Democracy
-------------

E. B. White, in his essay, "Democracy" illustrates in few simple sentences what democracy feels like or what it is. We all should understand and define democracy before we realize its value. Here is my attempt towards that understanding. In 1990 the banned political parties in Nepal started a revolution and staged protests, rallies, strikes. I remember taking part in one of the rallies and chanting "We want Democracy!" We shouted so loud and the environment was so exhilarating that I wanted ?Democracy? as bad as the loudness of my chants suggested. I was a mere 9 years old. When I returned home my parents learned from the radio that the rally that I had ran to was fired upon by the bullets of the riot control police. Democracy was parents grieving for their dead sons who died in rallies. Democracy was not a joke or a chant. It was euphoria when you could shout if you wanted to.

Democracy was won one dark night when the King agreed to break the curfew and declared restoration of parliamentary system. My uncle and I went outside the house and shouted "It came! It came!" to the dark night as if Democracy was rain in desert. As if democracy was orgasm. People appeared in their windows and their porches and their rooftops and shouted, "Democracy finally has come!" The lifting of the curfew was not communicated to police and later we heard news that some people were shot by nervous policemen when they opened their windows. Democracy was martyrs - even the reluctant or oblivious martyrs.

Later, with the Freedom of the People won, Nepal held elections. Democracy was listening to the radio to find out who won the free elections. Democracy was
The Kathmandu Post
launched on Democracy Day 1990. But Democracy also was dozens of elections held without a stable government. Democracy was petty differences and in-fights within factions loyal to this, loyal to that but in reality loyal to nothing except their own pockets. By 1996, in just six short years, Democracy was disillusionment and Democracy was a very real armed revolt to establish Communist Party?s rule in the land of the Himalaya.

Democracy was school closings and strikes and stifles by various "democratic" parties for various demands. Democracy was cable TV and sex and violence in living rooms via HBO and Cinemax. Democracy was a dream and dreams unfulfilled. Democracy was not development. Democracy was not economic boom. Democracy was neither "Singapore" nor "Switzerland" as one politician had promised to turn Nepal into.

For now Democracy is the promise crushed. But as in those euphoric days Democracy is hope manifest. Democracy is Pandora?s Box. Democracy is not a cure-all. Democracy is just an idea. Democracy is not herd mentality. Democracy is responsibility. If you do not fancy living under the authoritarian rule of the Maoist extremists or the dictatorship of the King who claims to be God, Democracy is the only future.

***
mG.

cant add any more...well written MG.

People are giving up with the maoist they blame the govt for this ...true very true but they never thought how better maoshits can be?? one wrong can never be corrected with another wrong....but at the same time I guess those r the people who just want to get profit of anything..doesnt matter if its maoism or another -ism. Just wondering if I can see a better Nepal in my life time??

mind games. yes well written like always..

Democracy was neither "Singapore" nor "Switzerland" as one politician had promised to turn Nepal into

hahahaha, wasnt it ganesh man sigh who said that??

Krishna Prasad Bhattrai :-)

confused bro.... as f4m pointed, KP Bhattarai said that and not Ganesh Man..

If you do not fancy living under the authoritarian rule of the Maoist extremists or the dictatorship of the King who claims to be God, Democracy is the only future.

yes sorai ana i agree

mG,

Democracy, as you said, is an idea. Its a process towards perfection. Its just a mean, not an end in itself. Democracy as I see it, is an idea that lets the people govern/rule, but does not have any mechanism to make sure that the people or their representatives are working right/following the constitution. This was what people in the Greeko-Roman days couldn't figure out, when they were talking about polis and democracy. Later, philosophores came up with the idea of "rule of law". Its the rule of law, which is a major supplement of democracy, not a component of it, that makes a democracy functional. Democracy in its pure form is just electing leaders, but the freedom to campaign, to have a free and fair election is only made possible by the rule of law. There's a lot of controversy on democracy and the rule of law. Some like Minxin Pei, Zakaria, Lee Kuanyew, Robert Kaplan, Kishore Mahubani etc believe that an all out transition to democracy without having the institutions in place, i.e., the rule of law, will result in disaster. Their solution is to have economic liberalization first, which will result in institutional mechanisms to protect the citizens' private property and arbitrary state's interfaraence in their lives. This will create civil society+other mechanisms+ a middle class that will push for the rule of law, and whenn made a transition to democracy, it is a success. For them, Chile provides an excellent example of this "market-first, democracy later" approach. There's a nice essay by Minxin Pei, a scholar who focuses on Chinese-East Asian affairs on Carngei foundation's page. You can search for it. These scholars believe that, it is possible to have the rule of law first, and then democracy but not democracy first and then the rule of law. Others think that democracy, as we define today, will have all the necessary institutions/mechanisms to sustain itself, and an all out transition is supported- "we need a palce to start" view. I buy the first group's view.

