| Username |
Post |
| ashu |
Posted
on 22-Sep-02 11:08 AM
Hi all,
I am actually very happy to see that Rabindra Mishra-ji has changed his thinking
-- of 4 to 5 years ago -- which was about wanting a Nepali version of "Mahathir And Museveni" - both hard-core autocrats. (See the article below)
His preferred model now seems to be "Pratyoush Onta-haru". This, I would consider an improvement.
I wait for the day when Rabindra-ji realizes that there are simply no short-cuts to
power in Nepal for anyone of any level of honesty and competency in our open,
messy, flawed and fragile democracy which, by definition, provides an equal
chance of success to ALL citizens who want to run for a public office.
Enjoy this old article for what it is worth.
When this article first appeared in soc.culture.nepal in 1998, in a spirit of vigorous kurakani, Joel Havenstein (then a student at Yale) and I had provided a critique
each of the piece.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
**********************
In Search of Mahathir And Museveni
By Rabindra Mishra (1997)
Seven years ago when democracy was restored many felt a great sense of triumph.
Today, many fear, Nepal may be heading towards a tragedy. People are becoming
increasingly frustrated with the present political situation. The general view
is that politicians have shown utter disrespect to the wishes of the people and
politics has become a divisive factor, not a unifying force.
It has created cracks among ethnic communities and divided even the administration on
political lines. Those who have links with politicians benefit and for others
democracy has not delivered.
Assessing the current political situation of the country, a prominent
Kathmandu-based journalist recently said there was no light at the end of the
tunnel. Nowadays, many share a similar sense of pessimism. Does it mean that
democracy as a political system has proved unsuitable for Nepal? Or is it just
the lack of good leadership? Probably many won’t dispute the view that current
problems in the country have much to do with the lack of dynamic leadership
than with the system itself.
History is witness to the fact that the ills of a nation have never been cured
by political systems but by able leaders. Though communism is despised by most
of the world at present, it is under that system China’s economy is booming
making the West fearful of its overall prowess. It is not the system which is
credited with the success, it is the leadership, especially that of late Deng
Xio Ping. It was Mr Deng who enunciated his famous line in response to his
critics that it did not matter whether a cat was black or white as long as it
killed the rat.
There are some leaders around the world who share the similar view. Because of
their extra-ordinary contribution to their countries they are vary popular with
the masses. Though, at times, they have gone beyond the universally accepted
norms of democracy to achieve their goals, the majority of their countrymen
tend to turn a blind eye towards their approach.
One such leader is Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamod, who has been in power for 16 years, making him the longest-ever Prime Minister of the country. It is not by force that he has held the post, but by virtue of his excellence. He has relentlessly worked throughout his premiership to turn Malaysia into an economic giant. He has
confronted sensitive issues of race and religion and has made Malaysia’s voice
heard worldwide.
In 1991, he unveiled his “Vision 2020” agenda which aims at making Malaysia a
fully developed nation by that year. Commentators say if the country’s first
Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman is credited with creating Malaysia, Mahathir
can claim to have reinvented it. In the process, the country’s constitution has
been amended many times under Mahathir’s leadership.
He has enacted tougher laws, at times at the expense of institutional and individual liberty. Some call him autocratic, some a benign dictator, but many accept it as a price to
pay for what the country has achieved under his leadership. In the general
election held in 1995, after being in power for 14 years, he won 64% of the
popular vote proving himself the most popular premier the country ever had.
Another such leader is Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. A former guerrilla
leader, who toppled the bloody and repressive regime of Milton Obote after a
five-year bush war, became the president of the country in 1986. Now, after
over a decade in power, he is not only hugely popular in Uganda but also widely
respected in whole of Africa.
His dynamic leadership has given the country devastated by dictatorship of Idi Amin and Obote a new life. In the past decade, Uganda has seen peace, stability and an average economic growth rate of six percent a year. Foreign investment has also increased. He says he does not want aid from the west, simply investment, trade and tourism. However, he does not refuse soft loans for infrastructure.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 22-Sep-02 11:12 AM
CONTINUED:
Unlike most other leaders of the world, Museveni rejects pomp and glory of his
official status and chooses to live a modest life at his own cattle ranch in a
village three hours from the capital, Kampala. There he is surrounded by
“bright, young advisors” whom he values a lot.
