Educating Young Generation about Democracy

Seminar organized by Nepal Foundation for Advanced Studies (NEFAS)

7 May 2005, Kathmandu

The discussions kicked off without any ceremonial ado with Ananda Srestha, the executive director of NEFAS, welcoming the participants. He provided a brief background to the discussions saying that the younger generation of Nepalis have been facing problems in many respects. A large number of the youth is leaving the country, flushed out by the Maoist conflict, at a time when the country needs them the most.

Dev Raj Dahal, the FES representative in Nepal, discussed the nature of conflicts afflicting the country and said there is a serious need to orient the youths towards constitutional patriotism so that they can contribute to the nation-building efforts. "We have so far been focusing only on the rights aspect. This is one reason for breeding conflict. We must impart them knowledge that is relevant to the Nepalese society," he said.

Immediately after the introductory remarks, the two working sessions began in earnest. The first session discussed the "Role of the youth in stabilizing parliamentary democracy in Nepal" while the latter session dealt with "Youth, Nation and Nationalism in Nepal". The sessions were chaired by renowned journalism educator P. Kharel and Yuv Raj Sangraula, a legal professional with repute, respectively.

SESSION I
THE ROLE OF YOUTH IN STABILIZING PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY IN NEPAL
Chair: P. Kharel
Presentation: Khagendra Prasain

Excerpts of the points raised by participants:

• The youth are negatively affected by the education system as the policies are not very practical. The education system treats an urban student and the rural student on an equal footing, whereas the available infrastructure and teaching methods are not the same in the two sectors. We see the education system as one of the reasons for the conflict. What will the youths do if they fail in SLC in the villages? They are compelled to join groups like the Maoists.
  
• Providing people an easier life should in a higher priority order before talking about politicization or democracy.
  
• Should the youths be made politically literate or allow them active participation in politics?
  
• It is easy to be pessimistic but difficult to be optimistic. If we take democracy on the basis of trial and error and condemn it as something that has given only the negative, there is nothing to say. The role of the media, intellectuals and the academics also has the positive side. There is also positivism in factionalism as it promotes pluralism. To say that the parties or the civil society should have done this particular thing or that, may not give us much. We should also take the conflict or the King's rule in a positive light. Conflicts are there. We can argue that they need to be peaceful, but conflicts are there.
  
• I do not agree that the political leaders only played a limited role. They might have not performed as expected, but we have to give them that they had the opportunity to learn things from the bordering Indian states of Bihar and the like for lack of any better examples.
  
• We cannot say we do not want to educate people. We have to educate them. We can argue about how to do it. But we do need education.
  
• In discussing the barriers to politicization of the youth, the author has left out the economic barriers to participation. We have seen that either only the rich or the very poor are the participants. This should explain a lot of anomalies.
  
• It may make sense to include students in the fight to usher in democracy when there is none. But is it right to make them a part of the party structure even after democracy has already been restored?
  
• It is not necessary that students should remain aloof from the political game. However, they do need to remain aloof from the dirty game. This does not mean remaining away from the political game itself. We cannot say that students are not politically conscious, only that they might not be utilizing that consciousness for the better. As the political environment has deteriorated, their participation too appears negative. Politics usually means protests, selfish pursuits, destruction of college or school infrastructure these days. This could have been made more constructive by imparting moral education to them.
  
• Intelligent groups remain aloof from politics as it is not attractive for them. . There is another group which is involved in destructive politics of violence and as soldiers of the politicians. Education is therefore necessary to bring them into the mainstream.
  
• We have found that it is not just students, but also ordinary villagers think that remaining aloof from politics is good even while village politicians want them to join leadership trainings and the like.
  
• The root of the problem is that we have not been able to educate the public about the political process, the governance system and ways to participate in it.
  
• Everyone need not necessarily be involved in party politics. National political consciousness is another matter.
  
• The author should also have included a portion about the politicization of youths towards violence. I think under-18 youngsters should not be allowed to participate in politics, just educated on it.
  
