Ideology in Democracy
“Hey, Kushal, which party you’re on?”, asked my friend as I was climbing the stairs to the fourth floor of the building where I studied grade 10. I replied, “Well I guess I’m with the ULM(Unified Marxist and Leninist) party that my father votes on every four years. I’m supposed to take on the generational responsibility to the party, right?”
Most of us in Nepal have a tendency to vote for the party which their family members vote, or have been voting for generations. We don’t take into consideration the political idealogy that our party holds dear. Since it’s the ideologies that parties use to shape the policies and draft laws when they reach in power, the fact that we don’t consider the ideology while making significant decisions like voting somehow makes the democratic process quite “un-democratic”.
I had once asked my father what ULM stood for. He told me it’s an abbreviation of Unified Marxists and Leninists. But ULM is more than that. It incorporates the ideology, which when tried to apply in many of the European countries caused nothing but war and destruction. Communism is clearly seen in Western society as a symbol of evil--the absolute devil that veils itself with an extraordinary promise of Utopia where all men are equal and prosperous.
The idea of the sole ownership of the government in goods and services of the country might tempt some people to believe that the government is indeed a trustworthy entity, but they are anything but right. Governments are instituted among people, and we know it dearly that human nature fallible. If there are bound to occur some disagreements and quarrels even within the members of the family, how can we say that the members of parliament won’t dissent? How can we say that government, when given absolute power over all of the nation’s goods and services, won’t try to withhold its position of power by any means possible?
Many people in Nepal aren’t accustomed to the freedom and liberty-worshipping practices of the West. The West seems to have progressed due to it becoming a champion of individualism and libertarianism. These ideals are barely reflected by Communism. The sheer focus on the development of society as a whole, without taking into consideration the fact that a single human is almost impossible to satisfy, not only diminishes the idea of the “Utopia" communism promises but also harms an individual’s progress in society.
So, why are people in countries like Nepal taking Communism as the sole provider of development? Is it due to the fact that Nepal is in its first stages of democracy and that people aren’t educated enough to decide for themselves which ideology can be an asset to a nation’s progress? Is it due to the fact that Nepal is a major agricultural country and that most of the people haven’t realized the true promises of industrialism and capitalism? Yes, both might be true.
What lacks in the Nepalese society is a fair public conversation about such grave issues. Although the present government might not be, by itself, an absolute communist government, I see many of my friends and elder brothers joining different sister organizations of the same communist party. Students, after enrolling in a university here in Nepal, with the vigor and zeal of their youth, get engaged in such communist platforms without even understanding what they are actually standing for. They claim themselves as ‘revolutionaries’ and ‘communists’. They protest in the streets but don’t know what they are protesting against; they call themselves revolutionaries but aren’t clear what they are revolting against. How then do we solve this problem?
The first thing that we can do is hold local-level debates on different political ideologies and their relevance to a country like Nepal. We also should not limit such discourse to local levels. Many Nepalese intellectuals who are willing to have a debate on different political ideologies should be provided with the platform to debate and share their views. Media also plays an important role to conduct such debates time and again, especially during the times of elections. In a democracy, a well-informed public is the most and for that to happen, the media should play an impartial role in educating the public.
The thing that scares me about this life-long inclination of people to a certain political party or ideology is that this will make people reluctant to even listen to opposing views. If a government has all its citizens loyal to their party and to their ideology, it will be easier to suppress and be indifferent to the people’s problems. The government will know that the citizens don’t have a choice, so it will do whatever it can to stay in power. This is where the competition between parties and ideologies is required. When the citizens are provided with enough choices, given that they are well-informed, they will certainly make wise decisions for themselves. This way, people will have the upper hand in dealing with governments, not the contrary.
It’s just not about me championing libertarianism or individuality, it’s about the right of the people to choose — the same right to choose that stands as one of the core pillars of democracy. People shrug off when we try to talk to them about ideology and politics, but they should know that it’s the same politics that decides the price of the rice they consume to the tax they pay while buying a new car.