He calls his style of governance a “non-party democracy” and strongly believes that multi-party system is divisive in a tribal society like that of Uganda. His critics call him
authoritarian. But who cares? He is now a favourite son of the International
Monetary Fund and the favourite leader of the country. He won 74 percent of the
vote in last year’s direct presidential election, which was declared by
observers as generally free and fair.
Considering the present situation of the country, many may wish Nepal too had
leaders like Mahathir and Museveni - honest, with a visionary, hard-working but
also tough. Leaders like Mahathir, Museveni or even former British Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher, all of whom have been regarded as benign dictators
by many, are no harm to the nation as long as they are honest and accountable
to the people. History shows that dynamic leaders have always had some
dictatorial tendencies.
Ours is not a nation ravaged by war or famine, nor is it a nation blemished by
ethnic and communal violence. Nothing is wrong with the country and nothing is
wrong with the people. If anything is wrong it is our leadership. To build our
future we simply need good leaders. THE END
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 22-Sep-02 11:24 AM
What follows was taken from soc.culture.nepal
dated 3/31/1998
A reply by Ashutosh Tiwari
Mishraji:
Excellently readable article. But I strongly disagree with you. Here are
my reasons why.
In case you have forgotten (and I don't think you have :-), from 1960 till
1990, Nepal did try this one-great-leader, one-great-party system called
the "soil-appropriate and climate-compatible" (remember the rhetoric?)
Panchayati Bya.bas.thaa.
In that system, that "one-leader" was King Mahendra and later his
Darjeeling-Eton-Harvard-Tokyo-educated son, King Birendra. And this
one-great-party was the Nir.da.liya/Panchayati party.
Like Mahathir and his present group of dominantly Cal Berkelely-trained
Malaysian economists (and like Lee Quan Yew and his dominantly Cambridge,
(England)-educated technocrats, King Birendra too, in the 70s and in the
much of the '80s, surrounded himself with some of the 'brightest' young
men of his generation.
(Togther they created: The Zone of Peace proposal, which later turned out to be a farce; They created Naya Sickchya Yojana, which, lacking political will and financial muscle, sort of died out by 1985; they nationalized forests and many industries and so on and on)
There was Narayan Prasad Shrestha, the first Nepali (as he told me in a
conversation in '94) to earn his BA in English, ranking first-class-first
at some British university. There was Chiran Thapa -- an Oxford-educated
aristocrat, and a slew of other Palace officials and others who had been
educated at some of the finest universities in India, England and America.
Now one assumes that these people, including the King -- by virtue of
their intelligence, education and travels abroad and inside the country --
had seen what democracy was, had some ideas as to 'desh bikas' was, and
were aware in the '60s and the '70s about the situations in
newly-independent countries of Africa and Asia, and so forth.
Yet, despite all that, the net result at the end was that the system that
they rested their reputation on came apart in 1990 amidst charges of
extreme corruption, nepotism, extreme violations of human rights and what
not!! I find it ironic that Westminster-style Parliamentary Democracy was
brought to Nepal by the huddled masses, by rebelling against those who had
been extensively educated in college-towns not far from Westminister
Abbey!!
(Now individually, each of these 'best and the brightest' people may be
very nice people, and most of them invariably are!!, but, let's also be
honest enough to say that collectively they've been disastrous failures,
and that history will not and should not judge them kindly.)
Now, by drawing this Mahathir analogy, are you suggesting that either King
Birendra, Prince Dipendra or some OTHER great leader (as Pokharelji
recently posted -- and to which I again strongly disagreed! -- from some
fancy American/British campus) now has to step up to make all the mistakes
that King Birendra and his coterie of the 'best and the brightest' made in
the '70s and the '80s? I don't think so.
