Trade Unions in Democratisation Processes
A study of the role of the General Federation of Nepalese Trade Unions (GEFONT) in the making and consolidation of democracy in Nepal.

Minor Field Study

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Autumn 2000
Uppsala University
Department of Development Studies

Author: Anders Åhlin

Supervisor: Lars Rudebeck

--------------------------------C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S-------------------------------------

• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
  
• Democracy, democratisation and civil society
  
• Theoretical Framework
  
• Case and Method
  
• Political Space / Opportunity
  
• Mobilisation Structures
  
• Politicisation of Interests and Issues
  
• Summary and Concluding Discussion
  
• Final Comments Abbreviations
  
• References

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acknowledgements <Go to Contents>

I would like to thank all people at GEFONT and other organisations and institutions that dedicated their time to me. A special thank for all help goes to Mr Buddhi Acharya, Ms Pemba Lama, Ms Binda Pandey and Mr Bishnu Rimal, and also to Mr Rajendra Raj Hamal, Mr Bidur Karki and Mr Umesh Upadhyaya for their help with interpretations. Moreover, a special thank goes to FOOD and BEVERAGE for letting me participate in its workshop in Narayangath. I would also like to thank Mr Leif Bjellin at SAC for his help with contacts in the initial phase and my supervisor Mr Lars Rudebeck for his support. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for supporting e-mails, letters and telephone calls.

1. Introduction <Go to Contents>

The spread of democracy has been unprecedented during the last thirty years and the result is almost twice as many democratic regimes in the world. These democratic processes can be divided into at least four waves as noted by Georg Sörensen. The first was concentrated in southern Europe during the 1970s with the democratisation of countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain. The second wave took place in Latin America from 1980 and onwards. During that process we saw important countries like Argentina and Brazil become democracies. Eastern Europe was the centre of the third wave, in which countries connected to the Soviet Union started on their democratic path during the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s. The fourth and most recent wave has been in Africa and the former Soviet Union, with the process in Eastern Europe as an important catalyst.

Democratisation in Asia (foremost in South, Southeast and East Asia) can, however, not be divided into waves due to multiplicity in economic, social and political structures, and due to duration and variation in the democratic struggles in this region. From the early 1970s and up to now, as different countries as Papua New Guinea, Thailand, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, Mongolia, and Nepal have become democracies. In this group we find industrialised ‘tiger economies’ (South Korea and Taiwan), poor and least developed countries (Nepal), and countries in-between (Thailand and the Philippines). It is therefore difficult to find a common denominator as to why democracy has been established in this region, but that does not make it less interesting to analyse.[1]

I myself have always been interested in issues of democracy and democratisation, and this interest has focused on what role popular movements, in general, and trade unions, in particular, have in democratic processes. This interest was inspired by the active role such movements and organisations played in Sweden’s and western Europe’s democratisation.[2] It is therefore interesting to study if such a democratic potential can be found also in popular movements in what we used to call ‘the third world’.

The focus in this essay will be on Nepal, as a representative of ‘the third world’, and the choice of that country could very well be argued for. Nepal is a ‘new’ democracy which after two hundred years as an absolute monarchy became a democracy in 1990. This democratic process was brought about mainly by popular struggles from political parties, trade unions, students’ organisations, etc.[3] Nepal is therefore an ideal empirical example as one can study the processes both before, since it happened so recently, and after the establishment of democracy. Nepal is also interesting due to its closeness to ‘the worlds largest democracy’, India, and to the socio-economic conditions of the country; an economy still based on agriculture.

The choice of Nepal as my empirical case was, however, more or less a coincidence. I came across the General Federation of Nepalese Trade Unions (GEFONT) through a contact at the Swedish trade union organisation, Sveriges Arbetares Centralorganisation (SAC). After the establishment of contacts with GEFONT, all the advantages of an analysis of democratisation in Nepal appeared to me. A more thorough presentation of the case, i.e. GEFONT and Nepal, will follow below in the chapter Case and method.

1.1 Aim of the study

The general interest in this study is, as mentioned earlier, to study the process of democratisation in the ‘third world’, and more specifically, how popular movements like trade unions contribute to such processes. The focus of this study will be on Nepal and the General Federation of Nepalese Trade Unions (GEFONT), and the aim is to analyse the organisation’s potential in the making and consolidation of democracy in Nepal. This will be accomplished through an analysis of three important aspects of processes of democratisation, and a discussion of the results with help from the theoretical framework presented below. The main focus is therefore to discuss if GEFONT contributes to the process of democratisation in Nepal.

1.2 Disposition

In the first part of this essay, the study is theoretically and methodologically defined. In chapter 2, three key-concepts, democracy, democratisation and civil society, are discussed and defined. The third chapter contains a presentation of the theoretical framework used in this essay, which helps us in approaching the case-study. Chapter 4 contains a presentation of the case, the method and the methodological problems.

The analysis, the second part of this essay, is divided into four chapters, one for each of the three aspects of democratisation - political space/opportunity, mobilisation structures, and politicisation of interests and issues - presented below, and one for a summary. Chapters 5, 6 and 7 begin by defining the aspect in question and how the analysis should be accomplished. They are moreover divided into two or three sections, which cover different parts in the analysis of each aspect. Each of these three chapters finally includes a part with discussions and conclusions. It is in these concluding parts the results from the analysis will be linked to the theoretical framework. The results and discussions from the three analytical chapters will finally be summarised and tied together in chapter 8.

2. Democracy, democratisation and civil society <Go to Contents>

Definitions of democracy are strikingly different from each other, due to personal opinions on what the concept should include. I myself believe a definition of democracy should include not only a political level, but also economical, social and cultural ones. Such a definition would, however, not be fruitful in an analysis of democracy and democratisation, since it is necessary to find a precise concept which focuses on the most essential parts according to political science and liberal tradition. Georg Sörensen agrees with this argument and states that a narrow definition focusing on democracy as a political system is most preferable. He puts forward the advantages of a narrow definition, i.e. democracy as a political system, since it is easier to study relations between such a democracy and socio-economic factors. Despite the advantages one should remember that such a narrow concept should not be seen as the most desirable and the ‘best’ democracy. It is only the most fruitful definition for a study on democracy and democratisation.