• It is well justified to make comments on persons in leadership positions. But it is not true that democratic leaders are the ones who are against democracy. Leadership can be classified as being democratic, dictatorial and traditional. I think that democracy has been under attack by those wanting dictatorship, e.g. yesterday a religious leader was murdered. Political forces in Nepal are not involved in strengthening democracy, only in weakening the democratic process so that they can rule with absolute power.
  
• The gender perspective is missing in the paper. I hope you focus on that. Secondly, regarding economic barriers, women are particularly affected. Education is not enough we should also define the type of education that needs to be imparted.
  
• Politics has two components, personal politics and power politics. These need to be differentiated.
  
• The paper is totally negative on the democratic regime. The media has not only acted as a barrier but has also helped at times. Therefore, barriers that we see as barriers may also act as facilitators. We may not have been as successful as we have liked, but not as bad as portrayed.
  
• The employment aspect also needs to be included in the paper as a barrier.
  
• The forced recruiting of youth by Maoists or by political parties for protests could be an example of the failure of leadership and needs to be included.
  
• Unionization has been able to politicize the youth. These positive aspects also need to be discussed. Finally, recommendations should be made more elaborate.
  
• Our political culture is dominated by the cultures of obedience, silence and peace. Which of these is the culture that needs to be remedied or promoted?
  
• Who failed the people after 1990-- democracy, the people or the leaders?
  
• How do we make democracy inclusive?
  
• The Prime Minister is the dictator in a parliamentary democracy. In Nepal, things went sour because of the game of 103 [horse-trading]. Can we have an alternative system that does not emphasize on the number so much?
  
• We talk about employment. In Sri Lanka, globalization was followed by insurgency. In Nepal too we began globalization and soon we had the Maoists in our hands.
  
• Regarding the monarchy, in England, the king was beheaded once, but again brought back when they realized that they needed the monarchy. Look at Iran or Afghanistan, and what is the result after abolition of the monarchy there? We need to look at our traditions too.
  
• For peace, science and technology should not be misused. S&T is misused in the name of power struggle. You need to educate students on the importance of science and technology as well.
  
• Don't you think that we emphasized only on the rights in a democracy but not the duty aspect? Did the leadership show an example by sticking to their duties?
  
• Alienation is not frustration. Politics is not all dirty. In places the terms seem to be intermingling with each other. Also, there is intermingling between political elite and the ruling elite. The parochial culture that the author discusses is not so monolithic in Nepal. We talk of mixed culture these days.

Author's reply

• If you want a vibrant social process, good people must be made interested in politics. Depoliticization is therefore not a good idea. People talk about keeping education out of politics. But if the government makes good policy, intelligent people will participate.
  
• Democracy is about making the life of every person easy, not just a few. Therefore I do not want to dissect it into democracy and making life easy, as both are one and the same. My argument is to make the youth not only conscious of politics but to make them masters and actors of politics as well. We should not make them shy away from politics. The deterioration of the state of the parties is the result of people not wanting to join politics because it thrives on loyalty and party ranks whose duty it is to act as soldiers. This is the reason why militancy has been on the rise.
  
• If I am not pessimistic about the situation, how do I come out with a solution?
  
• I have not said the parties were inactive. I just said that they did not work to meet the popular aspiration.
  
• When I talk of education I talk of education about democracy and not the education system itself.
  
• There is politics in everything in one or the other form. I do not disagree. And once you become conscious about it, you start participating.
  
• Citizenship is a political identity awareness of which only gives a vibrant participation in the system.
  
• I do not agree with the contention that everyone cannot participate in politics. If there is no lively participation, it is the fools that rule.
  
• The aspect on the media I am criticizing is that they are focused on promoting the failed leadership personalities even at present. They have been trying to promote dogmatism that way. Very little is focused with regard to popular aspirations and people's day-to-day life.

P. Kharel's remarks: I think Prasain's paper is crisp and clear. It appears that we formed a consensus that we should all be free, fair and independent. We on the Kirtipur mound [Tribhuvan University thinkers] did not try to check our leaders from taking the wrong path in the past. We only acted as their soldiers. Let us not do so in the future.