Nepal need NOT to go through this one-great-leader/one-great-party sort of
political system again. Sure, given things back home, we might be
desparate for a group of leaders that we can trust, but my point here is
that we need not be THAT desperate to wait for a Mahathir or a Lee Quan
Yew to emerge from somewhere and work his presumably single-party miracle
at the expense of few cumbersome civil rights and liberties.
Well, then, you might wonder, what hope is there for Nepal?
My answer: I don't know.
But let me add to that by saying this.
I have strongly felt that Nepal's biggest strengths (and it could be
argued: NEpal's biggest weaknesses too) are the same: Geographic diversity
and ethnic diversity, both of which continue to astonish any first-time
visitor to Nepal.
With the exception of Dr. Harka Gurung, I haven't seen (i.e read stuff by)
any other Nepali public-policy-maker/leader ever bringing up INSIGHTFUL
geographic and ethnic issues that have obvious bearings on national
policies and plans. When the issue of geography and ethnicity are given
short shrift to, any policy that comes up has a some sort of an in-built
one-size-fits-all attribute to it, and that policy eventually fails in
Nepal.
I think we need national leaders, regardless of where they come from, and
in what domain they might be, who embrace the issues of ethnicity and
geography, and see them NOT as obstacles but as undertapped sources of
strengths
Now how do we do that?
Well, I don't know. I have to study further, I guess :-)
namaste
ashu
I typed in a rapid stream of consciousness mode; hope the above makes
sense to you.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 22-Sep-02 11:26 AM
From: Joel Hafvenstein (jhaven@pantheon.yale.edu)
Subject: Re: In Search of Mahathir and Museveni
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nepal
Date: 1998/04/01
Like Ashu, I sympathize with the frustration at Nepali political
leadership that underlies Rabindra's article, but disagree with the
solution proposed in it. I hope Rabindra will not be offended if I
specifically address several quoted lines with which I disagree; I will
sincerely try not to misquote or distort the message of the whole paper.
On 28 Mar 1998, RMishra97 wrote:
> The general view is that politicians have shown utter disrespect to the
> wishes of the people
This is sadly true. However, if under democracy no Nepali leader has
arisen who will follow the will of the people, why should we expect a
non-democratic "benign dictator" to be any better?
> Does it mean that democracy as a political system has proved unsuitable
> for Nepal? Or is it just the lack of good leadership?
I agree with you, Rabindra, that the lack of leadership is the problem,
not the democratic system. But I also think one of the marks of a truly
great leader is the ability to work within a democratic system. Mahathir
and Museveni are effective leaders, who were able to move their country
forward by suppressing popular dissent (often violently). A much more
challenging (and, if successful, much more rewarding) task is to move
one's nation forward while still respecting human rights and the will of
the people. Someone who can do that is a great leader.
> History is witness to the fact that the ills of a nation have never been
> cured by political systems but by able leaders.
This is a somewhat doubtful statement as it stands. Even if we accept it,
however, history is also witness to the fact that the ills of a nation
are frequently caused by political systems. It is thus extremely
important to get both the right system and the right leaders.
> There are some leaders around the world who share the similar view.
> Because of their extra-ordinary contribution to their countries they
> are very popular with the masses. Though, at times, they have gone
> beyond the universally accepted norms of democracy to achieve their
> goals, the majority of their countrymen tend to turn a blind eye
> towards their approach.
This seems like a bit of an optimistic view. Take the Pinochet regime in
Chile, for a counter-example. Like Mahathir and Museveni, Pinochet
autocratically imposed economic reforms that restored his country to
fiscal health. He made an "extraordinary contribution." And the Chilean
people "tended to turn a blind eye" to his repressive means... because if
they didn't, they would be shot. Without democratic limitations, there's
no guarantee that your autocrat won't turn into a Pinochet.
Also, how are we going to convince these leaders to move to Nepal? As
you've already pointed out, Nepal has not produced its own leaders of this
stature.
> It is not by force that [Mahathir] has held the post, but by virtue of
> his excellence.
This is an exaggeration. He has, rather, held it both through force and
through his performance. And if he had been a little less successful, he
would have had to use a lot more force.
