Nepal’s political landscape is fragmented, hindering collaboration and progress. The author, in this post argues numerous parties weaken individual power and hinder compromise. Additionally, unproductive protest methods are seen as detrimental. A shift towards cooperation and constructive engagement is emphasized as essential for fostering a healthy political culture in Nepal.
Understanding Political Culture
Let’s first try to understand what is political culture before delving into political culture in Nepal.
The exact definition of political culture is vague and broad. It is difficult to provide a precise and acceptable definition. Still, a few definitions by outstanding authorities may be cited to help appreciate the Nepali political culture in its true perspective.
Political culture, according to Pye is: the set of attitudes, beliefs and sentiments which provides the underlying assumptions and rules that govern behavior in the political and operating norms of polity. Political culture is the manifestation in aggregate form of the psychological and subjective dimensions of politics.
Verba defines political culture to be: the system of beliefs about the patterns of political interaction and political institution. It refers not only to what is happening in the world of politics, but also to what people believe about these happenings. These beliefs may be of several kinds. For example they may be empirical beliefs about what the actual state of political life is; they may be beliefs of goals or values that ought to be pursued in political life and these beliefs may find important expression or have emotional dimensions.
Pye and Verba have offered more comprehensive elaborations of the concept. Pye, focusing on political development themes discussed the variety of ways that: “the concept of political culture can help explain developmental problems and process.”
Verba defined the important dimension of political culture as including the sense of national identity, attitudes toward oneself as participant, attitudes towards one’s fellow citizens, attitudes and expectations regarding governmental output and performance and knowledge about and attitudes towards the political process of decision making.
As Verba puts, “the political culture of a society consists of the system of empirical beliefs, expressive symbols and values, which defines the situation in which political action takes place.” Encyclopedia of Government and Politics defines political culture as patterns of orientation to political action or objectives. There does seem to be a common theme throughout these diverse writings.
Taking into account all these definitions. I adopt here an operational definition and importance of political culture that equates as the psychological orientation of people towards their political system. It includes knowledge and skills about the operation of the political system, positive and negative emotional feelings towards it and evaluative judgments about the system. It is the study of attitudes, beliefs, and values which underpin the operation of a particular political system.
Further, political culture is of vital importance for understanding the large issue of political development. It is to the political system what culture is to social system. It is composed of impulses, feelings and ways of doing and looking at things. It generates a set of trends, values and is sustained by them. It is a rag-bag stuffed with finely-spun political theories, ideologies, and functional style of leaders. In short, it is an elaborate and comprehensive philosophy indispensable to the political system.
Since political culture defines the relationship of citizens to government, it refers to what people believe and feel about government, and how they think people should act towards it.
To understand the relationship of a government to its people, and how those people are going to act toward that government and others, it is necessary to study what those people believe about themselves and government.
So, political culture is the political atmosphere or climate of a nation’s government. Political culture is also a distinctive and patterned form of political philosophy that consists of beliefs on how governmental, political and economic life should be carried out. Political cultures create a framework for political change and are unique to nation, state and other groups.
A political culture differs from political ideology in that people can disagree on an ideology (what government should do) but still share a common political culture. Some ideologies, however, are so critical of the status quo that they require a fundamental change in the way government is operated, and therefore embody a different political culture.
In the same way, particular regional, ethnic, or other groups within a political system with their own distinctive sets of values, attitudes, and beliefs are referred to as subcultures. The purpose of investigating what we now know as political culture has predominantly been to establish the nature of the relationship between region stability and the structure of beliefs, values and traditions.
The claim being made is that political culture filters our perceptions, influences our attitudes and has a major say in the extent and manner of our political participation. Moreover, the makeup of a political culture influences patterns of orientations within a political system. These orientation patterns, in turn, have a major influence on the stability of a regime.
