among public servants. That is, a Hindu worker can no longer have a tika on his forehead when in office, a Sikh cannot wear a turban, and a Muslim cannot wear a headscarf. The Quebec government says it wants its public workforce to look “secular.” Many Quebecers support this government decision. Of course, they do, because 90 percent of Quebec’s population is Christian. They don’t wear a turban, tika, or a headscarf. It is unclear if Quebec is also banning people from wearing a cross around their necks while at work.
They say all politics is local, and that we get the leaders we deserve. Do we deserve the people in power that we have? Did we put them in those positions of power because, deep within, that is the kind of people we are?
Humanity and Power
Humanity and power have an inverse relationship. If that sounds like too strong an opinion, let us see two related examples. First, the Armed Police Force’s vehicle escorting Lokendra Bahadur Chand brushed a scooter riding female in the street. The police vehicle did not stop to check if the scooter rider was alright. The police force issued a statement saying it would investigate the incident, only after a mass of uproar in the media. Second, in a similar case from a few years ago, a police vehicle escorting Madhav Kumar Nepal drove on the wrong side of the street and killed a two-years old girl. The killer driver was fined Rs 1,000 for reckless driving. The police force washed its hands off the case.
Alright, so the Nepal Police cannot be trusted to uphold the rule of law. But, what did our ex-prime ministers, who were being escorted, do in those cases? We have no idea what Lokendra Bahadur Chand has done. We know what Madhav Nepal did. He felt sorry enough to send over Rs 2, 00,000 to the family of the child. However, Bamdev Gautam, the Home Minister at that time, blamed the parents for letting the child go into the street. He did not blame the police for driving on the wrong side of the street. Apparently, when you escort an ex-prime minister, rules of the road don’t apply.
Someone once said, and I paraphrase here, “If you do not stick to your values when they are being tested, then your values are not values, they are hobbies.” If Nepal is a country with rule of law, it should apply to everyone. It should apply to the commoner, the police, and the politicians. It should apply in all circumstances, not selectively. Bamdev Gautam’s action was a disgrace, unbecoming of his position at the time. Bamdev Gautam, Madhav Nepal, and Lokendra Bahadur Chand could have used their power to ensure proper justice was carried out in the cases.
Do you lose your humanity after gaining a position of power? Nepal Police’s official motto is Truth, Service and Security. It has strayed away from that motto so many times that the motto has lost its meaning. Police officers have acted above the law in numerous instances. Forget about the top brass in Nepal Police, even a low-level policeman cannot be touched by the rule of law in this country. Justice is especially difficult to come by if police officers are involved as perpetrators or abettors. Ask Nirmala Panta’s parents.
There is a healthy contingent of Nepalis who like to make social media posts showing foreign leaders not engaging in escorting practices and not halting traffic. Most often, it is the photo of the Dutch Prime Minister who rides a cycle to work by himself, sans visible escorting. There is the Japanese Prime Minister whose escorting crew follows the rules of the road, and does not halt traffic. The Japanese practice even became a plotline in the Hollywood movie, London Has Fallen.
However, what this social media contingent misses is the inhumanity displayed in other ways. Scandinavia has long been seen as the place where liberal democracy has flourished. However, many Dutch, Swedish, and Danish political leaders have capitalized on hate, and have developed hate-filled extreme right-wing politics in recent times. Japanese politicians would rather see their country’s population decline than admit foreign immigrants. Ingrained xenophobia does not allow them to see foreigners as equals. Japanese governments only recently started recognizing Japanese minorities. The United Nations has reported that hiding behind those deep bows in the Japanese population is xenophobia, which refuses to see the non-Japanese as equal human beings. The result is that 40 percent of foreigners looking to rent apartments are turned down for being non-Japanese, according to the Justice Ministry’s own survey.
The province of Quebec in Canada is trying to enact a law banning religious display of faith among public servants. That is, a Hindu worker can no longer have a tika on his forehead when in office, a Sikh cannot wear a turban, and a Muslim cannot wear a headscarf. The Quebec government says it wants its public workforce to look “secular.” Many Quebecers support this government decision. Of course, they do, because 90 percent of Quebec’s population is Christian. They don’t wear a turban, tika, or a headscarf. It is unclear if Quebec is also banning people from wearing a cross around their necks while at work.
They say all politics is local, and that we get the leaders we deserve. Do we deserve the people in power that we have? Did we put them in those positions of power because, deep within, that is the kind of people we are?
Labels: Bamdev Gautam, Denmark, humanity, Japan, Lokendra Bahadur Chand, Madhav Kumar Nepal, Nepal Police, Netherlands, power, Quebec, secularism, Sweden
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Referendum Politics
.The opinion piece below was published in Republica daily on October 25, 2016. The direct link is here.
By: Mukesh Khanal
On October 2, 2016 Colombians voted on a referendum that would bring peace by ending the 50-year conflict between the Colombian government and the FARC rebels. The government and the rebels had been negotiating on a peace agreement since 2012. By the end of September 2016, the agreement had been reached and it was lauded and approved by everyone in Colombia—the government, the rebels, and the larger civil society. The only step that remained was a formal endorsement of the end of conflict and establishment of peace by the Colombian people through a simple referendum vote of Yes or No.