> Some call him autocratic, some a benign dictator,
> but many accept it as a price to pay for what the country has achieved
> under his leadership.
Many, I am sure, do not. Particularly those who have been victims of his
"rougher laws."
> In the general
> election held in 1995, after being in power for 14 years, he won 64% of t he
> popular vote proving himself the most popular premier the country ever ha
d.
As Nepal's own 1980 referendum shows, election results in an authoritarian
context are rarely a reliable indicator of the popular will. They can be
rigged, or "naturally" skewed by the lack of a strong opposition party.
> [Museveni] is surrounded by ?bright, young advisors? whom he values a
> lot. He calls his style of governance a ?non-party democracy? and
> strongly believes that multi-party system is divisive in a tribal
> society like that of Uganda.
Ashu has already more than capably pointed out the parallels of this
picture with the Nepali panchayat system.
> His critics call him authoritarian. But who cares?
His critics, presumably. And anyone who thinks the government should
be pursuing priorities other than "making the world safe for foreign
investment."
> Considering the present situation of the country, many may wish Nepal
> too had leaders like Mahathir and Museveni - honest, with a visionary,
> hard-working but also tough. Leaders like Mahathir, Museveni or even
> former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, all of whom have been
> regarded as benign dictators by many, are no harm to the nation as long
> as they are honest and accountable to the people.
At the risk of pointing out the excessively obvious: the difference
between Margaret Thatcher and Mahathir/Museveni is that she was compared
to a benign dictator, while they were benign dictators. All three may
well have been honest, but she was accountable to the people, and they
were not. Mahathir and Museveni pursued economically sound policies of
their own accord, without any control by the popular will. The people of
Uganda and Malaysia can perhaps bless their luck that their dictators were
benign; but they had no say in the matter, and could not have changed
anything if their rulers had pursued economically damaging policies.
Neither they, nor any other country, should expect benevolence from a
dictator. The odds are flat against them. The odds are even against a
Pinochet, bad as that would be; most dictators are far less effective over
the long run.
If Nepal goes looking for an autocratic leader, it should not expect a
Mahathir or a Museveni. Much more likely, to continue the string of "M"s,
would be a Marcos or Mobutu -- a kleptocrat, who only develops the country
to the extent that such development will allow him to plunder it more
efficiently. The best Nepal should hope for is a Mahendra... an
authoritarian leader who proves little more effective than the democratic
leaders, but is better able to disguise the inefficiency and failure of
his policies.
Regards,
Joel
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 22-Sep-02 11:29 AM
From: RMishra97 (rmishra97@aol.com)
Subject: "In Search of mahathir/Museveni"
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nepal
Date: 1998/04/02
Ashutosh,
It was nice to read such a wonderful comment on my article “In Search of
Mahathir and Museveni”. After reading your comment - which in itself was quite
an enlightening piece of writing - I thought if I have failed to convey the
message to a person of your calibre, I must have gone wrong somewhere in
presenting my views. I gather from your comment that my article was a desperate
- but an oblique - argument in favour of the resurrection of Narayanhiti. That
is not the case.
No where in my article have I implied that the Panchayati King was the
“one-great-leader” and the Panchayat was the “one-great-system”. Though there
were quite a few genuine supporters of that system of governance, the majority
of Nepalese never approved it.
Unless and until the majority says “the
one-great-leader/one-great-system,” I would never use such expressions and
never try to imply that. Though in future, if the Nepalese democracy goes on
functioning the way it is doing now, the majority may reluctantly resort to the
theory of relativity and find the “all corrupt and autocratic” Panchayati
Bebastha not-so-devouring. Again it is not my attempt to speak for Panchayat.
At one point you wrote: “Now one assumes that these people, including the King
-- by virtue of their intelligence, education and travels abroad and inside the
country -- had seen what democracy was, had some ideas as to 'desh bikas' was,
and were aware in the '60s and the '70s about the situations in
newly-independent countries of Africa and Asia, and so forth.
Yet, despite all
that, the net result at the end was that the system that they rested their
reputation on came apart in 1990 amidst charges of extreme corruption,
nepotism, extreme violations of human rights and what not!!”
