This could be why civil society has refused to join the current political leadership in its struggle against the royal intervention. The press too does not seem overly enthused. More than 7,000 Nepali lives have been lost, the peace process is in limbo and yet no one seems interested in a long-term fundamental solution: How to build a liberal democracy by striking a balance between system that values elections, and liberty that promotes the rule of law and political, economic and legal reforms.
So, is there a leadership crisis in the country? To understand this, I will take a heuristic approach and analyse a series of recent polls conducted on the internet by Nepalnews.com and Nepali Times. Internet polling is not completely scientific because of the possibility of multiple voting and demographics. But public opinion is indispensable in a liberal democracy, and the results of most internet polls bear strong correlation to scientific random sample nationwide polls done by Himal Khabarpatrika in the past. Also, the educated Nepalis may have something to say to our political leaders. After all, it was this same group that played a vital role in the People's Movement of 1990.
In five questions related to the royal role on various issues, King Gyanendra has between 45-60 percent favorable opinion.
For example, 70 percent don't blame the king for the current state of the country, while nearly half the voters blame Girija Prasad Koirala. On the issue of national welfare 20 percent show ambivalence, but the king scores about 46 percent as being someone who cares about the country and its people. The parties and the Maoists get only 18 percent and 16 percent shares respectively.
This royal tilt is consistent temporally when compared to a 64 percent support for the king's October Fourth move. Generally, the Maoists trail distantly along with the parties whenever the people are asked to express their opinion on the royal role vis-?-vis other powers. The people seem tolerant and generous in giving the king the benefit of the doubt whenever he is embedded with other rivals. But such generosity will not last forever, and can change with political developments.
The leadership of the major parties seem to be on the wrong side of public opinion. For example, 84 percent of the people support the CIAA's actions whereas our leaders have shown contempt for this organisation. In answers to several questions, between 60-77 percent do not support agitating student unions. The people's desire for peace is so strong that 57 percent do not mind including the Maoists in an all-party government, and a large percentage (90 percent in a small sample) urges the parties to extend support to the government, not necessarily to join them. And 58 percent want the problem solved either through an all-party government or a constituent assembly.
The public therefore gives high priority to the current conflict resolution, whereas the political parties prefer to stay away from it. Could this be the reason for the poor showing for Koirala (8 percent), Nepal (15 percent), and Deuba (8 percent) vis-a-vis the leaders of the smaller parties-Pashupati SJB Rana (16 percent) and Baburam Bhattarai (34 percent)-who, at least in theory, are engaged in a negotiation effort? Polls can plunge and the polls can surge, but the Nepali people seem to be looking for new faces.
Koirala's tenacity to stand up against the royal intervention is commendable, and he is right to set a boundary for the constitutional monarchy. But the public seems to care more about issues like rule of law, stability in education, good governance, political stability, checks and balances in governance, and above all a negotiated settlement to the insurgency.
Their preference for a multiparty system and constitutional monarchy is strong (40 percent for multiparty with active monarchy and 46 percent for multiparty with constitutional monarchy).
Internet Nepalis seem to be sending a message that they want more than election-focused democracy. They seem to crave for a functioning liberal democracy with necessary institutions to sustain it.
There also seems to be a wish to see a fresh leadership. How else to explain 47 percent of respondents blaming a veteran leader of a veteran party for the national woes, and their dismal showing against the leaders of smaller parties? A similar pattern seems to be emerging in the current poll (#92) on the question of party preference in case the Maoists lay down arms. Is this a signal for the major parties to regroup and reassess their messages, methods and priorities, or even their leadership? And rewriting the national anthem does not seem to be on the priority list of most Nepali voters. Go figure!
The internet poll results tally with a nationwide random sample Himal Khabarpatrika poll in April in which 20 percent of respondents said they would vote for the Maoists if they laid down their arms, with 50 percent undecided. The major parties trailed in the single digits.
In the long-term, only the political parties can provide the superstructure of democracy. Perhaps more internal democracy and transparency within the parties will encourage bold and visionary new leaders to emerge and start asking hard questions. Questions like: Will holding elections alone solve our problems?
In Nepal, public opinion has always been expressed in two ways: through the media and through street agitations. The well-organised political rallies, often disruptive and sometimes violent, do not always reflect public sentiment. The press, a remarkable achievement of the post-1990 era, often tries too hard to shape public opinions to promote certain political views instead of engaging in fair analytical assessment.
Conducting scientific public polls is expensive business in a country like Nepal where very few households have telephones, and the internet has its own problems. But regular, nationwide, and scientifically-conducted public opinion polls are an investment worth making to help create and defend liberal democracy. And its results should be vigorously and carefully discussed through the media in the public sphere.
Alok K Bohara, PhD, is professor of economics at the University of New Mexico, bohara@unm.edu
Weekly Internet Poll # 85
Q. Do you think the agitation by the parties will end the present political deadlock?
Weekly Internet Poll # 89
Q. Who do you think currently best represents the general welfare of Nepal and Nepalis?
Weekly Internet Poll # 90
Q. Who do you think is primarily responsible for the current state of the nation?