The definition of democracy in this essay will therefore be a political system which meets the following conditions:

• Meaningful and extensive competition among individuals and organized groups (especially political parties) for all effective positions of government power, at regular intervals and excluding the use of force
• A highly inclusive level of political participation in the selection of leaders and policies, at least through regular and fair elections, such that no major (adult) social group is excluded
• A level of civil and political liberties – freedom of expression, freedom of press, freedom to form and join organizations – sufficient to ensure the integrity of political competition and participation[4]

Looking instead at democratisation, one way of defining it is to see it as the process leading up to democracy. This is, however, a definition, which has to be discussed further. Lars Rudebeck observes two important aspects of democracy, and hence of processes leading up to democracy, which could be used in this context. Firstly, democratic constitutionalism which is defined as:

Rule based on universal suffrage, regular elections, legal guarantees for free discussion and opposition for everybody, the legally recognised right to associate and organise freely, and institutional safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of power. [5]

Secondly, popular sovereignty, defined as:

Shared power defined in terms of social contents, with regard to actual and effective participation in the making of decisions on matters of common concern and significance. This concerns the larger political system as well as daily social life, economic production, places of living and work, and local decision-making.[6]

Rudebeck’s observation is that the introduction of “democratic constitutionalism” is not enough to sustain democracy. He therefore argues for a supplementation with “popular sovereignty” in order to anchor democracy as a form of rule. From this point of view, democratisation refers to a process which not only leads to the introduction of “democratic constitutionalism”, but also to a process in which democracy is consolidated and made stronger, i.e. a process in which “popular sovereignty” reaches ‘higher levels’. Since it is difficult to define when a democracy is consolidated and at its strongest, the process of democratisation is continuous, even in old democracies like those in western Europe.

To my understanding, “democratic constitutionalism” can be implemented from above, but “popular sovereignty” can not; it must come from below. The study of “popular sovereignty” is therefore the study of processes from below, and in accordance with that argument the study of consolidation and anchoring of democracy, i.e. an essential part of democratisation, is also from below. This is exactly what Olle Törnquist wants to focus on in his studies on democratisation. In this context he emphasises the empirical results of how popular demands from below have often proved fundamental in processes of democratisation.[7]

At this point it should be emphasised that the narrow definition of democracy in this essay, i.e. the political one, is not contradictory to the use of a broad definition of democratisation, i.e. the one in which economical and social factors also are included. The argument is that broad social, economic, and political factors of democratisation very well can lead to political democracy.

Furthermore, a key concept in studies of democratisation from below is civil society, since it is from within this civil society the processes must start. Civil society will in this essay refer to a sphere between, and aside from both the family and the state. This sphere

…consists essentially of voluntary associations and public […] communication. It is institutionalized through various rights vis-à-vis the state […], and it has emerged through the rise of relatively independent socio-economic relations as against the family, the feudal lord and the absolutist state.[8]

After defining democracy, democratisation and civil society and establishing that democratisation, i.e. the process leading to democracy and its consolidation and strengthening must be studied from below, within civil society, the argument has to focus on how to go about this.

3. Theoretical framework <Go to Contents>

Approaching post-marxist[9] theory on democratisation, which will be used as a theoretical framework in this essay, a brief stop in the ‘civil society’ or ‘social capital’[10] theory is necessary, since the former will have its starting point in a critique of the latter. A thorough analysis of ‘civil society’ theories is, however, not necessary, but a glance is enough to reach the post-marxist theories in a natural way.

3.1 ‘Civil society’ and ‘social capital’ theory

Robert Putnam continues to be an important and influential scholar in the making of the ‘civil society’ thesis on democracy. The key concept in his work Making Democracy Work – Civic Traditions in Modern Italy is social capital, which refers to trust, norms and networks among citizens, which makes it easier for people to do things together. This “social capital” has its roots in organisations and associations within civil society, not necessarily in political organisations, but also in, for example, sport clubs and choral-societies. One important ingredient though, is that these organisations and associations are not autocratic and hierarchically ordered.

The key to democracy is “social capital”, according to Putnam, and the stronger and more vibrant civil society is, due to well-developed social capital in associations described above, the better the democracy. There is therefore a need for a ‘deepening’ of the pluralism in civil society in order to create a better democracy. The ‘deepening’ of civil society refers to a process in which interpersonal trust and networks within the organisations and associations of civil society are developed and made stronger.[11]

3.2 Post-marxist theory

Post-marxist theory in this essay has its point of departure in the critique of ‘civil society’ and ‘social capital’ theories. The argumentation in this context is to some extent taken from Karl Marx. One of the scholars representing post-marxism is Peter Gibbon, who argues that pluralism in civil society would indeed be an important ingredient of democracy, but not a condition for it. Gibbon continues, with reference to Marx’ critique of Georg Hegel, and comes to the conclusion that the desired, by Putnam and others, ‘deepening’ of civil society might well not create democratisation, but rather the opposite. Bureaucracy and authoritarianism could instead be features of the ‘deepening’ of civil society. In this argumentation Gibbon emphasises Marx’ analysis of civil society as a creation dependent on capitalist expansion and capitalist division of labour. The key in this argumentation is that capitalism has the tendency to lead to social relations within civil society, which divides people into social classes such as engineers, farmers, ‘northerners’ and ‘southerners’.

The ‘deepening’ of civil society with such social relations could therefore lead to egoism within each group and this is the reason why such ‘deepening’ is argued to lead towards bureaucratic and authoritarian rule. The social relations could be an obstacle for people in putting forward general social interest and they are therefore not able to contest dominating groups of society. The forms of government will, in accordance with this argument, only represent the political and economical elite, i.e. “the bourgeoisie”, as civil society tends not to challenge its power.[12]

Continuing with the critique against Putnam and ‘civil society’ theories, Olle Törnquist analyses the expansion of capitalism in a developing world context, and highlights these countries’ absence of a homogeneous industrialisation in comparison with the analogous process in western Europe. The latter had a homogeneous industrialisation, which therefore also created a homogeneous class structure. It is argued that a feature of this development was that the working class and organisations within it were able to put forward their interests and to integrate people into politics and the democratic ways of governing. Since most developing countries lack this homogeneous industrialisation, a homogeneous working class with common interests has not emerged. According to Törnquist, civil society in such countries is therefore fragmented with a multiplicity of interests and movements. Popular organisations tend to be weak and are unable to take democratisation further, even though a ‘deepening’ of civil society is taking place.[13]

What is the recipe for democratisation then, if the ‘deepening’ of civil society is theoretically[14] criticised? Gibbon continues with arguments taken from Marx’ critique of Hegel, and stresses the need for politicisation, rather than ‘deepening’, of civil society. Since different interests in civil society, reflecting capitalist division of labour, is one of the reasons why the state remains unchallenged, it is desirable, and necessary, to find ways of linking civil society and the state. In order to achieve such links is it important for civil society to overcome group differences and to articulate common demands. To use Marx’ words, it is necessary for “the actual individual man…(to) recognise his own forces as social forces, organise them and thus no longer separate social forces from himself”[15]. That is, broad issues have to be articulated and collective organisation is needed. Yet in other words, civil society must be politicised.