I agree with your opinion without question. But what I would like to add here
is the reason why they failed so badly. It is not because they lacked vision;
nor was it the lack of hard-work (when I interviewed nearly half a dozen ex-
and serving prime ministers for a series called “Down memory lane”, all of them
said the king and his coterie were a genuinely hard-working lot); what they
lacked, was honesty.
And that is what matters the most in politics (and
everything you do). The whole essence of my article is to look for an HONEST
leader, who is also a visionary and hard-working. If some one has these
qualities I am ready to overlook certain undamaging-to-the-nation flaws in
him/her.
This is the reason I was drawing the “Mahathir analogy.” However, that
does not mean I am suggesting that “either King Birendra, Prince Dipendra or
some OTHER great leader ... now has to step up to make all the mistakes that
King Birendra and his coterie of the 'best and the brightest' made in the '70s
and the '80s.”
Mahathir, despite his certain dictatorial tendencies, has repeatedly won the
elections which have been, by and large, regarded free and fair by observers
and the international media. He has certainly played dirty games within the
party and suppressed the voices of dissent occasionally to hold on to power.
I don’t mean to say what he has done is right but can you show me one leader in
the world who has not violated human rights in one way or the other? Has not
Clinton contributed to the violation of human rights of over a billion Chinese
by renewing the most-favoured-nation status of China? Not doing so, possibly,
could have made a difference, but still he did it regardless of the knowledge
that it will be a direct boost to the Chinese government to continue with there
policies.
Has not Britain contributed to the deadliest form of human rights
violation of the Kurds by supplying “Agent 15” to Iraq until recently, even
after it used it against the Kurds following the Gulf War? And has not the
European Union (that is all major countries of Europe) turned a blind eye by
deciding not to raise human rights issues in China at the recent UN conference
on Human Rights in Geneva?
I believe many western leaders have violated human
rights more than what Mahathir and Museveni have done. Talking about Nepal, do
you think our democratic leaders have not violated the human rights and other
fundamental principles of democracy? So what is wrong if a Mahathir or a
Museveni would replace them?
At least what they violate would be compensated by
what they will do for the nation? It is in this context I tend to overlook what
many call it (and I agree) the benign dictatorial tendencies in them. Right
now, I believe, my country needs more honesty and prosperity than the sort of
freedom that my countrymen and, especially the leaders, are enjoying.
It is a tragedy that neither I can advocate for the past nor I can submit
myself to the present. Future for me, right now, looks more than gloomy where I
can’t rest my hope. I agree with you that “Nepal need NOT to go through this
one-great-leader/one-great-party sort of political system again.” But I
disagree with you when you say, “we need not be THAT desperate to wait for a
Mahathir...” Eight years is a pretty long time in a nation’s life at this point
of time.
If it was the early or middle of the 20th century, I won’t say so. I
am actually desperate for a leader like Mahathir to emerge in Nepal before it
is too late. However, he should emerge through a democratic process and the
majority should have the right to vote him out - that should be the bottom
line. And no one can be 100 percent right in anything - that should be our
approach. Things should be judged in its entirity.
Then, finally, where do I find that honesty, vision and hard-work, combined
with a democratic mind, and where do I rest my not-so-hopeful hope? Probably in
a person like you (I presume you are honest) and the likes of you, who need to
enter politics.
|
| HahooGuru |
Posted
on 22-Sep-02 11:29 AM
Ashu, please don't get disappointed that the hot discussions you had with
the Maodai in 1997-98, and I am wondering: time changed, Mishra ji
changed, CG changed, Maobadies(the claim that maodai said they don't use
kids .. blah blah ...) changed, how would that Maodai would be doing.
Who left no scar, to trace him back. No one can now claim, Hey Iam
the Maodai............... Enjoy, the dream of Maoists supporters in 1997-98.
Though, it looks little TEE-OFF, but, the following URL is really great
for those who missed it.
http://www.geocities.com/nc-fan-club/MAODAI/
If anyone knows Maodai, headhunt should be done and invite him to Sajhapur.
