Case Study of Nepal
• Won democracy in 1990.
• Formal power was with the King Birendra.
• Real power with elected representatives.
• 2001 – Massacre of Royal Family, Gyanendra took charge.
• 2005 – Dissolution of Parliament.
• 2006 - Popular control over Govt. headed by the King.
• 7 Party alliance called for a 4 day strike. Maoists & other organisations joined.
• 21st April, King conceded to all demands leading to :
• Restoration of Parliament.
• Seizure of power from the Ruler.
• To make Koirala Prime Minister.
• Maoists & SPA came to an agreement about a new constituent assembly to be elected.
Case Study of Bolivia
Fight against Privatization of Water
• World Bank pressurised Government to give up control of Municipal Water supply.
• Sale of rights to a MNC for the City of Cochabamba.
• Company raised the price of water 4 times.
• 4 day general strike by Labour and Human Rights and Community leaders.
• Government agreed to negotiate.
• Power of the people forced MNC to flee & made Government to concede to all demands.
• Water supply was restored to municipality at old rates.
Struggles in Nepal and Bolivia
Differences -
The movement in Nepal was to establish democracy, while the struggle in Bolivia involved claims on an elected, democratic government. The popular struggle in Bolivia was about one specific policy, while the struggle in Nepal was about the foundations of the country's politics. Both these struggles were successful but their impact was at different levels.
Similarities -
Instances of political conflict that led to popular struggles, struggle involved mass mobilisation. Public demonstration of mass support clinched the dispute, both involved critical role of political organisations
We can draw a few conclusions from the examples of Nepal and Bolivia :
(i) Democracy evolves through popular struggles. - Defining moments of democracy usually involve conflict. These moments come when the country is going through transition to democracy, expansion of democracy or deepening of democracy.
(ii) Democratic conflict is resolved through mass mobilisation - conflict is resolved by using the existing institutions. But when these institutions themselves get involved in the dispute. The resolution has to come from outside, from the people.
(iii) These conflicts and mobilisations are based on new political organisations. - These include political parties, pressure groups and movement groups.
Organisations in Nepal & Bolivia
Nepal - call for indefinite strike was given by the SPA or the Seven Party Alliance in Nepal. The protest was joined by the Nepalese Communist Party (Maoist) which did not believe in parliamentary democracy. The strug gle involved many organisations other than political parties. All the major labour unions and their federations joined this movement. Many other organisations like the organisation of the indigenous people, teachers, lawyers and human rights groups extended support to the movement.
Bolivia - The protest against water privatisation in Bolivia was led by an organisation called FEDECOR. The movement was supported by the Socialist Party. In 2006, this party came to power in Bolivia.
Organisations play their role in two ways -
(i) Direct participation in competitive politics, done by creating parties, contesting elections and forming governments.
(ii) Indirect ways in which people can get governments to listen to their demands or their points of view, by forming an organisation and undertaking activities to promote their interests or their viewpoints. These are called interest groups or pressure groups.
Pressure Groups-
Pressure groups are organisations formed when people with common occupation, interest, aspirations or opinions come together in order to achieve a common objective, they attempt to influence government policies. But unlike political parties, pressure groups do not aim to directly control or share political power.
Are of two types -
(i) Sectional Interest Group - They represent a section of society: workers, employees, business- persons, industrialists, followers of a religion, caste group, etc. Their principal concern is the betterment and well-being of their members, not society in general. Trade unions, business associations and professional (lawyers, doctors, teachers, etc.)
(ii) Public Interest Group - Represent some common or general interest that needs to be defended. The members of the organisation may not benefit from the cause that the organisation represents. The Bolivian organisation, FEDECOR. They promote collective rather than selective good. They aim to help groups other than their own members. For example, a group fighting against bonded labour fights. BAMCEF (Backward and Minority Communities Employees Federation).
Movements - Movements have a loose organisation. Their decision making is more informal and flexible. They depend much more on spontaneous mass participation.
are of two types -
(i) Issue specific movement - Issue-specific movements seek to achieve a single objective within a limited time frame. Narmada Bachao Andolan started with the specific issue of the people displaced by the creation of Sardar Sarovar dam on the Narmada river. Its objective was to stop the dam from being constructed. Movements of this kind tend to have a clear leadership and some organisation. But their active life is usually short.