Patterns of Individual Orientation
Almond argues that: “…every political system is embedded in a particular pattern of orientation of political actions.” These patterns of individual orientation according to Almond and Powell involve three components. That is individual orientations towards any political object may be viewed in terms of these three dimensions:
Cognitive Orientation
The cognitive dimension of orientation toward the system implies knowledge and beliefs accurate or otherwise of the political system. An individual may have a relatively high degree of accurate knowledge about how his/her whole political system works, who the leading figures are and what the current problems of polity are.
Affective Orientations
It implies feelings of attachments, involvements, rejection and the like world about the political world. It might, however, have feelings of alienation or rejection towards the system; perhaps the family and friends have long harbored such attitudes. It would be unlikely to respond favorably to demands upon him by the system.
Evaluative Orientations
It implies judgments and opinions about the political objects which usually involve applying value standards to political events and objects. One may have some more evaluation of the system perhaps his/her democratic norms lead him to evaluate the system as not sufficiently responsive to political demands or his ethical norms lead him to condemn the level of corruption and nepotism.
These orientations can significantly influence the way a political system works. In fact, the demands made upon a system, the responses to laws and to appeals for support, and the conduct of individuals in their political role, are shaped and conditioned by an orientation pattern. Cognitive, affective and evaluative orientations form the latent political tendencies and propensities for political behavior.
Classification of Political Culture
Political culture can be classified according to whether the members of a society take an active, moderate or a passive part in the political process. That is, whether they play a part with ardent expectations of tangible benefits from the governmental activity or whether they have very little or almost no knowledge of the decision-making process and have no hopes for a share in the power.
So, on the basis of the awareness of the people towards the political objects, Almond and Verba termed the existing political culture of the people at that time as parochial political culture, subject political culture and the participant political culture24 that is briefly discussed below.
Parochial Political Culture
Parochial political culture exists in simple traditional societies in which there is a very little specialization, where actors fulfill a combination of political, economic and religious roles simultaneously.
On account of development, some of the individuals may become aware of the existence of central political authority but their feelings for an evaluation of the system as a whole “have not crystallized norms and standards to regulate his relation with the system.” It means they are unaware of input/ output process of the system. So parochial political culture is basically characterized by general ignorance about political objects and a consequent lack of involvement in political activity.
Subject Political Culture
Subject political cultures are characterized by widespread knowledge about political process. But there is a disinclination to participate in political activity, often because of feelings of powerlessness. It exists where there is a high frequency of orientations to the system as a whole and to it’s specifically output aspects. It occurs in dependent colonies where the people either feel pride or have hostility towards their political system. They either accept the decisions of their rulers as legitimate or struggle against them in the name of their right for self-determination. In subject political culture, people are aware of their political system and the impact of its output. But they hardly know the input mechanism.
Participant Political Culture
Participant political cultures combine knowledge about politics with a willingness to participate in the political process. In such situations, people feel able to affect change; that their political activity will make a difference. It exists in highly developed societies where people take active part in the political sphere by considering themselves as active members of the party. The people are well conscious of their rights and duties. “Evaluation and criticism of the system exists at all levels and it is generally accepted discernible that political activity should be the close scrutiny of individuals and groups within society.” The participant political culture is the fully developed political culture in which people participate equally in all the process of the system.
Thus, the degree of intensity with which each individual holds each of several sets or clusters of values, beliefs, and symbols makes one primarily a parochial, subject or participant.
Most recent example of political events is here on this video:
Political Culture in Nepal: Half Way Developed towards a Full- Fledged Democracy
Every particular community has a limited and distinct political culture which gives meaning, predictability and form to the political process. Based on it, Nepal’s political culture includes the study of people’s faith, attitude, values and beliefs towards their political system, whether; it is traditional or modern, rural or agricultural urban-industrial, homogeneous or heterogeneous, mass or elite.
The degree of tradition and modernity can be found on the basis of economic status, educational background, social hierarchy, religion, regionalism, and age factor and socialization process. These variables are almost universal but their applications in Nepal are more acute because of the less developed social, political and economic environment.
