Civil Society and State in Nepal

Nepali State and the Growth of Civil Society

Prior to unification by a Gorkha ruler in 1769, Nepal had more than fifty small principalities comprising people of diverse races and ethnic groups. The unified Nepali state sought its legitimacy under the Hindu ethos and the country was depicted by its founding father, King Pirthvi Narayan Shah as "a garden bedecked with flowers of çar varnas (four) and chattish jatis (thirty-six)."

The modern political history of Nepal begins from here- the consolidation of rule over the unified kingdom and continuous nation-building and integration of diverse people. In 1846 the establishment of Ranacracy forbade any educational exercise and "enlightenment" enterprise fearing a revolt from educated masses. Ranas kept people under dark and also kept the country from self-imposed isolation from the rest of the world. However, Nepal did not remain devoid of social movements to oppose 104 years of Ranacracy.

In the late 19th century, the first armed revolt came from an individual Lakhan Thapa who have become footnote in Nepal's political history. It was quelled. In 1896 some Nepalese youth lie Madhav Raj Joshi inspired by Dayananda Saraswati of India had formed Arya Samaj in Kathmandu to spread political awareness and social reform. It was eventually suppressed by Ranas. Some organizations like the Gorkha League operated in India publishing its newspaper to raise awareness about the state of Nepal amidst Nepalese migrants. The first educational movement known as Library Parva (Fest) led by Nepalese literary luminaries was quashed by the then authorities.

In 1936 handful of politically conscious people established Nepali Civil Rights Committee. In the ensuing year, the first political party inside the country, Nepal Praja Parishad (Nepal People's Council) was formed and slowly political parties began to grow in numbers. There were also women organizations run by the wives of political leaders. To critics the extension of family into public organization perpetuated patriarchal system of domination and control. It was also not immune from nepotism which overshadowed collective goals of organization to empowerment. This is quite common today also in self-help organizations run by members of kith and kin.

On the backdrop of highly interventionist state, the intellectual ferment in a politically docile society to overthrow Ranacracy was forthcoming in the mid 20th century. It was influenced much by the Indian Nationalist Movement. A type of trans-national civil society, Indian National Congress was the source of inspiration of Nepali Congress. The educated middle class were at the forefront of political and social movements with some exceptions of few "enlightened" people from other ethnic groups but the disadvantaged and backward sections of society were not adequately represented.

The Revolution of 1950 ushered a new era in modern political history of Nepal. The new source of authority was defined by popular sovereignty and women were granted adult franchise in 1951. There was a conducive atmosphere of promoting and strengthening civil society. But the revolution could not extirpate vestiges of Ranacracy and reactionary forces from political scene. It was equally unfortunate to witness the comeback of "assertive monarchy" in 1962 by suspending the first ever elected government. It was due to the erosion in zeal and revolutionary fervor in political society (parties, movements, non-party political formations and student's union) wherein disunity, petty squabbling and infighting took place.

In the late 1980s, the "mode of occurrence" of the triumph of liberalism was "televisional." So the winds of change were blowing in Nepal too. Although the then liberal monarch, King Birendra allowed political society to exist, it was subjected to coercive measures when it got active and hostile to the regime.

During that period the low economic growth of the country with growing fiscal deficits and declining international reserves resulted in an acute macro-economic instability. The government adopted Stabilization Programme of IMF in 1985 and Structural Adjustment Programme of the World Bank and Structural Adjustment Facility of IMF for 1987-90 which worsened the economic situation of the country hitting hard the common people. The economic liberalization led to the "retreat of the state" which on the other hand empowered opposition political society and moreover a civil society to a great extent. The powerful state like India imposed "strategic" economic blockade for 15 months to "tame" Nepali state's behavior and provided "moral support" to agitating parties which were mounting "pressures on the street."

The political society galvanized its strength in urban cities and towns with inclusions of broad sections of society compared to pre-revolutionary days of 1950 (it may not be completely at it was manifested in the Maoist movement of 1996-2006). Alongside political parties, the participation of organizations of youth, students, teachers, professors, women, labourers, peasants, porters, ex-military servicemen, professional (lawyers, doctors, engineers), writers and artists in the mass movement for restoration of democracy (MMRD) in 1990 exhibits the need for parallel working of political society and civil society. Not in opposition but complementary to each other especially in third world countries like Nepal. Let us now delve into civil society-state relationships in Nepal.

Civil Society-State relationships in Nepal:

Civil society develops and plays a critical role in influencing the political system either before or after the downfall of non-democratic regime. A democratic civil society develops, therefore, after the actual process of transition from an authoritarian to a democratic state has occurred. I begin with associations which are anti-foundational in nature as well as emancipatory in relation to the development of Nepali state.

The stratified plural society and inequity embedded in the configuration of Nepali nation-state are not rectified so far. The exclusionary character of the state (may not be intentional) unprotecting social, economic and cultural rights has today generated lively debate among repressed minorities and the legitimacy of the state has had been questioned even by armed groups, the Maoists.

The legitimacy of the state is obtained or withdrawn according to the demands of civil society which are yielded to by the state. The state in Nepal is slowly coming out of the hang-over of the past, and understands those demands. However it has become the direct target of anti-state movements in politics on the backdrop of weak and fragile civil society.

