Proclamations alone will not satisfy the conditions for a nation deeply divided to exist in peace and prosperity. The most crucial challenge confronting Nepal is bridging the gulf that exists within the nation

By Yurendra Basnett

With the monsoon rains still speculative, the fields were parched and the boon of harvest laid a distant dream. Beyond fatalism, one couldn’t mitigate one’s deprivations. The rains would come, but when or how good would it be? We looked to the future – the immediate one – but with uncertainty. Amidst this quagmire, there was one more exigency, equally uncertain, but one where collective individual agency (collective action) could make a difference.

In my previous article, ‘Whispers of a Nation’, I had argued that yearning for ‘freedom’ was the causal factor for collective action expressed in the form of popular uprising. But the political landscape of Nepal has moved to a new phase.

In April, with the political stage set, the contenders (King – Seven Party Alliance (SPA) and Maoists) locked their horns. The alliance relied on a massive mobilization of people – its show of force – to pressure the King to give up his absolute rule. But this was contingent on monsoon (the best guess of when it would come), as there was a high correlation between monsoon and the level of people’s participation. Once monsoon began people would return to farming, which would reduce the scale of people’s participation.

Both contending parties would have probably factored this into their strategic calculations. So, for the alliance, the mobilization had to be quick and overwhelming till the desired outcome was achieved. On the other side, the King’s pawns had to hold and guard the fort till monsoon, when the onslaught would relatively diminish. Given these factors, the remaining variable was ‘margin of error’ – proximate actions that produce unintended consequences. The interplay of these variables would determine the tilt of the balance; and hence the ensuing of ‘Monsoon Politics’. But this is in retrospect and the outcome is known. While monsoon might not be a determining variable anymore, politics in Nepal hasn’t lost its metaphorical characteristics – sudden, loud, deceiving, muddy, with the ability to quench, stimulate harvest and rejuvenate.

The recent proclamations, among which the change of name from ‘His Majesty’s Government’ to ‘Nepali Government,’ is in keeping with the sentiments of the people’s movement. These changes underpin the onset of institutional transformation. While the efforts and sentiments of the House of Representatives are laudable, however, one must evaluate the means against the ends. If the aims of such changes are to make the society more democratic and representative, will these changes achieve those aims? Another way of looking at it is: has the change from ‘His Majesty’s Government’ to ‘Nepali Government’ qualitatively changed our conception and practice of citizenship? More importantly, how do these changes foster a common national identity, which is imperative for the viability of a nation. Does a person from Jumla or Ilam feel more Nepali now than previously?

Proclamations alone will not satisfy the conditions for a nation deeply divided to exist in peace and prosperity. The most crucial challenge confronting Nepal is bridging the gulf that exists within the nation. Currently, each sub-group co-exists, within a larger institutional arrangement of the state, as merely satellites of the centre of power (Kathmandu). Hence, the political challenge that confronts the nation (if it is to be one) is to create institutional arrangements that facilitate co-interdependence of the many sub groups of the nation. In other words, people from Jumla to Ilam should feel as much Nepali as the people of Kathmandu, and each sub-group through complex interactions should share a common fate. So, the prosperity of the people of Jumla should be integrally linked to the prosperity of the people of Ilam. This will increase the opportunity cost of conflict and lower the transaction costs of cooperation, fostering a viable and vibrant nation. Therefore, while the name change has significant emotional and symbolic value, it must be met with appropriate institutional arrangements, if that value is to translate into a national reality. Hence, if the current movement of institutional transformation is to preserve the viability of the nation to exist without conflict, then the task at hand is to create institutional arrangements that facilitate cooperation and co-interdependence among the many sub groups of the nation.

So how do we create such institutions? The institutional formation and arrangements are the product of distributive conflicts, stocks of knowledge and future speculation. Distributive conflict stems from power politics – in more general terms – the powerful dictates the institutional arrangement as per his/her interest. The stock of knowledge is our past experience, indigenous knowledge and exogenously acquired knowledge that each sub group of the nation possesses in differing forms. Future speculation is the approximation of future trajectory, or, more generally, an informed view of how things might be in the future? Issues concerning distributive conflict have received wide coverage and the proclamations made by the King or the party are examples of it. With regards to ‘stock of knowledge’, as a nation we have a good memory of ‘collective experiences’ such as Rana regime, Panchayat System, democracy in the ’90s and so forth. However, stemming from ‘distributive conflict’, we have so far paid very little attention to indigenous or acquired knowledge. Each sub group has unique indigenous knowledge that needs to be aggregated to the national level and complimented by acquired knowledge in order to formulate efficient and effective institutional arrangement. Similarly, successive approximation, normatively, of future is often lacking due to lack of imagination and creativity in our leaders.

We have failed to envision a common future of the nation or even comprehend future external factors, such as geo-political realities that may significantly impact us as a nation. Therefore, the most crucial task confronting the current political phase (including the possible outcome of the Constituent Assembly) is to create institutional arrangements through aggregation of the stock of knowledge and successive approximation of the future that is inclusive and addresses issues concerning distributive conflict. Finally, the current political exuberance must not deviate from political realism. Based on the above arguments, no meaningful democracy can be achieved without a coherent nation with a common identity, fate and future. These are the issues that form the bedrock of challenges confronting the nation. One can only expect so much from the politicians, the rest will continue to depend on people’s collective action this monsoon.

(A post-graduate student at the London School of Economics and Political Science, Basnett prepared this article together with his colleagues, Joseph Sinatra and Bimbika Sijapati. Please send your comments to [email protected] or [email protected])

(Editor’s Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal around the globe are requested to contribute their views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than 1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the article. Please send your write-ups to [email protected])