Such a scenario will probably not overcome all differences in interests, but this is preferable according to Gibbon. The differences in this context will be between those groups and organisations which articulate general interests, and those groups trying to defend their privileged situation, and the interest which reflects their situation.[16] It is therefore fundamental for individual groups to find and generate linkages between their different interests and to mobilise and organise collective action around these.[17]

Presenting two other post-marxist scholars, Björn Beckman and Attahiru M. Jega, a slight difference in the ideas on what is necessary for democratisation among post-marxists is found. These two do not stress the need for different groups to come together and create linkages between each other as Gibbon and Törnquist above. The key is instead the idea that organisations and movements promote democratisation directly, when they challenge oppression and domination within their own field. The struggle to do away with such oppression will, according to Beckman/Jega, inevitably come up at the level of the state and contest the same. An example is when trade unions struggle for their right to organise. This struggle is at the same time a struggle for freedom of association, freedom of speech, etc., and needs to be solved on a general level. Movements and organisations struggling for rights in their own field are therefore taking part in a broader democratic struggle.[18]

The slight difference mentioned above is that Gibbon and Törnquist argue that, to promote democratisation, movements and organisations must overcome group interests and articulate common demands. Beckman/Jega instead emphasise that movements inevitably promote democratisation when struggling against oppression within their own field. The actual difference is therefore that Beckman/Jega do not stress the importance of awareness within each organisation and movement, on how their interests are related to other interests in a broader context, as hard as Gibbon and Törnquist do.

Continuing with Törnquist’s ideas, the gap between the two different views shows, however, not to be so fundamental. He focuses on the organisations as such, rather than on overall processes regarding democratisation, since it is in and between these organisations politicisation must occur, and he stresses the need to analyse the organisations’ conditions and their reasoning. His key aspect is that one needs to see when and how politics of democratisation become fruitful when organisations articulate their own demands. That is, if and how their own struggle faces such problems, which need to be solved in ways so that democratisation is promoted.[19] Adding Beckman/Jega, and their view, to these ideas, they mean that the organisations’ own struggle promotes democratisation directly when it challenges oppression within their own field. Törnquist does not say that explicitly, but one can see that the two views, Törnquist’s and Beckman/Jega’s, concur with each other.

3.3 Approaching the case study

The study of democratisation is, as argued above, to focus directly on movements and organisations, and mainly their conditions and reasoning. The first of two important dimensions is to see if linkages between fragmented interests and ideas within civil society, i.e. politicisation, have developed, or could develop, because of the organisations’ politics. The other, which has to be intertwined with the first, is to see if, and how, politics that promotes democratisation becomes fruitful for these organisations. That is, if and how their own struggle faces such problems, which need to be solved in ways so that democratisation is promoted.

To achieve the analysis of both dimensions, Törnquist suggests that the movements’ own implementation of politics, policies, projects and actions, their mobilisation and organisation of people, and the way they handle friends and foes, should be studied. He also suggests to open up the analysis of the two dimensions by asking: “what, if any, politics of democratisation makes sense” and how is this “related to actual conditions and the movements’ own reading” of it.[20] These questions, which continuously have to be asked, open up the analysis of democratisation to a discussion on democratisation. Törnquist emphasises that the analysis has to go beyond what he calls, the conventional definition of democracy (a definition which to my understanding is similar to the definition of democracy used in this essay), since many other factors also are closely associated with the making of such democracy. Politics which does not directly aim at promoting democracy can still “makes sense” for it.[21]

To my understanding, the questions Törnquist suggests mean that the analysis has to vary from organisation to organisation and from context to context. There are no exact recipes for democratisation. One should therefore study the organisations and movements as such, and keep a fairly open mind for different kinds of politics of democratisation and consider them in a prevailing context.

Törnquist emphasises in line with this, that not even politicisation in itself leads to democratisation. He gives the same kind of criticism to the concept of “politicisation” as he and other post-marxists give to the idea of the ‘deepening’ of pluralism in civil society; it is an important ingredient but it is not enough. Törnquist highlights, for example, the fact that politicisation failed to promote democratisation, even though it had good intentions, in several socialist projects.[22]

With Törnquist’s critique in mind it becomes more evident that there are no certain recipes for democratisation. The movements and organisations have to be studied - with the two dimensions presented in focus - but most important, does the politics of democratisation “makes sense”, and how is it “related to actual conditions and the movements’ own reading”?

Although no clear recipes should be emphasised, some hints on what is most preferable for democratisation - when studying if politicisation has developed or could develop, and if, and how, politics of democratisation becomes fruitful - occur in the theoretical literature. That is, hints on what politics of democratisation “makes sense” according to the post-marxist scholars’ own research.

Beckman/Jega give one hint, which has been mentioned above, namely, that organisations must challenge domination within their own field in order to promote democratisation.[23]

Beckman/Jega also argue that sub-ordinate groups such as workers and students can only expect their demands to be respected if they use “non-constitutional force”, i.e. uses methods, which go outside established formal and informal rules and practises in conflicts between for example workers and employers.[24] This idea coincides with the first hint, since organisations, to my understanding, must use “non-constitutional force”, at least to some extent, in order to challenge domination within their own field.

Giving further assistance on what is preferable, Törnquist stresses, as mentioned above, that it is not enough only to study the movements with the definition of democracy used in this essay in mind. That is, only look for activities, which directly aim at promoting this democracy. The reason why a broader view has to be taken is that several other kinds of politics also relate to the promotion of democracy. Therefore Törnquist suggests that we look for democratisation efforts in parts of civil society, i.e. in companies and through co-operatives, etc, and activities which aim at tackling serious economic and social inequalities.[25] Of course, these activities still have to be discussed, but they should not be ruled out directly.