Regarding the media, the media has remained partisan in every country but they have also been critical of their leadership elsewhere. It is true that it is the media that creates political leaders. I also agree that our media have not been fair.

Regarding education, we have tried to lump everything that comes along as a fad in the NGO sector, like the fight against AIDS, in our school curriculum. That is not necessary. But civic education is not part of that and is important. In the present civic education curriculum, we have not included all the vital branches and aspects of the state. We need to do that.

SESSION II
YOUTH, NATION AND NATIONALISM IN NEPAL
Chair: Yuv Raj Sangraula
Presentation: Shanta Pokhrel

Yuv Raj Sangraula: The presenter talked about participation of the youth in politics, that the participation is not antagonistic only their use has been affected by the failure of the state, and she also said migration is not bad in itself but the overwhelming migration of the youth is affecting development. She also riased the gender issue and ethnic complexities in participation.

The following points are excerpts from the floor discussion:

• The author should include the role of the youth in nation-building and their role in a democracy.
  
• Out-migration is affecting the nation by taking our able hands away from us. But again, what is the state of the youth that are living in the country at the moment?
  
• We are pushing our children towards the pizza culture or the Valentine's Day culture. How do you see this trend affecting national life?
  
• The data used need to be revised. Secondly, what should be the form and objective of the revolution that you suggest?
  
• You also say that nothing happened after 1990. But there are a lot of improvements in infrastructure development and even poverty levels have come down. You seem to have forgotten that.
  
• Please add something to the conclusion to meet the theme of the paper.
  
• All issues are relative and should not be looked upon in isolation. We should restructure the state according to power relationships, but not in other aspects. Redistribution of power requires positive discrimination of the marginalized groups.
  
• There is no reason to worry over the alliance of the youth along party lines. This happens in a pluralistic society.
  
• What is the reason for democracy to be unstable in Nepal, while the monarchy appears stable?
• Peer pressure and the role of the media have affected socialization of the youth. They are thus being encouraged to migrate abroad for study and work. Youngsters are pushed towards suicide if they are not able to migrate. Such is the pressure.
  
• Involvement of women in masculine politics will not help in cleaning up the dirty politics of the present.
  
• Migration is affecting development, but the resulting remittance has been contributing a lot to the economy. This positive aspect also needs to be included.
  
• Regarding inclusion of women, 36,000 women representatives man the local government posts at present. But many of those women are illiterate. How can they form the right policy? How do we make them aware?
  
• The pressure on youths of 14-18 is huge and adding more to that will be difficult. May be it is the state that has been involved in doing so. Hence we cannot include everything in the curriculum. B.Sc curricula are included in Class 8 Science books. This is adding even more pressure. Perhaps the government does it to make its rule easier.
  
• Migration might also be the government's policy as it would make their rule easier for them.
  
• Resource mapping along ethnic lines would make the paper richer in explaining the disparities in the distribution of resources.
  
• Why have you classified people along both caste and ethnic lines? This creates confusion. It should either have been along caste lines or ethnic, but not a mix-up of both.
  
• The author talks about the ILO classification of youth which includes the 15-29 age-group. But she deals with only the 15-24 group. Regarding migration, the 15-24 age group usually goes abroad to either study or is forced out by the violent conflict. We do not have the data for this but observation shows this trend to be a fact.
  
• The problem of internally displaced persons is greater than migration at the moment.
  
• What is the role of the youth in nationalism?
  
• There are several youth organizations in the political parties, but the leadership comprises of people above 40. Unless the age group is represented by the youths themselves their problems cannot be addressed.
  
• It is not true that there is no involvement of stakeholders in decision-making. We have it in the trade unions.
  
• Quantitative presentations have been linked with democracy. This is good.
  
• While discussing socialization, the agents of socialization like coffee rooms, temples and the like also need to be discussed. The youths have discos and sport activities. You have not tried to include them.
  
