Leaders? What leaders?
BY M.R. JOSSE
Without doubt, one of the most used ? or, rather, abused ? word in political discourse in Nepal in recent times is ?leader? or, in the vernacular, ?neta.? Day in and day out, this term is unfailingly tossed around in formal discussions and informal conversations with an unthinking automaticity, being applied indiscriminately to anyone who is even remotely connected with a political organisation or party.
Even the supposedly quality media, including its leading luminaries, use it with a frenzy that suggests their very lives depended upon doing so. Its practitioners apparently don?t bother either to ponder what it really means or to seriously consider which, if any, of the numberless political figures they wish to refer to do, indeed, deserve such a lofty appellation.
ACTUAL MEANING
Before proceeding any further into this essay let us take a look at how the word is described in the dictionary. According to my Chambers, one of the many meanings of a ?leader? and one that applies to the political realm, is a person who leads or goes first. So, how is ?to lead? defined? As per the same source, that is: ?to show the way by going first.?
My Webster?s defines it, in its political connotation, in this fashion: ?a person who has a commanding authority or influence?; the principal officer of a (British) political party; ?a member chosen by his party to manage party activities in a legislative body?; ?such a member presiding over the whole legislative body when his party constitutes a majority?; and ?one that exercises paramount but responsible authority over a state or local party organization.?
Definitions offered by the much larger and more recent Webster?s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary are shorter. Thus: ?a person or thing that leads? and ?a guiding or directing head, as of an army, movement or political group.?
Finally, the World Book Encyclopaedia Dictionary merely says: ?a person, animal, or thing that leads? adding ?a person well fitted to lead?.
Against that semantics backdrop, how accurate is the blanket use of this adjective with virtually anything that moves across a party chessboard? Or, even more to the point, has not such lazy or muddled thinking accorded all politicians, even those who are half-baked intellectually, virtually illiterate or even corrupt, an aura of authority or legitimacy that they simply don?t deserve?
MISLEADING
In other words, doesn?t such a practice misleadingly suggest that the person to whom it is applied has talents or the influence that ordinary citizens do not possess or command? Doesn?t it also undermine the prestige and standing of those politicians who are truly deserving of the title of ?leader? ? that is, those who have either been chosen as people?s representatives in the past, or shown widely accepted exceptional courage, political vision and ability to lead?
Indeed, as I see it, there are two further key aspects to political leadership: one that is, in a democracy, bestowed only by a mandate from the people through elections; and the other uncontested or widely acclaimed political talents and/or vision that are intrinsic to the ?ability to lead? attribute referred to above.
By such a yardstick, do all the Rams, Shyams, Geetas and Sitas that fall within the ambit of one or the other political party or grouping in our country deserve to be called and respected as ?leaders??
Methinks not. Quite apart from the fact that very few of the dramatis personae of the Nepalese political stage can rightly claim such an honour, the sweeping manner in which the ?leader? tag is attached to virtually all and sundry is clearly untenable. It is certainly unacceptable to those who have a profound respect for logical thought and believe that words have distinct meanings and cannot be manipulated to suit one?s ends, especially if those have a manifestly political motivation.
If the meaning of words is not to be scrupulously respected, for example, why not substitute ?dictatorship? for ?democracy? or ?Marxism-Leninism? with ?Mao Zedong Thought? or ?Fabian Socialism? with ?Fascism??
To make the point even more clear, let me be more specific. Is the ?leader? terminology, as applied to, say Dr Minendra Rijal and Dr Narayan Khadka of the NC (D), well deserved? Although they may be titans academically, the fact that they have never ever been elected by the people surely should, at the very least, rule that out, until at least such a time as they do.
Even more outlandish ? to take another example ? is the case of Sujata Koirala (Jost) who, I now find, is termed as NC ?leader?. Not too long ago, she was merely daddy?s darling daughter, back from Germany. Then, mostly when her father was prime minister, she became a ?social worker?, subsequently a ?youth leader? before (now) acquiring the halo of a full-blown ?leader? as in fact described in a recent Himalayan Times news report.
During this magical transformation process, let it be noted, she too has not been consecrated by a popular mandate. Far less, of course, is known about her political, academic, intellectual and other talents or skills in all this time.