Going further, Törnquist also supplies us with an ideal situation. Organisations are most likely to promote democratisation, he states, if they are interest-based, have/develop a broad ideology/strategic perspective in which they can place their specific interest, and if they link up with a political party.[26]

The linkage to a political party can though create problems to my understanding. Firstly, as Gibbon emphasises, because the organisations within civil society have to be independent from the state.[27] A political party in a government position is the state, and linking up with such a party creates problems of dependence. Secondly, as Törnquist himself points out, as there may arise problems with civil society organisations having too close links to political parties, which can prevent, rather than promote, popular participation in politics and democratisation.[28] These have to be kept in mind when considering and discussing Törnquist’s ideal situation.

As a last hint, it is fruitful to once again mention that Gibbon argued the importance of linking civil society and the state, which means that civil society has to come up to the level of and challenge the state in order for politics which promotes democratisation to become relevant and “makes sense”.[29] The importance of independence should, however, not be neglected.

Missing now in the theoretical framework are more precise analytical tools for how to conduct the study. In this context a suggestion from Törnquist will be used. His idea is to study processes of democratisation by thoroughly analysing three important aspects of it. The focus is of course on the organisations as such, with the theoretical discussion in mind, and the three aspects are: political space/opportunity, mobilisation structures, and politicisation of interests and issues.[30]

The study of these three aspects will very well cover the theoretical discussion and give us the facts we need to discuss democratisation. The definitions of the three are, however, not presented here, but are instead placed in each section to create a more readable analysis. At this point is it worth mentioning that it is not certain how these three aspects are related to each other. This will be highlighted below in the analysis, since there is sometimes a very thin line between them. It is also difficult to say if they are equally important or if some of them is overarching and more important, but this is not necessary to analyse further since they serve as analytical tools for a discussion. It is clear though that all three are important and that they cover different parts of what we need for a discussion on democratisation, according to the theoretical framework.

4. Case and method <Go to Contents>

This chapter includes a presentation of the case, Nepal and the General Federation of Nepalese Trade Unions (GEFONT). The reader will shortly be introduced to GEFONT's organisation, but also to the general situation within the trade union movement in Nepal, and to the political situation in the country, which are needed for a better understanding of the analysis. (Basic facts about Nepal can be found in Appendix 1). Questions regarding the method, methodological problems, selection criteria and problems with generalisation will also be discussed in this chapter.

4.1 The political situation in Nepal

A democratic constitution was established in Nepal as ‘early’ as 1959, but lasted only for three years, since King Mahendra in 1962 abolished the democratic constitution and gave all political authority to the crown. Various democratic efforts were conducted after 1962, but did not become successful until 1990 when the two opposition parties the Nepali Congress Party (NC) and the Communist Party of Nepal - Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) joined hands with other forces such as students’ organisations and trade unions, in a campaign demanding basic political reforms. Radical protests and strikes followed, which forced the king to lift the ban on political parties and political organisations, and finally an interim coalition government was installed led by the Nepali Congress Party (NC); the autocratic monarchy was abolished.

The coalition government was successful despite differences in interests among the political organisations, and a new constitution was established in September 1990. The first general elections were held in May 1991 and gave NC a majority in the Parliament with the communists CPN-UML as main opposition. The democratic movement has remained fractionalised though, despite the strong support for democracy, and different governments – foremost NC and CPN-UML-based – have replaced each other from 1991 and up to now.[31] At the moment NC is in government position after the election in 1999, and CPN-UML is main opposition.

The political situation is disturbed in Nepal and strikes are common, not only wage strikes from trade unions, but also political strikes, so called bandhs [means “close”]. CPN-UML has launched several bandhs from 1990 and up to now, the most recent in March 2000, which was the culmination of a protest programme against the government and its corrupt politics, etc.[32]

4.2 The trade union movement in Nepal

The trade union movement in Nepal is divided into different confederations and profession-based associations/federations. There are special rules in the Nepalese legal framework, which show what conditions have to be fulfilled to be able to form an association/federation or a confederation. A profession-based federation can for example be formed if at least 50 unions at different factories and enterprises join together, or if the federation can prove a membership of over 5,000 in informal sector professions such as auto-mechanics or fruit vendors. In the same way, at least 10 federations are needed to be able to form a confederation.[33]

There are three trade union confederations in Nepal, the General Federation of Nepalese Trade Unions (GEFONT), the National Trade Union Congress (NTUC), and the Democratic Federation of Nepalese Trade Unions (DECONT). The number of members in these three organisations shift depending on if only paying members are included, or if all types of members are counted. GEFONT is, however, the largest trade union confederation if all types of members are considered, and has over 300,000 members.[34]

4.3 The General Federation of Nepalese Trade Unions (GEFONT)

The focus of this essay is, as mentioned, on the General Federation of Nepalese Trade Unions (GEFONT), which consists of 16 National Federations. These National Federations are profession-based such as: Nepal Independent Carpet Workers’ Union, Nepal Auto-Mechanic’s Trade Unions, Independent Tea Plantation Workers’ Union, and Independent Garbage Cleaners’ Union of Nepal (a full list can be found in Appendix 2). GEFONT should therefore be described as an umbrella organisation, which links all National Federations together in a confederation.

GEFONT is also divided into six central departments; the Finance Department, the Foreign Affairs Department, the Trade Union Education Department, etc. One of these departments, the Central Women Workers’ Department, established for all women in GEFONT, has the same status as the National Federations.

The National Federations are proportionately represented in GEFONT’s supreme policy-making organ, the National Congress, held every four years. This organ decides and amends the constitution, policies, plans, and programs, as well as elects the National Council, which is the most powerful body in between two National Congresses. The National Council is also proportionately represented by people from the National Federations plus some full-time activists and experts, which must not exceed 25% of the total elected number.[35]

GEFONT’s policy is to organise all types of labour and professions from a division of labour into three major categories, the manufacturing and production sector, the agricultural sector, and the service sector. The first two categories are already organised inside GEFONT and a dialogue about joining GEFONT’s umbrella has started with individual service sector unions, so called ‘white collars’.[36]

4.4 Generalisations and delimitation

The aim of this essay is not to find answers regarding democratisation which could be generalised to the whole ‘third world’. It is instead a case study on Nepal and GEFONT, which covers one country and foremost one trade union organisation. The results will therefore serve ‘only’ as an empirical case in the broad post-marxist discussion on democratisation. It should, however, not be neglected that the results can be compared with results from other countries in order to find similarities and differences, and hence contribute to developing general theories on democratisation.

