No matter how well-intentioned a strike may have been initiated, the consequences of strikes always bring hurdles in public’s individual and economic rights. They are not known to bring peace in the country, and almost always, it is the citizens who have to deal with the bad consequences (i.e., damage to private property)of this political fanfare. During its transitional phase, Nepali citizens regularly had to witness such strikes called upon by various political parties. But after the promulgation of a new constitution in 2015, the political parties unanimously vowed to never call for general strikes in the future.
But, like in most other cases, these politicians failed to keep on to their words. On February 4, the Dahal-Nepal faction of the ruling Nepal Communist Party called for a nationwide general strike against the appointment of heads in different constitutional bodies, which affected the normal livelihood of common citizens all over the nation. Whether those were from the education sector or small business owners like the street vendors or even industrialists, everyone’s livelihood was adversely affected. During the strike, citizens were deprived of commuting in their private vehicles, public transports came to a halt, shops were forced to shut down, and education institutions had to call off their classes.
The strike did not find support from a large section of the citizens as they tried to go about with their daily activities. And it was their right to sustain their daily livelihood peacefully. But, in order to depict the general strike as a resounding success, protesters across the nation burnt tyres, resorted to vandalism and arson by targeting public and private vehicles, eateries, and vegetable markets. This act of the protesters was ironic given the fact that the core objective of the general strike was to protest against the Prime minister’s unconstitutional steps. But the protesters were using unconstitutional means to protest as the constitution of Nepal, 2015 provides every citizen’s right to property and life of dignity, which were directly attacked by the protesters during that period. The constitution doesn’t give anyone authority over an individual citizen’s life or private property.
One has the right to call for the protest, but whether or not to support the general strike is the citizen’s choice. If one does not respect citizens’ rights and seeks only their benefits forcibly, then it is an attack on the individual’s e freedom and rights. So, no one has the right to take away individual natural rights, i.e., life, liberty, and property. Because an individual derives his life from nature, liberty is linked to an individual’s life, and his property right is acquired through his hard work.
The fundamental right of the citizens is the right to live. In order to survive, an individual needs to work; if others vandalize citizen’s hard-earned property, it will become a source of chaos and injustice. Therefore, to protect the citizens’ personal and property rights and punish criminal activities, the state needs to be accountable for taking action. It is equally vital for the citizens to be responsible because they need to be more vigilant against this kind of wrong-doing, as society is not only ruined by a few people who do bad deeds.
Moreover, the recent example of a general strike proves that despite the circumstances, it’s always the public who has to face the awful consequences of these strikes. One of the main reasons behind occurring general strikes is political instability and vested self-interest. No matter what the cause is, citizens have to bear the consequences of these strikes which, violate their individual and economic rights and damage private property. Henceforth, this kind of immoral practice needs to be stopped because any political party and their leaders’ primary responsibility should be to ease its citizens’ lives and ensure growth.