The democratic traditions have become the significant components of political culture of many developing nations, but the democratic traditions and behavior have not been unified. Contemporary political culture of developing nations is based upon creating the new post-totalitarian tradition in politics. The study of Nepal’s political culture imbibes the aspects of both tradition and modernity that is the existence of bi-culturism.
The Nepali society can be described as a marginal case between the two- traditional and modern. The former signifies people’s attachment with the casteism, linguism, authoritarianism, while the principle of mass education, mass communication, mass political participation with republicanism and federalism are instances of change and modernity. Modernity rejects the traditional values, beliefs and emotional sentiments of the social life and stands for adult franchise, periodic elections, social equality, fundamental rights, rule of law, and independence of judiciary, so has helped greatly to root out the evils such as illiteracy, exploitations, land lordship, exclusion, marginalization and localism.
The present political system is a compromise between the two sets of basically incompatible demands. Now, the hard question is how the political system can accommodate both sets of culture?
The political culture is a dynamic phenomenon; so it responds to the needs and pressures coming from its social structure. The slow process of social transformation in Nepali political culture has slowly reconciled both the trends of traditionalism and modernism.
The social tradition and political culture have slowly assimilated the impact of modernity as Nepal is transforming its old structures to the new one. It is a transitional society moving away from traditional and feudal structures to more advanced, differentiated and pluralistic society. Political culture in such a stage is more authoritarian than democratic, where assertive culture and considerations dominate politics.
The social stratification among caste, class and gender lines restrict social mobility of majority of people shaping a value system in the society which conflicts with material aspirations and democratic culture based on freedom, social justice and culture of inclusion. In such a situation, both traditional and modern values mix and modern political institutions are found. This sort of political bi-cultarism of Nepal has marked many changes due to the process of the people’s movements and democratic restoration.
If the people have adopted new values of life, the sentiments of castes, authoritarism, communalism and regionalism may have been weakened. But on the other hand, these sentiments have also divided the masses or the voters as these forces have gradually been polarized in the new political culture, i.e. in the politics of struggle for power. The trend has virtually created a gap between values and institutions of Nepali political culture.
It is observed that the present political system in Nepal is a compromise between the two sets of basically incompatible demands. Though the conservative people still may desist any radical and sudden social change, Nepali political culture still allows the assimilation of the new trends. In a transitional stage, the assimilation is in a slow and gradual process. Culture is a dynamic flux. The aspirations of the individuals of the society and the values of the community clash with each other. So it provides a middle path of change satisfying both the aspirations and value premises of the members of the society.
The noticeable fact of this flux is aspirations of the youth or new members often wins over the value premises of old that brings about a change in outlook of the society and its values.
There is no dichotomy between the two sets of cultures, although the elite culture overshadows the mass culture in the sphere of decision making and participation of the people. Nevertheless, the political bi-culturism has the abundant capacity to absorb the impact of the two cultures- traditional and modern, rural and urban and elite and mass ignorant.
Social Transformation: Historical Break
Social change is a gradual process. Literature review in this field suggests that social transformation is a process of wide-ranging change in the thinking, nature, structure, institution, rules, technology and cultural patterns of society through human actions.
It aims to replace the crisis-prone and dysfunctional system by new values, processes and division of labor in search of a new but more humanized social equilibrium. It clinches a considerable amount of overlap between old and new forces.
It does not seek any structural alterations in the way the state is organized to help the society’s productive life but rationalizes the society and legitimizes the state’s guardianship. The idea of social transformation, in contrast, seeks historical break. It also transcends the prevailing linear assumptions of theories and practices of development and accepts the tolerance of social, cultural and political diversity. In this sense, social transformation is a systemic process.
It inexorably leads to a dynamic equilibrium of society where the power of society to self-organize is brought to the level of political power. Due to the existence of dynamic tension, the level of Nepal’s social transformation is, however, unclear whether the historically dominant class will prevail, or it will accommodate the new class or bring back to the forefront of history the hitherto subordinated class to impose its interest in the state and society.