GEFONT and all its National Federations and central departments will here be analysed as one unit. Differences in attitudes and policies will of course be analysed, but not in a way which stresses differences in attitudes between the National Federations. Focus is instead on GEFONT as one organisation, and all sources will be considered representatives of the organisation.

Due to the limited period of time for the fieldwork - two months - the focus has been put on the top-level in GEFONT and its National Federations. This focus does not mean it is less interesting to study GEFONT as a whole, including its “common” members. It is problematic though, to generalise the ‘top-level’s opinions’ to all GEFONT's members, so the results can only represent the elite within GEFONT, but the analysis of the elite is still interesting because it shows the hopes and intentions and gives ideas on where GEFONT is heading.

It could be argued that several factors concerning democratisation in Nepal are neglected in this essay. One of those is how the caste system affects peoples’ possibilities to take part in democratic struggles in Nepal and within different organisations. Another is what the ethnic diversity means for democratisation. Such factors are indeed not emphasised, but it should be kept in mind that the focus is first and foremost on GEFONT. Those factors in the Nepalese society that are not stressed directly will still indirectly be included in the analysis by studying GEFONT’s activities and the reasoning behind these.

4.5 The choice of case and the fieldwork

The reason for choosing Nepal and GEFONT as the case in this essay was, as mentioned in the Introduction, more or less a coincidence. Contact in the initial phase of choosing the case was established with Swedish’s trade union organisations in order to use their international relations. Thanks to Mr Leif Bjellin at Sveriges Arbetares Centralorgansation (SAC), a contact with GEFONT was established. The response from GEFONT then made the choice obvious. The fact that Nepal is a ‘new’ democracy and that GEFONT was one of the organisations bringing democracy about made the case even more interesting, as well as the fact that not much has been written about GEFONT.

The sources and the material used in this essay have mainly been collected during a period of fieldwork in Nepal from January to April 2000. The good two months the fieldwork lasted were foremost spent in the capital Kathmandu and would preferably have been longer for a more thorough analysis of GEFONT and a better understanding of the political situation in Nepal, but the material collected is still enough for an interesting study on this level.

The study is mainly based upon interviews and informal conversations with representatives of GEFONT and by studying GEFONT’s publications, i.e. magazines, pamphlets, web-sites, etc. Other sources are participating observation at GEFONT’s activities and interviews with representatives from other organisations and political parties GEFONT has relations to, as well as interviews with representatives of relevant ministries and departments in the Nepalese government. Written material and Internet sources about GEFONT and Nepal are also used.

Nearly 30 interviews were carried out, and the focus of those shifted depending on what the interviewee represented. All interviews had the character of a discussion, but were guided by a check-list to cover different question-areas. These check-lists were very much the same in all interviews with representatives of GEFONT’s National Federations, though with differences depending on what profession the interviewees represented.

Interviews with top-level representatives of GEFONT and representatives of the Central Departments were different from those with representatives from the National Federations. When interviewing representatives of Central Departments, the focus was of course on special issues regarding the Department in question, and interviews with the GEFONT-elite, such as Secretary General and Chairperson of the umbrella organisation as a whole, were more directed to cover ideological and over-arching issues.

Interviewing people from organisations and institutions outside GEFONT, the aim was to cover their relations with GEFONT and these interviews were therefore designed according to the organisation/institution in question. The participating observation – foremost a workshop on Strategic Planning and Union Management with GEFONT’s National Federation Nepal Independent Food and Beverage Workers’ Union (FOOD and BEVERAGE) – was carried out as a mixture between own observations and informal conversations for explanations and translations.

4.6 Selection and methodological problems

Interviews can mainly be used in two ways, firstly, to get knowledge about facts in the same way as a book or a document is used. Secondly, to get knowledge about attitudes, reasoning and ideas. It is here worth mentioning that knowledge gained from the first method has to be considered in a special way due to the methodological problems these sources carry. It could, firstly, be difficult for the interviewees to correctly understand what the interviewer means, and secondly, the same difficulties occur also in the other direction. These problems increased in interviews for this essay due to my lack of deeper knowledge about Nepal, its culture, and the political situation, as well as through language problems. The longer the time I spent in Nepal, the better the understanding became due to newspapers, television and just talking to people, but it should of course be kept in mind that it is a problem if the interviewer and the interviewee do not understand each other because of cultural differences, etc. This problem was, however, decreased by asking more questions on answers not directly understood in order to get the interviewees to explain in other words and with more examples.

Interviews have, thirdly, to be taken into special consideration since the interviewee can very well express what he/she expects the interviewer wants to hear, or consciously/ unconsciously hides facts and tries to put himself/herself or his/her organisation in a more favourable light. Self-critical opinions expressed in interviews should therefore be considered as useful information.

All these problems with interviews have to be taken into consideration and one has to continuously ask and discuss if something is correctly understood and if one can expect the interviewees to be dishonest. Another way to limit the problems is to use interviews as a complement to other sources, that is, to study if the same opinions as those expressed in interviews can be found in publications and/or in activities and actual politics. Thus, the problems with interviews are not so serious that one should consider not to use such sources, but it is, as mentioned, important to keep the problems in mind and try to minimise them.

The selection of interviewees has been conducted with the intention of collecting as many ‘top-level interviews’ as possible. Inside GEFONT representatives from most National Federations were interviewed. The choice for these interviews were, when possible, top-level representatives, such as Chairperson and Secretary. Such top-level representatives of GEFONT as a whole were also interviewed, as well as representatives of different GEFONT Departments. In interviews with people from organisations and institutions outside GEFONT only one interviewee per organisation/institution was chosen and, when possible, a top-level representative.

One methodological problem occurred in the selection of interviewees due to language problems. The choice of people to interview fell on those top-level representatives, with whom an interview in English could be accomplished. This is a methodological problem, since knowledge in English could be class related. It is, however, uncertain if top-level members inside and outside GEFONT with knowledge in English represents a special group with opinions different from other top-level members, which is the reason why the material is argued to be representative. Thus, it should be kept in mind that the interviewees were not selected randomly.

