The Hindu Business Line : The quality of democracy

ON THE face of it, the developments in Nepal, where King Gyanendra has dismissed the Prime Minister, Mr Sher Bahadur Deuba, can be seen as an exercise of brute power heralding some form of monarchical dictatorship. And, as is usually the case with such exercises, the step has been justified as a move to protect democracy in Nepal.

In the words of the king himself, he has been forced to act to "protect the system of democracy and multi-party rule", and that a new Council of Ministers under his leadership would "restore peace and effective democracy within the next three years".

In other words, there would be no democracy (as the world understands it) in Nepal the next three years, the irony being that this period of dictatorship, benign or otherwise, would be used to restore "democracy" in the Himalayan Kingdom. Clearly, two questions need to be answered before one can comment on King Gyanendra's action. First, has "democracy" really broken down in Nepal? Second, where is the guarantee that the king will take the right policy decisions to put democracy back on its feet in Nepal?

Predictably, there are conflicting points of view vis-à-vis the first question. One supporter of the king has this to say: "From what I know, the Nepalese are happy, unlike the political leaders. He (the king) has promised to restore peace, law and order and bring about economic development. Nepal has seen troubled times in the last six years of the 12 years of democracy. If we have been patiently waiting for six years for a change, why not wait for another three years?".

Delving into the specifics of the situation, she adds: "The democratic leaders were given time, and everyone was shocked and surprised that nothing developed in Nepal (during) their regime. The Maoists became powerful. Nepal was bleeding. It's sad that because of the differences between political parties, we couldn't jointly fight the crisis Nepal was facing. Ideally, the Palace and the political leaders should join hands".So this particular interpretation holds that "democracy" has not worked in the way it should have since the early-1990s, the implication being that King Gyanendra has some justification for his "coup"

If one accepts this interpretation of how democracy has failed to work in Nepal, the most important inference here then is that a spell of dictatorship may be useful in getting things back into shape, which brings into focus the second question — whether there is any check on those who have arbitrarily seized the reins of power to do good to the nation's interests.

Of course, there are none because if there were, neither the Nepalese King nor the Pakistani General would have been able to do what they have done in the first place. Even so, can it still be argued that subsequent improvement in the people's material condition following a period of dictatorship is justification enough for the imposition of a suspension of the basic freedoms that are a birthright of every human being?

The short answer is no because progress which does not respect the individuality of a human being is no "progress" at all, essentially speaking.

Ranabir Ray Choudhury

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Beyond the S&P rating

Seeking the pardon of tax law

The quality of democracy

The shape of VAT to come

`Black' is not beautiful

`Floor or ground' includes floor of the car or vehicle

Equitable timing of TDS credit

A teenage concept for the staid old bank