(ii) Genric Movement - Movements that are long term and involve more than one issue. The environmental movement and the women's movement are examples of such movements. There is no single organisation that controls or guides such movements. All of these have separate organisations, independent leadership and often different views on policy related matters. Yet all of these share a broad objective and have a similar approach. That is why they are called a movement. Sometimes these broad movements have a loose umbrella organisation as well. For example, the National Alliance for Peoples' Movements (NAPM) is an organisation of organisations.
Pressure groups and movements exert influence on politics in a variety of ways:
(i) They try to gain public support and sympathy for their goals and their activities by carrying out information campaigns, organising meetings, filing petitions, etc., try to influence the media into giving more attention to these issues.
(ii) They often organise protest activity like strikes or disrupting government programmes.
(iii) Business groups often employ professional lobbyists or sponsor expensive advertisements, may participate in official bodies and committees that offer advice to the government.
Relationship between political parties and pressure groups can take different forms -
(i) The pressure groups are either formed or led by the leaders of political parties or act as extended arms of political parties. For example, most trade unions and students' organisations in India. Most of the leaders of such pressure groups are usually activists and leaders of party.
(ii) Sometimes political parties grow out of movements. For example, Asom Gana Parishad. The roots of parties like the DMK and the AIADMK in Tamil Nadu can be traced to a long-drawn social reform movement during the 1930s and 1940s.
(iii) In most cases the relationship between parties and interest or movement groups is not so direct. They often take positions that are opposed to each other. Yet they are in dialogue and negotiation.
Is their influence healthy?
Not healthy - A democracy must look after the interests of all, not just one section. These groups wield power without responsibility. Political parties have to face the people in elections, but these groups are not accountable to the people. Pressure groups and movements may not get their funds and support from the people, pressure groups with small public support but lots of money can hijack public discussion in favour of their narrow agenda.
Healthy - Have deepened democracy. Governments can often come under undue pressure from a small group of rich and powerful people. Public interest groups and movements perform a useful role of countering this undue influence and reminding the government of the needs and concerns of ordinary citizens.Where different groups function actively, no one single group can achieve dominance over society. If one group brings pressure on government to make policies in its favour, another will bring counter pressure not to make policies in the way the first group desires. They lead to a rough balance of power and accommodation of conflicting interests.
• Won democracy in 1990.
• Formal power was with the King Birendra.
• Real power with elected representatives.
• 2001 – Massacre of Royal Family, Gyanendra took charge.
• 2005 – Dissolution of Parliament.
• 2006 - Popular control over Govt. headed by the King.
• 7 Party alliance called for a 4 day strike. Maoists & other organisations joined.
• 21st April, King conceded to all demands leading to :
• Restoration of Parliament.
• Seizure of power from the Ruler.
• To make Koirala Prime Minister.
• Maoists & SPA came to an agreement about a new constituent assembly to be elected.
Case Study of Bolivia
Fight against Privatization of Water
• World Bank pressurised Government to give up control of Municipal Water supply.
• Sale of rights to a MNC for the City of Cochabamba.
• Company raised the price of water 4 times.
• 4 day general strike by Labour and Human Rights and Community leaders.
• Government agreed to negotiate.
• Power of the people forced MNC to flee & made Government to concede to all demands.
• Water supply was restored to municipality at old rates.
Struggles in Nepal and Bolivia
Differences -
The movement in Nepal was to establish democracy, while the struggle in Bolivia involved claims on an elected, democratic government. The popular struggle in Bolivia was about one specific policy, while the struggle in Nepal was about the foundations of the country's politics. Both these struggles were successful but their impact was at different levels.
Similarities -
Instances of political conflict that led to popular struggles, struggle involved mass mobilisation. Public demonstration of mass support clinched the dispute, both involved critical role of political organisations
We can draw a few conclusions from the examples of Nepal and Bolivia :
(i) Democracy evolves through popular struggles. - Defining moments of democracy usually involve conflict. These moments come when the country is going through transition to democracy, expansion of democracy or deepening of democracy.
(ii) Democratic conflict is resolved through mass mobilisation - conflict is resolved by using the existing institutions. But when these institutions themselves get involved in the dispute. The resolution has to come from outside, from the people.
(iii) These conflicts and mobilisations are based on new political organisations. - These include political parties, pressure groups and movement groups.