A more serious problem is instead that it was impossible in some cases to find representatives inside GEFONT with sufficient knowledge in English, and interpreters therefore became necessary. Methodological problems with interpreters are well known, since it is important that they translate exactly what the interviewer and the interviewee say, and try not to put in own opinions and explain what someone ‘really’ means etc. People used as interpreters in interviews for this essay were people inside GEFONT and this creates even bigger problems since they have clear opinions on those issues the interviews were about. The methodological problems have, however, not been neglected, but instead considered and partly limited by explanation for the interpreters on the importance of translating exactly what has been said and not to put in own opinions.

5. Political space/opportunity <Go to Contents>

This aspect focuses on movements’ and organisations’ own reading of their political space, i.e. own ideas about the opportunities available to conduct politics under prevailing conditions.[37] It is, however, also possible to study the actual political space, i.e. not only how it is read by movements and organisations. Such analysis is though more time-consuming and does not go along with Törnquist’s idea on focusing on the organisations and movements as such (see Theoretical framework). The method will therefore be to study how GEFONT reads the political space since it also includes knowledge about the actual political space in Nepal.

A categorisation into two sections is necessary for a better analysis. In the first section, one has to see whether or not the movements and organisations believe that there are opportunities and space enough within the established political system[38]. That is, if they believe meaningful political work can be performed within it. In the second section, the idea is to see how the movements and organisations read the prevailing conditions regarding unequal division of power and resources. One should therefore focus on whether they believe it is possible and necessary to promote democratisation directly in civil society under these given conditions - or if they believe it is necessary to first create or capture instruments for political work, such as party and/or state institutions, and through them politically facilitate such things as civil rights to the civil society.[39] These two sections will in the end be tied together in a discussion with conclusions.

5.1 Within the established political system or not?

As a point of departure, when analysing GEFONT, it is important to remember that the established political system is not static. Or, one should say that the way in which GEFONT reads the space within the established political system, is not static. In Nepal, and for GEFONT, there has been a radical change regarding openness for pro-democratic efforts in the established political system. Before 1990, during the autocratic system, all political organisations were banned and they therefore had to work underground. GEFONT’s main focus at that time was to change the political system to establish democracy.[40] Since organisations with such aims were not allowed, the conclusion is that GEFONT believed, and acted, as if the established political system was not enough during that time.

Since 1990, when democracy was established, and up to now, political organisations and most of their political work have become legal, i.e. have been included in the established political system. The most important acts and regulations for GEFONT and other trade unions are the Labour Act (1991), the Labour Regulation (1993) and the Trade Union Rule (1993).[41] People at GEFONT stress these acts and regulations as very important.[42] These are of course fruitful in the organisation’s struggle for worker rights and facilities and they also form a base from where GEFONT can conduct its work in order to reach other ‘levels’.

If we go back to our point of departure in this section - the different ways in which GEFONT reads the space within the established political system - we can say that GEFONT believed and acted as if there were no space and opportunities for meaningful work within the established political system before 1990. On the other hand, after 1990, when trade unions and political methods like strikes became legal, GEFONT has been working inside the established political system. The natural conclusion is therefore that the advantages within the established system, according to GEFONT, decide if the organisation should work within it or not.

These advantages do not have to change so remarkably as in 1990 for GEFONT to change its way of reading the space within the established political system. It can change in less far-reaching ways also. One example is changes in the government’s policy and politics. “[H]ow […] the government looks at our demands is the major point which decides what will be the relation between the government and the trade union”, could be seen as how GEFONT’s Chairperson Mr Mukunda Neupane expresses these changes.

Mr Neupane continues by stressing that changes in government do not change GEFONT’s demands.[43] This is important, since GEFONT, according to Mr Neupane, always has the same demands no matter what party is in government position, but the interesting part is how the government looks at these demands. This is what Mr Neupane wants to highlight as the key to the relation between the two. In other words it could be said that GEFONT reads the opportunities within the established political system through the government’s way of working in accordance with the organisation’s aims. Thus far though, we can not use Mr Neupane’s opinion to claim that GEFONT really has the above mentioned relation to the government, but we can keep his opinion in mind and continue.

Emphasising GEFONT’s independence and relation to the government, Mr Neupane gives a hypothetical example of the present government and argues that it looks at GEFONT’s demands “somewhat positively”, but “if the government […] works in accordance with the feelings of the employers, then there will be more tussle”.[44] To tie this to the established political system one could say Mr Neupane means GEFONT will start using other methods if the space within the system decreases. He continues: “We try our best to […] struggle within the legal framework […] but circumstances sometimes create such [a] situation that legal framework can not be helpful for the workers and violation becomes necessary”.[45] If what Mr Neupane says also is the way GEFONT acts, a conclusion is that the ways in which GEFONT reads the space and opportunities within the established political system can change quite fast depending on how the government acts.

Before we continue it should be pointed out that the reason for changes in how the government acts can come both from changes in the present government’s policy and from changes because different political parties could be in power after elections.

Not only changes in how the government acts might change how GEFONT reads the opportunities within the established political system. Changes in how powerful groups act can also alter this. Mr Neupane put forward that if, for example, employer’s organisations start illegal lockouts as a political method, GEFONT will also use illegal methods, like illegal strikes, to fulfil its demands.[46]

Another opinion expressed to me, which could be seen as GEFONT changing its way of reading the opportunities within the established political system, is that sometimes the organisation changes methods when failing to fulfil its demands with ‘constitutional’ force. For example, when lobbying and legal strikes do not give satisfaction to its demands, illegal strikes can sometimes be the method.[47] If we link this way of acting to the theory, one can say that GEFONT, in those situations, rereads the opportunities and goes outside the established political system.

5.2 Promotion of democratisation directly in civil society or not?

Continuing to the second section, the analysis should accordingly focus on whether GEFONT believes it is possible and necessary to promote democratisation directly in civil society under the existing situation – or if the organisation believes that it first has to create or capture political instruments like parties or state institutions, and then facilitate democratisation to groups and people in civil society.

When analysing this it is important to remember that GEFONT is a trade union organisation and such an organisation’s political work is built upon organised workers. A trade union is not a political party, which tries to win seats in a parliament to conduct its political work. Linking these arguments to the theory one could say that GEFONT does not believe it is necessary to first capture political instruments in order to promote democratisation in the civil society. This is the point of departure in this section, but the analysis needs to be more precise.

