Views of a Nepali Economist

There is this notion amongst intellectuals in Nepal debating the state-society relationship that a stronger state negatively affects the strength of the civic society. The notion comes out of years of experience in the form of oppression from the hands of strong states. This is especially true in Nepal since oppression and repression were commonplace during the Rana rule and the Panchayat system. However, stronger state need not always imply a weaker civic society.

A stronger state would represent a stronger democracy, stronger rule of law, and stronger enforcement of fundamental humanitarian as well as constitutional principles. That would mean that a stronger state is actually beneficial for the civic society since it ensures stability, practice of rule of law, and security of its citizens. That, in turn, would mean that the nation’s citizens and civic society would have greater freedom and independence to practice and preach their voices, arguments and discussions in private as well as public sphere without having to worry about being persecuted for particular set of beliefs, principles, and actions.

While an active civic society needs a strong state, and a strong state needs a well-organized, knowledgeable and informed civic society to act as a critic, the problem has always been about finding a proper balance between the state and the society. Which is better: a stronger state and weaker civic society, or a stronger civic society and weaker state? And, therein lays the problem plaguing the Nepali state and society today. Nobody in Nepal seems to know with certainty what the right balance should be between the two, and whether one stronger over the other is even a preferred option. So, in the issue of state versus civic society discussions in Nepal, questions abound that remain unanswered, at least satisfactorily.

It is during such tug of war that roles of independent and non-profit institutions become all the more important. There are institutions that are independent, publicly funded and non-profit, and which work to bridge the gap between the state and the civic society. Such intermediary institutions ensure that the state does not violate the fundamental principles of democracy: equal rights and voices to the citizens, and universal freedom and liberty to all citizens. Existence of, and active actions from, such institutions are all the more important because democracy is a majority rule, and whenever there is a majority rule, there remains a tendency in the majority to stomp on the rights and values of the minority.

And, this stomping on the minority by the majority is what caused us to arrive at the current state of crisis in Nepal. Disdain and neglect of the rural poor by the urban ruling elite for the past several decades was a prime reason for the emergence and success of the Maoist rebellion. Yes, the Maoist insurgency was brutal, but we have to realize that it was borne out of frustration among several minorities in the hills, mountains, and rural Nepal in the mid-west and far-west Nepal. The educated and ruling elites in Eastern and Central Nepal had been ignoring the need for development of a large chunk of Nepalese citizens, and this large chunk thought that a revolution was what was needed to be heard. And, a bloody revolution they did give us. Now, whether that revolution was able to bring them any relief is another matter.

The state and the civic society need institutions to act on the public interest and ensure that revolutions like the Maoist rebellion do not repeat. However, success in that front has been lacking, as is evident from the rise of different groups in Nepal claiming to fight for the rights and freedom of different ethnic or regional communities.

A second issue that has to be considered, besides determining just who needs to be stronger between the state and the society, is just how strong or weak the bond between the state and the society needs to be. Currently, reports have been coming out claiming that Nepal has entered into a fragile state, and could collapse. The reports have cited unstable politics as the main reason. So, amidst such reporting there could be a tendency among those in the civic society and the Nepali state to try and strengthen the bond binding these two. However, that could be exactly the opposite of what is needed.

Maybe relaxing of the bond is what is needed in today’s Nepal. This notion seems to hold true if we look around us. The various outfits all over Nepal, like the one-Madhes outfit, have been fighting for a particular region or ethnicity’s rights and freedom. Their struggle has focused on loosening the bond between the federal state and the regions or ethnicities. These outfits have been demanding autonomy—economic and governance—from the central system of governance practiced until today in Nepal. That is, they are demanding that the bond binding the central Nepali state and the regions or the ethnicities be loosened. Such examples suggest that there has come a time to rethink the format as well as the strength of the state-society relationships in Nepal.

The current impasse in the implementation of the peace accord, and the dillydallying by the political parties, runs the risk of hurting and annoying the citizenry in general. The crux of the argument is that the eagerness and vigor in trying to mend the broken state-society relationship has to be visible to the Nepalese citizens who have been watching with interest for the last few years. We are already late in solving the problems. However, it’s better late than never. And, that’s the message the Nepali state needs to convey effectively to the Nepali society. Or else, come a few years, there’s going to be another bloody revolution in our hands.

(copyright) Mukesh Khanal