25 June 2020, NIICE Commentary 5407
Sunaina Karki & Sumnima Karki
Social Media footages show hundreds of youth streaming down the streets of cities and towns, as series of vehement protests have unleashed all over Nepal. These digitally driven leaderless protests have been evoking hash tags like #EnoughIsEnough and #DalitLivesMatters, as people flare over government’s apathy towards the issues they have grievances with. They have been denouncing the government’s systematic failure in confronting the current pandemic and the rooted caste based discrimination against Dalit community.
While the pandemic is spreading like a wildfire, protest is the last thing anyone would expect. However, the human past is filled with cases of protests erupting when it seems to be least likely. The recent protests in the face of crisis have shook countries across the globe, from Brazil to United States, Lebanon to Iraq, Chile to Haiti and Hong Kong, as civilians are using their ‘people power’ more than ever.
New Wave- A New Norm?
Clearly, the recent upsurge in protests is turning to be a key trend in international politics. Year 2019 was labeled the ‘Year of Street Protest’ by Washington Post, as the number of protest reached historic high; this increased frequency of protest can be traced from second half of the 2000s with annual increment of 11.5 percent. The global spread of protests reflects an ultimate shift in the correlation between citizens and the state actors. Therefore, a more intentional form of democratic politics is molded through protests.
The guarantee of Nepali citizen’s right to protest is manifested by their right to freedom of assembly, the right to freedom of association, and the right to freedom of speech, which itself is a byproduct of millions of people taking down the streets. Protest has played a substantial role behind the establishment of Nepal as “Federal Democratic Republic”. This happened as people began a form of political bargaining outside conventional political institutions.
The civilian protests over the last few years are creating a new model that includes utilizing diverse tactics to create an extremely decentralized form of movement. Innovative communication technologies have become the new arenas and structures of political struggles bearing much impact. Such demonstrations have less to do with institution building, for they are a mere condemnation of existing policy decision and power structures.
The resemblance of movements is apparent as youths across nations are explicitly adopting new models of protests, observed through picturesque images of masses in the street, the slogans, methods and tools.
The current wave of protests in Nepal emerged especially after 2013 “Occupy Baluwatar” protest. The resultant outrage from Sita Rai’s story spawned the movement gaining momentum after a Facebook page and Twitter handle was initiated by number of independent campaigners. This marked the beginning of impulsive, leaderless social movement with little connection to traditional political dogmas.
Year 2019 saw the largest dissent since 2006 People Movement; demonstrated against the controversial ‘Guthi Bill’ that was later followed by ‘Nijgadh Airport’ and Freedom of expression protest the same year, bearing the features of the new wave. Distinct from the model of protests from past decades such protest are more localized and against concrete problems. They, however, are usually short-lived.
Is Mass Protest Losing its Worth?
Unlike the “Second People’s movement” 2006 that became a catalyst for change and victory that civilians won for themselves, the contemporary forms of activism by their result, rather than their rhetoric, are resulting in shrinking potential.
While protests like ‘Occupy Baluwatar’, certainly did not lack passion or the appeal, it is also true that no significant legislative change was introduced to address the problem. Legislatively, the powerful Occupy Movement that engrossed over 82 countries worldwide including Nepal was a constructive failure. Learning the fundamentals of such movements makes us rethink, what constructs change. Although, motivated people, unified message and non-violence are important, critics often claim public spectacles alone won’t make the designated representatives to do anything.
Zeynep Tufekci, a fellow at Princeton University mentions the lack of well-oiled and strategic follow ups on protest’s demands. Whether we like it or not, certain form of institution is claimed to be necessary to take on the complex, political work behind massive street marches, in dealing directly with the authority. Likewise, keeping the local protesters engaged and integrated in the policy process, long before the interest is lost also equally essential. Hence, experts like Tufekci believe effective movement generally tends to find ways to combine the strength of local initiative and authority.
For a protest to work, it is considered imperative to encapsulate and trust the legitimacy of the grievances against the injustices. Merely expressing the anger with lacking conceptual clarity, tactical freeze, struggling planning and coordination, wavering values and symbols will become counter-productive to the purpose of the protest, delegitimizing the cause. Some historians however argue that protests and movements practically do tend to be messy and that’s what makes them effective while the deftly boxed histories of protest exist only in retrospect.
Response Reconsidered; Concession over Repression
The democratic government like Nepal when confronted with protest has continued to exhibit range of responses; ignoring the protest to take on strategies for repression, orchestrating agents-demagogue, and most used tactics of framing conspiracies to enhance division among the protesters. Democracies, however unlike the authoritative regimes, are least likely to display continuous repressive behavior, yet this change if faced with widespread dissent, as witnessed during the 2015 Madhesh Movement that led to the death of 45 people, proving democracies are just as likely to respond with aggression.
While the authorities have mostly ignored and even tried to break up the current protests using “less-lethal” weapons, it is vital to note the presence of reciprocal relation between protest and repression. The fusion of repression and ignorance is rather self-defeating in a long-term for the government and neither is branding protesters with conspiracies going to help. Instead, a conciliatory discourse warrants particular attention in order to shrink the gap between the protester’s claims and the government.
The government’s strategies remains underdeveloped that concentrates more on repression rather than concessions. Policy makers with better research and analysis can help enrich the government understanding of the contemporary protest dynamic, enabling the democratic rudiments and channeling vigor on the streets into meaningful reforms.
Looking back to Move Forward
The present-day wave of spontaneous protest epitomizes an ‘expectable’ part of a lively democracy. The augmented citizen optimism fostered especially after political development over the past decades has further reinforced the demands, expecting governments to be more liable towards its citizens and their needs.
Despite of the current wave of protest in Nepal, being prodigious in size with remarkable speed, have struggled in realizing positive change. The street protests alone won’t attain the change demanded. Although a historical prescriptive pathway to successful protest is not available, it is important that we evaluate, learn and pragmatically rethink about the nature of our protest. This may lead to the rise of new effective methods of ground-breaking activism.
Reflecting back on several landmark movements of our own history can act as a guide for action in these tumultuous times. Protest also termed as “monitory democracy” are unavoidable in the future of democracies like Nepal. It is hence in the state’s own interest to guarantee that protests can happen, and that they can happen peacefully. Therefore, while spontaneous and unregulated forms of demonstration are becoming increasingly common, the national laws should identify and protect the right of its citizens to hold spontaneous protests.