What happened in Nepal is not democracy's fault. It happened becase we did not have the rule of law. If we had the rule of law first, then democracy, things would be different. DB Lama and Girija would have never made it to Pratinidhi Savha, nor Lokendra or Surya Bahdurs! So Nepal's democracy, as in many neo-democracies was democracy without the rule of law, in which democracy meant electing the leaders. Whoever effectively exploited the public moods won. And the elected representatives were not democratic people. We shouldn't forget the historical lesson: Both Hitler and Mussolini came to power by popular elections. Even today in Russia, LDP wins a significant no. of seats in Duma, and the Indian elections, for the most part is a mess. If democracy (elections) were to produce good leaders, then we should have had a quite a few of those, because we had elections before they were due. We failed, not because our people did not have a good judgement but because of the lack of institutions to make sure that "only the good people" run for the reps. and that once elected they do not overstep their responsibility and constitutional boundary. This is very hard to implement in third world countries, where people are poor, uneducated and where the social/ethnic gaps are yet to be bridged. Consensus, is absent and in the absent of the consenus, both sides-the state and the people- violate the social contract becuase both are unaware of their ROLES. The Result: a Messy Democracy.

also, "democracy is value neutral" - Kaplan.

The solution to have a fully functional dmeocracy, ie, democarcy+ rule of law is to bridge the gaps. For this development is a must. Free market economy is a must to have a civil society and to bridge the economic/ethnic gaps. However, free trade should not be that "free". When reforming the economy, the nations need to make sure that they get the "cheap bread" but not at its people's expense. Once you implenet a successful market reform, once you have lowered your unemployment rate and thus eradicated angry youths or "People of Mass destruction" in Friedman's words, then you can expect to elect good leaders, who will make sure that their actions do not violate the constitution, and the rights of the people are not infringed upon. Otherwise, the angry people will elect angry reps. Those angry reps. will make sure that the people will remain angry, as in the case of Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, Russia and Rwanda, places where democarcy led to autocracy of the few, instead of the rule of the many.

So the forumla to have a functyioning liberal democracy is:

Economic Reforms - Rule of Law - Civil society - Consensus on the appropriate role of the State = fully functioning Democracy.

If anybody has any other model, please let me know. Will help me finish my term paper.
Thanks in advance.

Feel free to criticize and disagree.

the "cheap bread" but not at its people's expense= the "cheap bread" but not at their people's expense

For further reading:

From Third World to First : The Singapore Story- Lee Kuan Yew
Can Asians Think?- Kishore Mahubani
Was Democracy Just a Moment- Robert D. Kaplan
The World on Fire- Amy Chua
Globalization and it's Discontents -Joeseph Stiglitz
Future of Freedom- Fareed Zakaria
Warrior Politics- Robert Kaplan
Is China Democratizing?- Minxin Pei
African Priorities: Democracy isn't the Place to Start- Marina S. Ottaway*
Kazakhstan 'Democracy' is Spelled 'Dynasty'- Martha Olcott
States at Risk and Failed States: Putting Security First - Marina Ottaway and Stefan Mair*
Beyond Liberalization?- Daniel Brumberg*
Implementing the Institutions of Democracy- Minxin Pei*

* Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Democracy Project homepage -

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/

aaba kura rahyo, Nepal ko. Nepal is following the patter of many neo democracies, so its not a surprise (Comparative Politics is quite addictive :-). If we let the things continue, we will soon be in a biggger mess, if we revert back to the authritarian form, we will be in an even bigger mess. So, in this "state of semi democracy" (according to Kunda Dixit or whoever wrote this week's Nepali Times editorial), we can strengthen institutions that would lead to the rule of law, and which in turn would make things less messy, and help in smooth transition of power to the elected governmnet in a few years' time. (i don't think we can have a free and fair election now. Even if we hold elections in Chaitra-Baisakh, it will not solve any of the problems). So we should wait for elections, and the waiting time should be used to implement the institutions of democracy and the rule of law. To solve Nepal's problems now, we need more liberty , not more democracy.

thx IF for providing books to read. Will be reading during break. A very nice way to pass time.

