United we stand strong

United we stand strong
Nick Meynen Thurday November, 22, 2007
Source: THE KATHMANDU POST

After an historic but unimplemented vote in parliament, thousands gathered in Brussels on Sunday, 18 November. Constitutional crisis has reached the level where the country itself is at risk of falling apart. The king comes into view. Sounds familiar? It certainly does to Belgian nationals. The main difference is that Sunday Belgians demanded their politicians to keep the country united, while protesters in Kathmandu are likely to increase divisions. Could the crisis in Belgium give a different perspective to what is actually happening in Nepal?

Apart from the fact that they are two small countries surrounded by giant neighbors, Belgium and Nepal don't seem to have much in common. While the former enjoys economic prosperity and more than half a century of peace, the latter is a war-torn country struggling to enter a process of democracy and development.

However, in both countries separatist forces are having their heydays, most probably against the will of the majority. In Nepal the crucial question is how to build a federal republic without ending in separatism and even worse, ethnic warfare. In Belgium the question is about solidarity between the richer North and Smaller south. Both countries have politicians unable to come to a compromise, to the frustration of all.

So what is happening in Belgium, in 2006 by far the most favorite destination for Nepali's asking asylum in the whole of Europe. Ruled by a constitutional king and an elected parliament since 1830, Belgium witnessed a gradual process of democratization with women receiving the right to vote only in 1948.

Federalism politics started in 1970 and in 1993 Belgium became an official federal state. While the dispute started around language, social and economic differences between North and South, several political forces have enlarged the issues to gain popular support, including a separatist party in the North. Election after election the latter increased their support base, even after they were convicted for racism in 2004. The longest negotiations to form a national government in history (since 10 June!) have forced the king to act. Although his role should not be exaggerated, especially when compared to the king in Nepal before April 2006, his activeness is unprecedented in our recent history.

In another unprecedented event, parties from the South walked out of Parliament when an historic bill on the voting system in three counties on the border between South and North was voted. The bill came after more than a decade of North-South discussions. The fact that the North did vote on the issue while knowing that first it will not be able to change the constitution at all (a two-thirds majority is needed) and second deepening political crisis makes some believe that politicians are actually trying to end the existence of Belgium.

All this will sound quite familiar to Nepalis. Meanwhile, opinion polls suggest that the majority of Belgian citizens want to see their country united. As I write, demonstrations, events and large petitions are taking place organized by concerned citizens.

One lesson from Belgium is that even in the so-called developed countries, one can see how all elected politicians combined don't always represent the majority opinion. It also shows that democracy is not a goal that once obtained should be left to the politicians, but needs a continuous effort of people to show what they really want. If left unbothered, the will of the majority could easily be hijacked for higher political and personal gains, or just neglected.

In Nepal it was the Maoists who ignited the federal fire, which has seen a remarkable rise in just a few years time. Here also, voting in parliament turned a political crisis into a constitutional one. In Nepal the uniting factor of the king is no longer an option, due to his own mismanagement.

With every new report of murders, extortions and lack of law and order, the sticker of a failed state seems to get more attached to Nepal. Madhesis are gathering their forces to push for ever more autonomy, even after all parties committing themselves to turn Nepal into a federal state. There is nothing wrong with giving marginalized people more stakes in the higher levels of power. After centuries of feudalism and neglect, decentralized governance is truly the need of the hour.

The point is that just as in Belgium, extremist forces within the Maoists, Madhesis and other groups have come to dominate the political arena while uniting forces are getting weaker by the day. Probably it has come that far because the ruling classes gave too little too late.

The Kathmandu elite bubble has never realized the true grievances people in the countryside have. After disillusionments in the king, the parties and the Maoists, they are fed up with any Kathmandu-centered government. As it often happens in such cases, people fall back on older and deeper identities than the state has created upon them.

The current dominance of ethnic over national identity was demonstrated with the jubilations in Kathmandu over the victory of Prashant Tamang in an Indian Idol-III competition. But while ethnic identity and polarization is strongly advocated by some, the million-dollar question now is: might there be a silent majority who hope that the country stays united? Can a partition as happened with India be avoided, if ethnic polarization continues to grow like this? Could it just be that the only way of knowing what any silent majority really want is to conduct a free and fair election? The people of Nepal are betrayed time and time again by the people who promise stability, democracy or equal participation. Instead of demonstrations for an immediate republic the need of the hour is more than ever on elections. If Nepal as a state wants to survive in the next year, it will be after elections or after another military coup.