Obviously, newly gained political consciousness is moderately expanding the social base of political power in Nepal and forcing the old political class to play by new rules of the game. But, in no way has it restructured the social stratification arrangements.
There is, however, also a huge cost in expanding the size of political class. No one knows how long and how far poor people of Nepal would be able to subsidize the swelling political class which is interested more over the domination of political process by any sort of political combination than democratic alteration in office for gender, social and inter-generational justice. Devoid of these virtues, this class is rife on all sides by a widespread social revolt.
The huge disproportion between social force of diverse people and the supremacy of incumbent political class has made possible to bring continuous political disequilibrium. Growing bodies of historical analysis affirm that Nepal’s major obstacle to progress is the patrimonial political culture of ruling elites which is incompatible with genuine pluralistic politics, entrepreneurship and social justice.
Such practices have weakened the vital agendas of socio-economic and political transformation as expected by the people. Change in political culture of excessive passion for the concentration of power and authority on individual leaders is a precondition of modernization.
Transformation in Nepal is premised on the inclusion of marginalized forces of society to reshape governing institutions, undertaking the process of democratization, decentralization and devolution of power, abolition of feudalism, transformation of a centralized and unitary state into a decentralized and federal one and providing proportional representation of women, Dalits, Madhesis, Janajatis, Aadibasis and marginalized in the state power.
The purpose of restructuring, according to the preamble of the Interim Constitution is to resolve the existing class, caste, regional and gender problems of the country and set the path of the nation towards participatory democracy and shared rule.
The Interim Constitution thus purports to transform the concept of citizenship based exclusively on civil and political rights to the possession of full social rights.
The high level political participation of these social classes in the face of puny socialization on citizenship and weak political institutionalization, however, might provoke a hatred and conflict between citizens and the social classes. It may cause the instability of the political system in the future. The new constitution should glue the reconciliation process. The test of new constitution would be measured as a capacity of removal of these social anomalies. It can be forecasted that the political bi-culturism in Nepal is bound to remain operative in near future as an essential part of our political change.
The contradiction and conflict between the two political cultures are likely to prevail until old and traditional politics is thoroughly replaced by the new mass political culture. It needs a harmonious synthesis of the two cultures in this transitional stage. So at this juncture, the political change in Nepali political culture warrants the establishment of an egalitarian social order and eradication of social and economic injustice which can be achieved by mass movements and political consciousness among the masses and political leaders.
Nepal is moving from a hierarchical culture in which one’s place was dictated by gender, caste and ethnicity, religion, region to one that aspires to making human dignity and equality as its fundamental culture. In such a transitional stage, the creation of new roles, institutions, values, and social relationships during meaningful state transformation may produce instability that may lead to anomie.
Adjustments and compromises made by the leadership in the interest of social order and survival may delay or distort programs of social change beyond the delays and distortions caused by the expected difficulties in attitudinal changes and institutionalization.
So, Nepal in this transition is placed with the problems of adapting and adjusting her ancient political cultural heritage to a set of new rapidly altering conditions brought about by the immense science and technological changes in recent decades.
Therefore, Nepal’s political culture can be named as the transient political culture, pursuing democratic norms and values with traditional and modern attitudes, so to be less than half way developed toward a full-fledged democracy.
One of the major problems of Nepal’s democratic republic is that the transition which is expected to be smooth, goal -oriented, and more or less consensual, has become not only uncertain and turbulent but is also likely to erase the political achievements made over the years. Many are also of the view that the foregoing trends in Nepal are
inherent characteristics of a transitional stage of development; so there is no cause of alarm. But any transition has definite ideology, direction and leadership role. Given the present Nepali situation, if such transition becomes too long to accomplish its set goals, its chance of becoming unsuccessful is also pretty high. Political heterogeneity and spurious ideological and normative commitment may in all probability not make the transition a success.