Democracy is subjective. One may define democracy in one way and other in other way. This is the beauty of democracy.
Right now democracy, for me, is being able to go give my economics final exam and get A. I hope i get my democracy.
Megalomaniac

give or take your econ finals, megalomaniac?

*final.

alright,time for me to go prepare for my finals. :-)

As far as I can analyze, I think Democracy is a point where people think out of the box, get concerned about their rights and weigh things in perspective.

Like in Nepal, before 1990 , we were all caged in one system which din't give much room for normal citizen to think. But as the number of concerned people rose, the country had to take a turn and dip into "justful" society of democracy. Sometimes I wonder if democracy came to soon in Nepal. When we took a look at more than 50% illetracy rate it just doesnt make a sense to say that most of the people care about their rights. I mean those good chunk of people are TOTALLY influenced by certain groups of individuals. Well, anyway I jsut feel that demcracy is work in progress in Nepal..hopefully we will get to that utopia where what we dream will be put in reality.

made a mistake. TAKE my econ examn. Democracy is a chance to correct mistakes :-)
Megalomaniac

Isolated Freak, thanks for your lengthy addition to the discourse. I definately agree about "rule of law" and other supplements and components of a civil society lacking in Nepal.

But I did not intend to get into the semantics. I just wanted to answer, in real terms, the question what "democracy" is and how it relates to myself and Nepal. There was a time just about 15-20 years ago when Kunda Dixit or whoever could not write those remarks critiqing the king. now they can mostly write and say what they feel. that is "democrcy." if the king takes over the power we will not be able to say what we feel. discourse will be stifled. that is "non-democracy."

as a system of civil society we do need more than "khokro" democracy but we can only realize what we are missing when we dont have it. as to your assertion that we need more "liberty" not more "democracy" - i do not understand what that means. think about that sentence for a while. what does it mean? try to define or elaborate the idea... does it mean a thing? can you describe it? i could not because i think it is as "khokro" as nepali democracy. see, that's how semantics gives you problems, it takes you away from concrete ideas and brings you to the land of abstraction.

that is why i do not like the definations of democracy likes the ones that you quoted: "democracy is value neutral." what the heck is that supposed to mean? show dont tell. people use such words when they do not have much to say. in all fairness, i have not read Mr. Kaplan's book from which this quote comes, and maybe if i did read it it would be much clearer. but then why quote something that cannot stand on its own?

For comparison here is the E. B. White essay written in 1943, titled, Democracy:

We received a letter from the Writers' War Board the other day asking for a statement on "The Meaning of Democracy." It presumably is our duty to comply with such a request, and it is certainly our pleasure.

Surely the Board knows what democracy is. It is the line that forms on the right. It is the don't in don't shove. It is the hole in the stuffed shirt through which the sawdust slowly trickles; it is the dent in the high hat. Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time. It is the feeling of privacy in voting booths, the feeling of communion in the libraries, the feeling of vitality everywhere. Democracy is a letter to the editor. Democracy is the score at the beginning of the ninth. It is an idea which hasn't been disproved yet, a song the words of which have not gone bad. It's the mustard on the hot dog and the cream in the rationed coffee. Democracy is a request from the War Board, in the middle of a morning in the middle of a war, wanting to know what democracy is.

***

I think what Nepal needs is democracy and what it means to every nepali. Responsibily can be taught easily when people realise what they will lose if they lose their right to things, right to represent, right to a voice; all the rights endowed by a democratic system.

mG.

my quick comments:

what I meant by "nepal needs more liberty not more democarcy" is, we need rule of law without democracy (defined as elections) for some time ebcause there's no way we can have a free and fair election at this moment or for some time to come. we want people like Kunda Dixit and others to continue to write what they feel about the current affairs of the state, without any fear. this is what i meant. we can put our elections on hold but should not curb the peoples' liberty to express themselves within the set legal/constitutional framework. democracy is just one liberty- liberty to choose your reps. but to live the life you want to (unless you are affecting others directly or indirectly) is made sure by the rule of law. So my point is: We can have the rule of law and have people express themselves without having elections for some time to come. this is what scholars term "building the institutions of democracy" , first safeguard peoples' interests, their rights, then go for democracy, i.e., elections, the result will be good. if not, the result will be messy.

you can agree, disagree with it. i don't expect yoiu to agree because in democracy supplemented by the rule of law, you can have your own views and the rights to express those views, whether one likes it or not, hoina ta? :-)

Idea about democracy changes along with time. My view about about democracy is different than what it was yesterday. Today, for me, democracy is all about getting drunk and not getting busted for underage drinking :-)
jai democracy!!
Megalomaniac