Mr Umesh Upadhyaya’s, Chairperson of GEFONT’s Foreign Affairs Department and Secretary of the Federation of Agricultural Workers (FAWN), argument that GEFONT participates in the democratic process in different ways can be analysed in this context. On one hand, he stresses participation in different three-part boards, i.e. boards such as the Minimum Wage Board and the National Productivity Council, with representatives from the government, employer’s organisations and trade unions. On the other hand, Mr Upadhyaya emphasises that GEFONT through different forums, seminars, education, workshops and through the organisation’s publications tries to create public awareness and a strengthening of the democratic political process.[48]

Mr Upadhyaya’s second argument for GEFONT’s participation in the democratic process can easily be linked to a direct promotion of democratisation in civil society. This gives support to the point of departure that GEFONT works as a trade union and therefore believes it is possible and necessary to promote democratisation directly in civil society. The first way is, on the contrary, not supportive of this idea. Here one can say that the organisation tries to ‘capture’ a political instrument (state institutions) to be able to perform its politics. Once again one must remember that these ways are Mr Upadhyaya’s opinions of how GEFONT’s participation should be seen, but since he represents GEFONT his ideas are interesting to analyse.

GEFONT has, to continue, close relations with the largest communist party in Nepal, Communist Party of Nepal – Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML). The two organisations are not connected in an organisational way and the co-operation is mutual. Ideologically the two are very near each other and that is, according to sources from both, the main reason for their close relations. Since it is most favourable for GEFONT’s own aims, it is natural for the organisation to support CPN-UML during elections and other activities. One of the agreements between the two is that CPN-UML should consider GEFONT in labour issues and follow the trade union’s policy in these.[49] GEFONT’s co-operation with CPN-UML could therefore be argued as a way of working which is not situated directly in civil society. It can though also be seen as a complement to work situated directly in civil society.

Analysing GEFONT's relation with CPN-UML it is important to highlight that CPN-UML was in government position during almost a year in 1994 and 1995. GEFONT's Chairperson Mr Mukunda Neupane is a member of CPN-UML and was at that time Labour Minister in the government. Discussions were held within GEFONT on how to handle that situation and the organisation came to the conclusion that Mr Neupane either had to relinquish the seat in the government or leave his post as chairperson in GEFONT. The ideas behind this were to separate the trade union from the government in order to create a more fruitful situation for the workers. Mr Neupane left the post as chairperson for GEFONT, but came back when CPN-UML no longer was in government position.[50]

5.3 Conclusions and discussion

From the first section, the picture conveyed to me by the representatives I have interviewed is of an organisation aiming to work within the established political system. Before 1990, however, when political organisations were banned, GEFONT had to situate its political work outside the established political system. It is in this context obvious that GEFONT's politics before 1990 promoted democratisation, since the organisation had to challenge the absolute monarchy (the state) just to be able to exist in a legal sense. Politics, which promoted democratisation therefore became fruitful for GEFONT in an easily understood and much relevant way.

There are, however, at least three situations in the present situation when the organisation seems to reread the space in the established political system and goes outside it to fulfil its demands. The first way seems to be related to the way the government acts. It is important here to remember that the way the government (the state) acts is argued to decide the type of relation between the government and GEFONT. Such arguments are a sign of GEFONT's independence from the government (the state), or at least a will of being independent, which is what Gibbon stresses in order to be able to confront the latter.

The second situation when GEFONT seems to reread the space within the established political system is when powerful groups in society change their politics in a drastic way. An example of this is when employer’ organisations launch illegal lockouts. The third situation is when GEFONT itself rereads the space within the established political system after failing to achieve its goals within it.

One could say, when concerning the picture of GEFONT’s acting within and outside the established political system, that the organisation is ambivalent when performing politics. Sometimes inside the established political system, and sometimes outside. Does this way of acting “makes sense” when considering democratisation? For GEFONT it could be argued that it does, since the organisation always wants to be on the workers’ side. If GEFONT believes politics within the established political system is fruitful for the workers, its politics will be conducted there, and if it is not fruitful inside it must be performed outside. Such actions “make sense”, since the main idea is always to be on the workers’ side. It could, however, be discussed whether such actions create linkages between fragmented interests in civil society when GEFONT always follows what it believes is the best for workers. This has to be kept in mind when we discuss linkages between different interests further on in the analysis.

One should also remember, in line with Beckman/Jega’s ideas, that GEFONT challenges oppression within its own field, i.e. oppression against workers. That is, according to the organisation, important in order to promote democratisation. Important is also to remember, still with reference to Beckman/Jega, that such groups as workers must use “non-constitutional force”, i.e. go outside the established political system, to make sure that their interests are respected. It is therefore necessary for GEFONT and other trade unions to go outside the established political system, at least to some extent, to get their interests respected and challenge the oppression against them, and therefore also to promote democratisation. Here we can only draw conclusions from the fact that the reasoning within GEFONT does not show any moral or ideological obstacles to use “non-constitutional force”, but that is still important since it gives hints on GEFONT’s actual politics.

In the analysis in the second section we learned that GEFONT claims to work directly in civil society, but some of the organisation’s political work could on the other hand be seen as capturing and creation of political instruments. The latter way of performing politics is important to discuss, since organisations have to come up to the level of the state and confront the same, but still have to be independent. GEFONT is definitely coming up to the level of the state, since the organisation is participating in three-part boards with employers’ organisations and the government.

We can also see a link between GEFONT and a political party, CPN-UML, which is preferable for democratisation according to Törnquist. To my understanding, one of the positive features is that the link to a political party takes GEFONT’s political work up to the level of the state, which Gibbon stresses as fundamental for democratisation. This can, however, be accomplished in other ways also, but the link to the state via a political party is easily understood.

It is worthwhile though to discuss the party political relation a little further, since too close relations between organisations and political parties are not preferable. GEFONT and CPN-UML are not organisationally related though, which must be seen as fruitful for democratisation. CPN-UML is furthermore not in government position and this creates a preferable situation regarding democratisation with a trade union and a political party having the same ideology and challenging the state at different levels.

Problems can, however, occur if CPN-UML reaches government position in the future and keeps it for a longer period than the party did in 1994 and 1995. GEFONT can in such a situation be involved in relations with CPN-UML which are not fruitful for democratisation, i.e. relations where GEFONT uses the link to CPN-UML to reach immediate goals in ways which are not democratic and do not lead to politicisation. GEFONT would in such a situation not be independent from the state, which is important since it is the state which has to be challenged.