A long period of confusion, uncertainty and mixed purposes may further contribute to a state of chronic frustration and a pervasive cynicism in collective orientations. In the same way, weak supportive orientation towards authority may prolong the period of transition.
This feature of Nepali political culture in present day is mainly responsible for slow and sluggish development in all the sectors. It should be understood that no cultural system has more than two alternatives in a transitional situation- either it adapts itself to the new conditions or doggedly resist them rather than being dragged by them. The latter alternative has no chance of success in the contemporary world.
Based on the article written by Professor Dr. Meena Vaidya Malla, Advisor at Government of Nepal, Policy Research Institute
NOTE
1. David, D. Laitin, Nations States and Violence, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 64.
2. Behaviouralism is a movement in postwar political science, notably in the USA, concerned with establishing law- like generalizations about the political world with shifting the emphasis of political studies away from its traditional, legal and institutional manifestation. With a focus on individual behaviour, the behavioural approach is linked with quantitative research technique designed to generate testable hypothesis about measurable attitudes and observable behaviour, rendering the study of politics more scientific.
3. Lucian W. Pye, “Introduction: Political Culture and Political Development,” Political Culture and Political Development, Pye and Sydney Verba (eds.), (New Jersey: Princton, 1965), p. 7.
4. Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1963), p. 15.
5. Plato, The Works of Plato, Trans. Jowett (ed.), Vol. 1, (New York: Dial Press, 1932), p. 307.
6. Ibid, p. 445.
7. Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba (eds.), The Civic Culture Revisited, (New Delhi: Sage Publication, 1989), p. 4.
8. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Discourses, Trans Leslie Walker (Trans.), (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950), p. 240.
9. Jean Jacque Rousseau, The Social Contract, (New York: Carlton House, 1968), pp. 41-43.
10. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, (New York: Alfred A. Knoff. 1945), p. 299.
11. Ruth Benedict, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of
Japanese Culture, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1946), p. 60. 12. Geoffrey Gorer, National Character: Theory and Practice, (New
York: Norton, 1953), pp. 57-82.
13. Almond and Verba, op cit., f.n. No. 4, p. 18.
14. Samuel P. Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the
Late Twentieth Century, (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press,
1991), p. 114. 15. Ronald Inglehart, Cultural Shift in Advanced Industrial Society, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), p. 314.
16. Robert W. Jacktmanm and Ross A. Miller, A Renaissance of Political Culture: American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 40, Issue 3, (Madison: University of Wiscosin System, August, 1996), pp. 632- 659.
17. Robert Putnam, Making Democracy Work, (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 240.
18. Pye, op cit., fn. no. 3, pp. 7-8.
19. Almond and Verba, op cit., f.n. No. 4, p. 17.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid, p. 12.
22. Sidney Verba, “Conclusion: Comparative Political Culture”, Political Culture and Political Development, Pye and Verba (eds.). (New Jersey: Princeton University, 1989), pp. 512-560.
23. Ibid, p. 20.
24. Almond and Verba, op cit., f.n. No. 4, pp. 17-20.
25. Morton R. Davies and Vaughan A. Lewis, Models of Political
System, (Delhi: Vikas Publications, 1971), p. 105.
26. Ibid, p. 116.
27. Ibid, p. 117.
28. Rod Hague, Martin Harrop and Shaven Brislin, Comparative Government and Politics, 3rd ed., (London: Macmillan, 1992)
29. Meheran Kamrava, Politics and Society in the Third World, (London: New Fetterlane, 1993)
30. Lok Raj Baral, “Jan Andolan, Sanskar Nirman Ra Rajnitik Prakriya,” Nepali Rajyako Naya Swroop Ra Charitra,” Krishna Hachethu (ed.), (Lalitpur: Nepal Center for Contemporary Studies-NCCS, 2011)
31. Hague, Harrop and Brislin, op cit., f.n. no. 28
32. Almond and Verba, op cit., f.n. No. 4