Well, we are not going to put any monetary price for his head, but, we are
looking forward to his head right here in Sajhapur...
HG
http://www.nc4.net/
|
| Rabindra Mishra |
Posted
on 22-Sep-02 05:00 PM
Asutosh Jee,
It was interesting to read those old chhalphal. However, I need to make it clear that I have not changed my views on the subject ( though I won't mind doing so if I think it appropriate). Haven't I exactly argued the same thing, especially in the last paragraph of my response to you as I have been doing today?
"Then, finally, where do I find that honesty, vision and hard-work, combined
with a democratic mind, and where do I rest my not-so-hopeful hope? Probably in
a person like you (I presume you are honest) and the likes of you, who need to
enter politics."
About Mahathir and Museveni, we have different views which are already expressed above and I don't want to get into it again.
Rabindra
-----------------------
Rabindra Mishra
www.helpnepal.net
www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice
|
| paramendra |
Posted
on 22-Sep-02 06:17 PM
Mahathir, Museveni, Thatcher, Deng
They are not all of the same ilk. Strong, visionary, dynamic leadership would be nice, but that does not have to be at the expense of democracy. Should not be. Democracy is good in its own right. Not the corrupt multi-party joke we have had in Nepal. But democracy.
Come up with the best ideas from the flashiest universities, who cares where, but ultimately, you need to SELL them to the common people.
Democracy --- you have to "get it!"
"I find it ironic that Westminster-style Parliamentary Democracy was brought to Nepal by the huddled masses, by rebelling against those who had been extensively educated in college-towns not far from Westminister Abbey!!" Great point, Ashu.
Just because someone from Nepal went to some fancy western university does not disqualify them from political leadership, but they have to get into the mud. Contest elections. Work in the parliament. Attain positions of leadership. There is no "imposing from the top." Unless they aspire to be "advisors," as many seem to!
Who is that knight-in-shining-armor on the current scene? Not one! I don't see it. But I still believe in the system. If only the anti-corruption drive can keep its momentum, and further expanded to ensure intra-party democracy. As in, by law, the parties have to disclose their fund-raising efforts. They have to hold internal elections - primaries - and that is how you get a party's "ticket" to contest elections.
The effort ought be to polish and refine the system, to build institutions. A few superheroes would be nice, but if there are, they will get into the mud and will-the-real-slim-shady-please-stand-up kinda deal.
Democracy is great in its own right. One person one vote. But it is also the best vehicle for economic development. THE BEST, I repeat.
Dr. Harka Gurung. He is a villain who tried to deny the Madhesis their citizenship. That is my knowledge.
namaste
ashu
Would that be a twin to
oohi
ashu
Just wondering.
Who is Joel Hafvenstein? A brief bio would be nice.
Democracy has not been the problem. Not enough democracy has.
Leaders are important. Some are great, many are mediocre, and quite a few are plain a_sholes. Of course individuals matter. And hence elections! So people can choose!
Should we credit Stalin for the Soviet industrial performance?
Mahathir was in news not long back - last year? - for downing an opponent in the party, a potential rival, by alleging he is a homosexual! Goodness! In a democracy, anti-gay sentiments might still exist, as they do, but there is a process. Not such outright persecution. Rule of law, not rule of Mahathir.
"...she was accountable to the people, and they were not..." True..
Democracy is not exactly convenient for those who might want to lead, but then the leadership is for people, and they have a right to have a say.
How would you like Surya Bahadur Thapa back on the helm? 2036 saal?
"..when I interviewed nearly half a dozen ex- and serving prime ministers for a series called “Down memory lane”, all of them said the king and his coterie were a genuinely hard-working lot); what they lacked, was honesty...."
They miss the point. They lacked much more than honesty. But what WE lacked was democracy. It was the system. The king is no god, never was. He was an autocrat. The massacres of 2036. The system he lead delivered that repression. And before and after. There were people around him, but he was the "well-paid" leader of all of them. It boggles my mind when people think he did not know, he was not aware! He did not create it, he was born into it, but he did inherit it, he did sustain it.
