Author: Suraj Ray
Dissent is the beauty of democracy. In the political context, dissent refers to public disagreements against the institutions of democracy including the government, its agencies, political parties, and other such entities. Historically, protests have been a major method of expressing such dissent. It is said that protests render the actual meaning of people’s participation in governance outside of mechanized activities such as elections. Protests empower the public to present their viewpoints and hold authorities accountable. It thus follows that the way the government treats protests is a reflection of how it deals with democracy.
The right to protest is ideally cherished in a democratic system. Although there is no explicit right to protest spelled out in the legislation, an inference can be made under the right to freedom of expression and freedom to assemble. These rights should be valued among the most important civil and political rights. Their associated freedoms are is ensured and protected under Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and International Convent for Civil and Political Rights, 1966, under article 20 and 21, respectively. The government of Nepal has also accepted unreserved obligation under these instruments to ensure them as citizen rights. Further, the Constitutions of Nepal have a long history of ensuring such provisions as fundamental rights of citizens. The currently governing constitution also covers it under article 17. Worryingly, however, the government seems to be backtracking on these commitments by continuously intimidating people to protest with the use of excessive force.
A prominent example of this phenomenon was observed in the use of force against the ‘Enough is Enough Campaign’. Thousands of youths took to the streets voluntarily to express their disappointment with the government for the mismanagement of the Covid-19 crisis and the gross corruption under the protection of the state two years ago. The demonstrations were dispersed with water cannons, baton charge and arrest of protesters. The protestors of Brihat Nagrik Andolan, Grand Civil Protest, were also treated similarly when they marched to the PM residence to express dissent against the unconstitutional dissolution of parliament.
The Criminal Code, 2074 and Local Administration Act, 2028 prohibit the use of force over peaceful assembly unless and until the events turn violent and there is a perceived threat to peace and security. The aforementioned demonstrations had neither turned violent nor were they illegal. Yet, the police resorted to using force stating that the area was not a protest zone.
The District Administration Office, Kathmandu has designated different areas as ‘no protest zones’ in the federal capital. The authority under section 6 (3) of the Local Administration Act, 2028 is exercised by the Chief District Officer. Under the section, public assemblies of five or more than five people are punishable by a fine of rupees five hundred or one month imprisonment or both by the CDO. These zones include the office of the president, the federal parliament and the administrative headquarters of government, the residence of PM, among others.
All protests have some purpose to serve: to make their voice reach the concerned authorities and public to build awareness of their grievances. The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Special Rapporteur on rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association states authorities to facilitate the holding of public gatherings, social protests, and demonstrations . Further, UNHRC also ensures that they can be carried out, seen, and heard by the target public in the space chosen by the organizers.
Protests near the PM residence hold significant value for protesters to spread their message directly to the government and the public at large. Though it is technically only prohibited to protest directly in front of PM residence, police forces prohibit assemblies even half kilometer away from the residence, which does not adequately meet the proportionality, legitimacy and necessity test for reasonable restriction under ICCPR.
Several attempts have also been made to ban protests at Maitighar Mandala, which is another prime public space in the Capital. Protest have been redirected and designated isolated locations far from the eyes and ears of authority. The former administration under the Communist Party of Nepal had made several attempts to prohibit such activities. The prohibitory order is withheld, currently, by the interim order of the Supreme Court.
These protest restrictions are mainly associated with the rule previous administration, whose style of rule has been perceived as autocratic and intolerant to critics and dissent. However, the situation has not changed much even now, under the Nepali Congress administration. During the election campaign, the prime minister was quoted, “If communist were voted to power, people may not even get a chance to cry”. But, ironically even in his administration, people are arrested and prosecuted for protesting.
Since the day the current administration has come to office, peaceful protests have been suppressed. The Ministry of Home Affairs of his cabinet, issued two notices (here and here) threatening the public not to protest against neighboring countries and their heads of state on any matter, ultimately resulting in the arrest of several youths.
The government was observed by many to have turned even more hostile by arresting group 14, most of whom were women, who walked around 500 kilometers to seek justice for then murder of Nakuni Dhobi and Nirmala Kurmi. The day they reached the federal capital with blistered feet, police dragged them into the vans. Later, the leader of the team was was charged under a case of polygamy, widely perceived to be a fabrication designed to dismantle the protest. She was released by the hebeas corpus writ of the Supreme Court.
The events recounted above suggest that Nepal’s leadership, irrespective of their ideology, appears to be troubled by criticism and dissenting voices. The government is observed to desire pushing all dissenting voices away from its eyes and ears. By arresting, attacking, and prosecuting citizens for expressing their perspectives peacefully, the government tends to intimidate the public. This is not a good omen for governance in a nation which has established its young democratic system with protests and civil disobedience. The public’s confidence towards the government is essential to firmly establish the democratic values of a nation. These forms of protest are means of expressing disagreement, which helps the government know public and address resentments.
Protests are a way by which the public participates as an accountability ensuring watchdog in the governance of a state. This important public role becomes undermined by state intimidation to peaceful assemblies’ participation. Ultimately, it weakens the democracy itself. The perception of the leadership’s attitudes as ignorant and intolerant contributes to eroding the public’s trust on politics. Over time, this threatens to grow the already widening gap between the leadership and the public.
The graphics, views and opinions expressed in the piece above are solely those of the original author(s) and contributor(s). They do not necessarily represent the views of Centre for Social Change.
©2021 Centre for Social Change, Kathmandu