Organisations in Nepal & Bolivia
Nepal - call for indefinite strike was given by the SPA or the Seven Party Alliance in Nepal. The protest was joined by the Nepalese Communist Party (Maoist) which did not believe in parliamentary democracy. The strug gle involved many organisations other than political parties. All the major labour unions and their federations joined this movement. Many other organisations like the organisation of the indigenous people, teachers, lawyers and human rights groups extended support to the movement.
Bolivia - The protest against water privatisation in Bolivia was led by an organisation called FEDECOR. The movement was supported by the Socialist Party. In 2006, this party came to power in Bolivia.
Organisations play their role in two ways -
(i) Direct participation in competitive politics, done by creating parties, contesting elections and forming governments.
(ii) Indirect ways in which people can get governments to listen to their demands or their points of view, by forming an organisation and undertaking activities to promote their interests or their viewpoints. These are called interest groups or pressure groups.
Pressure Groups-
Pressure groups are organisations formed when people with common occupation, interest, aspirations or opinions come together in order to achieve a common objective, they attempt to influence government policies. But unlike political parties, pressure groups do not aim to directly control or share political power.
Are of two types -
(i) Sectional Interest Group - They represent a section of society: workers, employees, business- persons, industrialists, followers of a religion, caste group, etc. Their principal concern is the betterment and well-being of their members, not society in general. Trade unions, business associations and professional (lawyers, doctors, teachers, etc.)
(ii) Public Interest Group - Represent some common or general interest that needs to be defended. The members of the organisation may not benefit from the cause that the organisation represents. The Bolivian organisation, FEDECOR. They promote collective rather than selective good. They aim to help groups other than their own members. For example, a group fighting against bonded labour fights. BAMCEF (Backward and Minority Communities Employees Federation).
Movements - Movements have a loose organisation. Their decision making is more informal and flexible. They depend much more on spontaneous mass participation.
are of two types -
(i) Issue specific movement - Issue-specific movements seek to achieve a single objective within a limited time frame. Narmada Bachao Andolan started with the specific issue of the people displaced by the creation of Sardar Sarovar dam on the Narmada river. Its objective was to stop the dam from being constructed. Movements of this kind tend to have a clear leadership and some organisation. But their active life is usually short.
(ii) Genric Movement - Movements that are long term and involve more than one issue. The environmental movement and the women's movement are examples of such movements. There is no single organisation that controls or guides such movements. All of these have separate organisations, independent leadership and often different views on policy related matters. Yet all of these share a broad objective and have a similar approach. That is why they are called a movement. Sometimes these broad movements have a loose umbrella organisation as well. For example, the National Alliance for Peoples' Movements (NAPM) is an organisation of organisations.
Pressure groups and movements exert influence on politics in a variety of ways:
(i) They try to gain public support and sympathy for their goals and their activities by carrying out information campaigns, organising meetings, filing petitions, etc., try to influence the media into giving more attention to these issues.
(ii) They often organise protest activity like strikes or disrupting government programmes.
(iii) Business groups often employ professional lobbyists or sponsor expensive advertisements, may participate in official bodies and committees that offer advice to the government.
Relationship between political parties and pressure groups can take different forms -
(i) The pressure groups are either formed or led by the leaders of political parties or act as extended arms of political parties. For example, most trade unions and students' organisations in India. Most of the leaders of such pressure groups are usually activists and leaders of party.
(ii) Sometimes political parties grow out of movements. For example, Asom Gana Parishad. The roots of parties like the DMK and the AIADMK in Tamil Nadu can be traced to a long-drawn social reform movement during the 1930s and 1940s.
(iii) In most cases the relationship between parties and interest or movement groups is not so direct. They often take positions that are opposed to each other. Yet they are in dialogue and negotiation.
Is their influence healthy?
Not healthy - A democracy must look after the interests of all, not just one section. These groups wield power without responsibility. Political parties have to face the people in elections, but these groups are not accountable to the people. Pressure groups and movements may not get their funds and support from the people, pressure groups with small public support but lots of money can hijack public discussion in favour of their narrow agenda.
Healthy - Have deepened democracy. Governments can often come under undue pressure from a small group of rich and powerful people. Public interest groups and movements perform a useful role of countering this undue influence and reminding the government of the needs and concerns of ordinary citizens.Where different groups function actively, no one single group can achieve dominance over society. If one group brings pressure on government to make policies in its favour, another will bring counter pressure not to make policies in the way the first group desires. They lead to a rough balance of power and accommodation of conflicting interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.