And honesty is not a favor politicians do to the people. It ought be illegal to be dishonest (as in money matters). And that's it.
"The whole essence of my article is to look for an HONEST leader..."
The search ought be for a system that does not tolerate corruption. It would be nice to have political leadership that helps create that system.
Mahathir's elections! He will not tolerate dissent within his party, and he will not let other parties to flourish, and then he has elelctoral victories! No wonder!
"...he should emerge through a democratic process and the majority should have the right to vote him out ..."
Well, then, that would NOT be a Mahathir!
What I like about Mishraji, though, is his goading people to enter politics. That point has to be discussed.
|
| paramendra |
Posted
on 22-Sep-02 06:27 PM
Another Sajhawasi without a mask! Great.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 22-Sep-02 09:21 PM
Rabindra-ji,
Please do make a habit of visiting sajha from time to time.
These days, I, for oe, learn more on sajha than from many of Nepal's
newspapers, which have a far lower circulation than sajha's :-)
That said, I sympathize with your quest for people who have "that honesty,
vision and hard-work, combined with a democratic mind".
Personally, as a citizen, I am more interested in working toward (as I have already
been working in that direction, making contacts, creating alliances and all that!),
either individualy or in groups with others, MAKING THE SYSTEM-- regardless of
who is in power -- more accountable and more responsive to us, the janata.
I fully realize that succeeding in changing the system -- slowly but surely -- for
the better, to make it, as Paramendra puts it, MORE democratic means getting one's hands 'dirty', working even with people one finds repulsive and objectionable, taking years and years to build coalitions and alliances, trying one's patience when things go wrong, and even making oneself frustrated while knowing that things wll turn out all right . . . and all that and more.
But I'd rather live with that kind of slowness -- the kind of slowness that engages most citizens in democratic exercises, and not just a chosen few -- than opt for the neat, tidy, fast political arrangements of a Museveni or a Mahathir.
We both care about Nepal. Our difference is that we have approached the issue of governance/politics in different ways.
You are fine with a Mahathir or a Musevani as long as the goods get delivered. You also think that honest Pratyoush Onta-haru could bring out positive changes.
I say that it's dangerous, espcially after 1990, to wait for a Mahathir or a Musevani to come and lead our OPEN and messy democracy to whatever betterment. Moreover, though I respect Pratyoush Onta-haru, I am NOT sure how far their individual academic/intellectual competency and personal integrity can carry them in political realms.
If performance trumps potential, then, we have enough historical evidence
to support that those with potental do not necessarily perform well through even
NO FAULT of their own in politics. Better, I would say, to argue for the slow road of MORE DEMOCRACY for all of us so that we make the system work for us, than
having to work for it.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 22-Sep-02 11:34 PM
I agree with Ashu here.
I mean it is very very dangerous for us to give the future of 20+ million people to
one person. A man is naturally a fallible one, but when the person is powerful, then
his action affects millions.
Let's think about this Musevene. He pushed Uganda into unnecessary wrangle with
neighboring Congo, almost leading to war just a few years ago. Mohathir plays
race card(bumiputro or something like that favoured over others), and is tenaciously
hanging on the power of Malaysia. His brutal treatment of his deputy was evident
when we saw his scarred face when he came out of prison.
Do we need a society where an individual's vagary affects others' fundamental
right that drastically ?
No.
We need to make a society with a system where collective efforts of people
and leadership quality of a few become guiding factor.
When dictators die, they leave behind chaos and uncertainty. We don't want that,
we want to bequeath a functioning democratic system to our progeny.
Dictators in USSR left behind them a nation scarred with fault lines of ethnic
tension and religious problems. We don't want our kids to grow up in a society
where they have to pay price for being from a particular ethnic group. We
don't want our kids to be involved in a senseless war in the name of ethnicity
and religion. We have seen enough blood already in our land.
A collective leadership, a transparent government, and democracy reaching to
grassroots are the best thing we can have in Nepal. We don't need anymore
Janga Bdr or Mahendra.
Despite being Rabindraji's regular reader, this point I very much disagree.
|
