-Dinesh Sapkota
I would like to clarify a few things before I go into the subject the title suggests. This is about the two related terms, although I have not used them in my explanation. Why? Due to their traditional usage in a particular context and conceptual narrowness in including a problem that I want to discuss here. These terms are 'politicization' and 'partisan'. Both terms are nouns. The former conveys a process, and the latter, as an adjective also, conveys a prejudiced position based on political support.
Politicization is not a negative term but a necessary one. It allows the state to take action against social problems by recognizing them as liable for political intervention. It could be negative only when politicization happens not to solve the problem but to exacerbate it for somebody's vested interest. Similarly, partisan politics is also not always a negative term. Partisan positions are needed in politics to create an environment for rigorous debate so that sound policies can be developed and adopted. It also becomes negative only when it hampers the system's normal functions.
Nevertheless, both terms are conceptually insufficient and confusing in the Nepali context, where a new mutant emerges as the devolution of a flawed multiparty system persists for quite a long time without tangible reforms. This mutant, daliyakaran or particization, requires new conceptualization; so that our diagnosis can effectively address this distinctly local political problem for a better democratic future.
What is particization?
Particization may look innocuous and commonplace in the multiparty system as there are political parties, and people are divided along these lines. Of course, it may look as simple as that until it inhibits the day-to-day life of ordinary people. However, looking closely, it appears to be a severe disease that has emerged in the breeding ground of the dubious practices of party politics. If it does not get enough attention and treatment through time-to-time reforms, it can cause serious damage to the system in the long run, as Armillaria Root Rot (ARR) causes the trees to collapse.
Moreover, particization becomes fatal to democracy when the internal democracy of political parties remains corrupt and dysfunctional. In the context of Nepal, the internal democracy of political parties seems far worse than one can imagine in a healthy democracy. A few dalal capitalists control parties and use them for their vested interests. Black money, or dalali, is the primary motivator in the party's functioning.
Dalals have built intra- and inter-party syndicates that ensure their control over the state. Moreover, these syndicates are ruthlessly exclusive. They largely depend on the opaque nexus of politicians, bureaucrats, and business persons, and function clandestinely to keep powerful individuals shielded to protect from potential new competitors, i.e., new parties and leaders. That is why there is no change in the leadership of the government and of old parties even after ostensibly free and fair elections. Such a monopoly of syndicates has caused systemic problems in the functioning of the state and seriously jeopardized the future of Nepal's democracy.
In such a situation, particization is, therefore, nothing but a grave abuse of the state power and embezzlement of its coffer to benefit the syndicates of a few top leaders. It violates the basic norms of democracy and also functions as the bane of all the evils like corruption, irregularities, misgovernance, and public disenchantment toward the system of multiparty democracy itself. But, unfortunately, particization has captured almost all apparatus of the Nepali state, ranging from universities, hospitals, judiciary, and journalism to constitutional bodies, police, bureaucracy, trade unions, and private sectors, including civil society.
Particization as a major challenge of Nepali civil society
As particization has taken over society, it has also taken the civic space much needed for a balanced and healthy democracy. While political parties wield their unlawful power to keep their dominance through syndicates, they use money, threats, intimidation, and even direct violence. People do not feel free to speak what they think is right. Should anybody speak, they can risk their safety. This situation has forced people to opt for either sycophanticism or self-censorship.
This situation provides no chance for a strong civil society. And, it is simple: where there is a weak civil society, democracy is imperfect and fragile. If we look at the civic space vis-a-vis Nepali state, it appears almost nonexistent. As the party syndicates favor only their cadres, sycophants, or rich people to appoint almost all places, independent citizens get no opportunity. That has greatly shrunk civic space and diminished the prospect of civil society and critical voices that are needed for positive reforms.
Media is another inalienable part of civil society. It is impossible to keep civic space intact without free and unbiased media. However, particization has impaired the credibility of Nepali media. Journalists are divided along the party lines. There are almost as many journalist's organizations as political parties. Furthermore, the syndicate of political leaders and corporate houses represses any possibility of doing people-centric and progressive journalism. If journalists do the job they are supposed to do, they will face the immediate problem of survival from the syndicates.
Moreover, particization has engendered humiliation in the members of civil society as ordinary people come to know that most of them are also members of corrupt political parties, and they spare no chance to benefit from the government. That has divided and defamed the civil society and brought its credibility to the nadir. In such a situation, it can hardly raise an effective voice against injustices and rampant corruption that pervade the country. Even if it does on a small scale, people do not believe it came in good faith. That has choked the confidence of civil society members and stigmatized their involvement, making civic movements even harder to take up.
De-particization movement could be an opportunity
Notwithstanding the current situation, Nepali civil society has played an important role in bringing multiparty democracy. Now, also, it is not entirely feckless. Although fragmented and particized, it is doing civic campaigns on different issues. Most importantly, it has an incredible opportunity to be genuinely independent, united, and capable of rising from the setbacks of particization. That opportunity is nothing but a democratic constitution and its progressive orientation.
Currently, the main concern is that if the fight for de-particization of the state, apart from government and parliament, does not come up and the deterioration of institutions continues, the system could fail at any time. The good news is that de-particization as an agenda has a possibility of galvanizing ordinary people, as it is the root of all evils, and its exploitation through syndicates has been extreme. It will also help anti-corruption movements and party reform endeavors by exposing corrupt leaders and repelling their syndicates from public institutions. Most importantly, de-particization will create space for independent citizens to serve the nation without being members of any party and slowly regain the balance between people and state, making democracy healthy and long-lasting.