• Imparting democratic values and orientation cannot be measured. Only their experiences can be listed, methodologywise.
  
• One lacuna in our education system is that we never teach them to be a good citizen, just doctors and engineers.
  
• Females, the bigger share of the population, remain uneducated if we do not talk about their education.
  
• Should we also not emphasize Nepali culture and tradition in our education system?
  
• The paper deviates from the topic as it proceeds towards the end. Rather than defining the youth along age-groups, we should take the more active population as the youth without emphasizing the age.
  
• There is a lot of talk about positive discrimination. Would this not promote conflict? Cannot we talk about equal treatment or just discuss social justice.
  
• The identity of the youth is only transitional and is not constant. Do we give them direction at such a time? This is why we need civic education- to link them with the national identity and the national process. If we give them some role in state resources, they can be productive. Roles make them responsible.
  
• The youth is being forced by push and pull factors, or poverty and opportunity, for migration. These have to do with the prevalent national economic and political policy.
  
• We have focused much on systemic integration in a multiparty democracy, but not social integration. This breeds conflict.
  
• Nationalism is the political ideology of the nation. In the US, patriotism is included in the course of study. If we are to survive as a nation state, we have to educate them about how to be a citizen. Prior to 2007, Ramayan and Mahabharat gave them the civic education people needed. Their utility appears to have declined these days but an effective alternative has not been found so far.
  
• The media, the school and the community can promote the spirit of cooperation and reduce the costs of cooperation and promote volunteerism.
  
• Globalization is redefining the relationship of the individual with the state as it is creating islands of independence and autonomy within the society. Identities are changing. New actors are appearing in the scene.
  
• No nation has progressed with the most productive manpower being exported. In Nepal, we are promoting migration. Politicians promise jobs abroad if they vote for a particular leader. Remittance is not a reliable source of income but only a fluctuating source. The decline in poverty levels is indeed due to remittance. But the fact that the census is based on consumption- and because consumption is based on imports in Nepal- shows that such poverty alleviation is not sustainable.
  
• Leaders have not tried to reduce the dependence of the state on outsiders. For this we need good education. But the focus should be on increasing the literacy rate. Talking about improvements in the curriculum is limiting our efforts on the already literate 20 per cent. How do we educate the remaining 80 per cent on nationalism?
  
• How do we define conflict? Once we do this we can link conflict with civic education.

Author's reply

• I have not discussed the role and spirit of the youth as such discussions can go forever. My focus is on finding their role in nationalism. My contention is that if the youth is not properly guided, they can be misguided.
  
• As regards the import of alien cultures, youngsters are very welcoming of such trends because of their age. Our education is imported; hence the effect cannot be blamed. We do not see elderly people adopting such cultures. It is only the young. As time goes by, they will realize that they should be following their own culture. If the education system is based on nationalism, the trend however can be minimized. Similar is the case with the trend of schooling children in private schools. People want their children to be in private schools as that is the fad of the day.
  
• Regarding revolution, we know that nothing can be achieved without conflict. We need to take things in a positive light as well. In the multiparty democracy of the past 15 years, we saw that the leadership was only bent on securing personal power and pelf. This has transcended in our day to day behaviour. On the positive side, we do enjoy the freedom of expression.
  
• I do believe in equality of the genders, but did not focus too much on it in the paper.

Yuv Raj Sangraula's remarks: Studying the history of involvement of youths in development in Nepal shows that youth has been used as a commodity for foreign currency. It has been part of the culture because of state policy. The state has to rethink and start changing it for the cause of the nation.

History is not only an account of the rule. It is time we start discussing the regimes. Criticizing the 15 years of democracy is not fair. We also need to make an appraisal of the 200 years of the monarchy.

On youth's participation in politics, we need to lure them into it. Ordering them will not be successful.

First of all, we as teachers need to learn to socialize with the students with proper behaviour. We need to behave properly in dealing with politicians- not follow them as leaders. If such behaviour can be shown by the teachers, students will be able to emulate good behaviour.