It would be ideal for democratisation in such a situation if GEFONT’s demands and ways of performing politics remained the same despite the fact that CPN-UML was in government position. Some signs of that have, however, been seen in 1994/95 when GEFONT’s Chairperson Mr Neupane left his post for the post as Labour Minister in the government. The reasoning behind that decision is important as a hint on how GEFONT would act in a similar situation in the future. The organisation seems very well aware of the problems with too close links to the government, which was the reason why Mr Neupane could not have both positions at the same time. Another hint taken from above is GEFONT’s idea about always being on the workers’ side notwithstanding the government’s politics. Hopefully, for democratisation, the organisation will follow that line even if CPN-UML is directing the government’s politics.

The important question in the second section though is whether GEFONT believes it is possible and necessary to promote democratisation directly in civil society under the prevailing conditions with unequal division of power and resources. The impression is that the organisation believes that, mainly because GEFONT is a trade union organisation which conducts political work as a trade union. That is, through an organisation among workers who want to end the oppression against them. If the people in GEFONT believed that it was necessary to create and capture political instruments such as political parties or state institutions in order to facilitate things like civil rights into the civil society, they should not have joined a trade union to put forward their ideas and interests.

Such reasoning and actions are important for democratisation even though clear connections to ‘liberal’ democracy can not be found, but Törnquist suggests it should be considered. As a beginning, one can once again stress Beckman/Jega’s ideas about challenging oppression in the own field, which is fruitful for democratisation.

Working directly in civil society is also relevant when considering the need to overcome group differences in civil society. One could, from the theoretical framework, discuss that divisions within civil society are a feature of capitalist production relations. Working directly in civil society despite these divisions could therefore be important in order to overcome group interests.

Work directly in civil society could also be important when remaining independent. If an organisation believes it is possible to promote democratisation directly in civil society, the organisation does not use any state institutions for its political work, and therefore decreases the risk of being run by those.

6. Mobilisation structures <Go to Contents>

Since politics essentially is about people coming together on what should be held in common and how this should be governed in a demarcated territory such as that territory which is ruled as a state, it is important to analyse how people come together to affect and to be included in the political struggles.
One may distinguish between two ways of coming together, firstly, integration of people into politics through broad popular movements and, secondly, incorporation into politics from elitist groups. To continue, the elitist way for people to come together, incorporation, may be divided into two different types. Firstly, the clientelistic way, which is related to bosses, who on different levels exchange their patronage for services or votes. Secondly, the populistic way when charismatic leaders are able to express popular feelings and ideas, but not necessarily interests, among people. These leaders are also essential to the stability of joint leaders and their ability to incorporate people into politics, and therefore essential to the stability of the organisation.

The integration of people into politics can also be divided into two methods, one with roots in anarchist thinking, which emphasises people’s natural and spontaneous willingness to resist oppression and exploitation in federated autonomous networks, and another with roots in democratic socialist thinking, which is more concentrated upon the need for political ideology and an integrated organisational structure. The method sprung from anarchist thinking is called federative and the one from democratic socialist thinking is called unitary.[52]

When analysing in which of these four mobilisation structures GEFONT belongs it is important not only to analyse how people get included into the organisation, but also how people get included into the politics of the organisation, i.e. if they only stay as passive members or if they also get involved in how the organisation conducts its politics. After studying these two parts, a discussion on in which of the four mobilisation structures GEFONT fits most will take place.

6.1 Inclusion into the organisation

Since this study is foremost built upon interviews with top level representatives from GEFONT, the most fruitful way to analyse this first part is to see, who is responsible for inclusion efforts and what arguments are used to get new people to join.

The general impression from interviews with GEFONT’s National Federations’ representatives is that the inclusion efforts are conducted from the individual unions at their factory or enterprise. Over-arching plans in order to get new members originate in GEFONT and at the top-level in each National Federation, but the actual work is carried out at a grass-root level.[53]

Arguments for joining GEFONT, expressed to me in interviews, can be divided into three groups. Firstly, there are arguments connected with professional rights and social security. The arguments concentrate upon that people should join because GEFONT offers a way to reach such things as minimum salary, over-time bonus and social benefits. Emphasised in this context is that such rights and benefits can not be reached individually; they can more easily be reached in an organised way.

Such arguments are strongly connected with the legal framework of the Nepalese society, since GEFONT wants to give workers information on their legal rights as workers. The representatives claim they want workers to know that they, for example, have the right to organise in trade unions and the right to get a fixed minimum wage.[54]

Secondly, some representatives stress arguments with broader implications. One of these is the aim of socialism, defined as democracy not only at the political level, but also at the economical, social and cultural levels.[55] Another is to make the presumptive members aware about the existing socio-economic conditions in the country. The focus is here on the feudalistic production relations, which are still a reality in Nepalese society, and to make the workers aware that this feudalistic mentality is strong among many employers.[56]

Thirdly, mainly the representatives from the most oppressed professions focus also on arguments such as giving workers dignity in their work. In this context arguments are focused on these professions’ importance for the whole Nepalese society to get the workers to feel proud of what they are doing. The idea expressed to me is to affect the workers’ thinking to get them to realise that they are doing something important and that they should therefore have rights as humans and workers.[57]

6.2 Inclusion into the politics of the organisation

When studying this second part it is important to see, firstly, if GEFONT has any plans and programs for new members to be included into the politics of the organisation and, secondly, if any, how they are accomplished.

GEFONT conducts labour education on different levels, which should be seen as plans and programs for members to be included into the politics of the organisation. The education is divided into three sections, basic, advanced and special. Among all the issues and topics included in this education one can find Labour Law, Trade Union and Political Party, Basic Information on Trade Union Movement, Women Labour, Union Administration and Labour Economy.[58]

The highest responsible department for GEFONT’s education is the Department of Trade Union Education, which for example is responsible for the Trade Union Education Campaign (TRUE-Campaign), a basic programme for education of members, and the GEFONT Cadre Top 100 Programme, an education programme for trade union leadership.[59] GEFONT furthermore gains significant support in its education programmes through a UN organisation, International Labour Organisation (ILO). ILO is not responsible for any education though, at least not in the basic level. The organisation is more of a supporter supplying material and ideas.[60]

How is this trade union educati