The "public opinion" in the countryside is effectively mobilized against the state. There was no sincere responsive hearing to the violence perpetrated by the Maoists from the part of the state. Therefore, the end to the cycle of violence is illusive as ever evenafter striking a peace deal between the government and rebels keeping in mind the Madesh uprising. The weak civil society has had become  the victim in this uncivil crossfire between the state and anti-democratic groups. The government's information regarding casualities in such incidents can be manipulated. So far more transparency, civil society organizations serve as an alternative source of information and communication. In the meantime media and report of human rights group and conduct surveys of gross human rights violations by both parties. Even pressures to both parties come from global civil society organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and International Red Cross.

In a heterogeneous society like Nepal, "ascriptive associations" based on caste, race, ethnic, tribe, language, religion and locality have flourished too. Civil society in this regard has become, rather, as Hegel argues, "egoist, selfish and fragmented" and, for whom, it does not arise out of natural ties of kinship and community. Habermas' version of civil society envisions a unified process by which the public's deliberations or communicative actions, produce a common conception of a general interest. He does not envisage a variety of different associations with different visions of public interests. For him it is a sign of assertion of private interests or "refeudalization."

Habermas elucidated the critical role of communication in the process of integration. He formulated civil society as a site where public opinion is formed through "discourse." It must be a deliberative exchange of reasoned arguments not assertion of inherited ideas or identities or assertion of selfish interests. His "reason-based solidarity" narrows the practice of public sphere and the idea of "public."

The medium of communication does matter in which Habermas is silent about.

The lingua franca of the country being Nepali, the mother tongue of dominant and majority groups, therein arises a question how effective a "discourse" would be for minority groups? In a country where more than 60 minority languages are spoken, Nepali language does play an integrating role but it should not mean steamrolling the "other" language. It does apply to the English-speaking agents of bilateral and multilateral agencies who are partners in development of rural Nepal.

The social alienation of dalits, political alienation of ethnic groups and religious alienation of non-Hindus are in incongruity with a democratic principle of equality. It is not issue of citizenship but becoming true citizens. The negligence of the state towards preservation and promotion of minority culture and language could be the main grudge against the "predatory Hindu state." So far religion is not at the front seat of politics or public in Nepal but after declaring Nepal a secular state it has opened up this possibility too.

The ascriptive organizations are not politicized or radicalized but we can not rule out their tendencies to jeopardize inter-communal harmony and peace in the country especially in the post-Jana Andolan 2. These organizations reflect the narrow caste, ethnic, regional and religious communal loyalties (including patriarchy, class domination, and other tyrannies like inadequate representation of women of the same group), let alone the primordial kinship which defines a traditional society in this "new" modern voluntaristic associations.

The main political hurdle to overcome these potentially divisive groups in civil society would be to provide them accessibility to the resources and benefits of the state. I think after the revisit of democracy, institutions like universities, schools, newspapers, banks, hospitals, professional associations accessible to all would strengthen civil society.

Civil society organizations have become agents of political liberalization when a state willingly or unwillingly fails to perform or fulfill many of its promised functions for e.g. upliftment of untouchables, empowerment of the indigent handicapped, curb child and girl trafficking, end bonded labour and child labour, protection informal sector workers, sponsor literary classes, women empowerment, provision of health care to rural communities, etc.

There are also self-help development groups which are involved in mobilizing masses to participate in the development programmes of the government. They take up political issues demanding implementation of legislations. Sometimes they are absorbed or coopted by the state for formulating and implementing projects. However, majority of development projects in Nepal are donor-driven which lacks local or national ownership in design and execution.

The political agendas of NGOs come from the economic, political and financial power in the developed countries. Critics remark that they have become agents facilitating the global neo-liberal process. Instead of critiquing the two spheres of the state and the market, they often build partnerships with them. Do they provide financial information to the public transparently? Do they operate democratically respecting norms of pluralism, diversity, tolerance and accommodation? These are pertinent questions regarding the role of NGOs in the context of least developed countries like Nepal where civil society organizations are often acting against the political society and bypassing the latter to pursue their extra-legal agendas.

With the advent of democracy in Nepal in 1990 impressive "statetification of society," using Habermas' words, has taken place. According to the statistics of Social Welfare Council in Kathmandu, civil society organizations are numbered more than 21,000 in this small country. The numerical proliferation of organizations with their own rules and regulations framed in proto-constitutions and the state guaranteeing their freedom of expression, associations and assembly do not by Habermasian standard lead to "societalization of state" in Nepal. Rather one can see breakdown of the state's functions even basic minimum requirements to maintain law and order in the country.

Since civil society directly challenge the state's interests and erode its capacity to dominate and control society. The latter is difficult to take place in the context of Nepali state's nature as mentioned earlier. If Habermasian political public sphere thrives at the expense of erosion of state's activities, collective interests of the people in general and national interests in particular, it would be sometimes detrimental to the integrative and social welfare objectives of third world states like Nepal. The role of the state and political society is equally important vis-à-vis civil society in Nepal.

(The writer holds an M.A. in Politics and International Relations from Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala, India)

Posted on : 2007-05-15 21:44:32

Comments (0)