The question on the referendum was simple: Do you support the final agreement to end the conflict and build stable, lasting peace? Everyone in Colombia thought that a win for ‘Yes’ was a foregone conclusion. Generations of Colombians had suffered enough in the last half century through the conflict with the FARC. So, ordinary Colombians would vote ‘Yes’ for peace. However, 50.2 percent of Colombians on October 2 voted ‘No.’ The world was shocked. How could ordinary Colombians not agree to resolve a conflict that has lasted for over 50 years? Do they not want peace?
The Colombian referendum vote came on the heels of the Brexit referendum vote, the results of which had also shocked the world. However, there have been numerous other referendum votes around the world in the past. When the process and results of all those referendums are considered, we can arrive at a few lessons on why referendums sound like a good idea, but are actually incredibly bad.
First, most referendums have a simple win-lose criteria: whichever side gets more than 50 percent of the vote is the winner. This idea basically arises out of the belief that the voting public has complete information on the issues of the referendum. Therefore, the simple majority would always arrive at the ‘correct’ conclusion. However, any social scientist can tell that this is an incredibly stupid idea. Nobody has complete information. For example, there were news reports after the Brexit vote about the British people googling about the impacts of leaving the EU the day after the vote. It was pretty clear that the voting public did not have complete information about the significance of their vote.
Second, on the surface, referendums appear to be our political system giving us—the common people—a chance to voice our opinion on the huge, critical issue that could make or break the country/region. At least, that is what everyone presents a referendum as. That is never true. Referendums are also a result of our elected political leaderships and the political system avoiding making tough, complex decisions. It happens when political leadership faces a situation when it is damned if it did something, and damned if it did not. So, what do they do? They ask the public to make the decision for them. Brexit is a case in point. The point is: referendums are sometimes the result of our political leadership shirking from the duties that we elected them to perform.
Third, following from the point above, referendums often occur on issues in which there is a huge element of ‘emotion’ across the nation/region. Because the issues are often emotional and the public is under-informed on the issues, the referendum vote can be hijacked by rogue elements that would have no chance to do so in a proper political setting of a legislative chamber. This is what happened with the Brexit vote, in which the rogue forces were able to persuade just enough members of the public to achieve the destabilizing result and end the prime ministership of David Cameron.
Finally, the worst thing about referendums are the simple ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ options. Conflicts and issues have nuances that the voting public may not have had the time to explore and understand. Even when the crucial understanding and exploration has been performed by negotiating groups and leaderships, the voting public may not be completely aware of what the negotiations were like and what the results are. Therefore, asking the public to vote a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to end—say, a 50-year old conflict that has impacted the lives of generations—is unfair to the voting public.
Let us bring this issue closer to home. Let us ask ourselves what the results would have been in Nepal if we had held referendums on two most contentious decisions that were made in the recent past: monarchy and secularism.
On May 28, 2008, Nepal was declared a federal republic and the monarchy was abolished. A nationwide public perception survey commissioned by The Asia Foundation three years later in 2011 showed that only 43 percent supported the overthrow of the monarchy. That support was lower in future surveys. So, what would have happened if there was a referendum for monarchy in Nepal? The 2013 election result gives us a clue. The pro-monarchy Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal, headed by Kamal Thapa, won zero seats out of the 240 First-Past-the-Post seats. However, its pro-monarchy campaign resonated with the people and brought the party 24 proportional seats, making it the fourth-largest political party and a major player in our Westminster-style compromise-laden government system. The result demonstrated that if there was a referendum in Nepal to determine the fate of monarchy, the monarchy would still be alive and well.
On the issue of secularism, the 2011 survey showed that over 57 percent of the Nepali public wanted the country to be a ‘Hindu’ state. Surveys in the following years showed similarly high support for a ‘Hindu’ Nepal. For example, a follow-up survey in 2013 showed that the support was lowest—49 percent—in the Eastern region and highest—85 percent—in the Far-west. The large support for monarchy, coupled with the large support for a Hindu state, resulted in Mr Thapa’s “one vote for dai (the brother), one vote for gai (the cow)” campaign slogan, which brought his party the 24 proportional seats. That result, along with the annual survey results, showed that a referendum for secularism would have been soundly defeated in Nepal.
What would have happened if there was a referendum in 2007 on whether to accept the peace deal between the Nepali government and the Maoist rebels? Would we have chosen peace or would we have gone the Colombian way? What will happen if one of the provinces in the future —say, the Madhesh province—brings a referendum to secede from Nepal? Will the people in that province say ‘Yes’ or will they say ‘No’ like the people in Quebec, Canada did in 1995? These are issues that ask for cooler negotiations and compromises from political leaderships, and not a referendum that allows the ill-informed, emotional, and riled-up public to vote on.
Labels: Brexit, Colombia, CPA, Madhesh, maoists, monarchy, referendum, secularism
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]
