Submit your Article

There could hardly be a more compelling time to write and reflect on the world order, as nations remain deeply engaged in an ongoing contest of power and influence. Writing this feels more of a relatable environment of world order rather than a distant view and it also shapes the way we comprehend our own outlook of the world and human nature. If there’s one thing that’s unchanging attributes of humans, it’s their consciousness for power that drives them restless and impulsive. For power takes the shape of their desires, molding ambitions, igniting conflicts and competitions. This isn’t the end here, as it rather scales up in a larger frame from individuals to states; and then the urge to gain power grows as a continuum; it manifests. Regardless of whether one believes it or not, there’s a significant reality difference between being in actual power to being in proximity to that power.

In light of this idea comes Jo Inge Bekkevold’s article “No, the World Is Not Multipolar” that provides a striking rebuttal and yet convincing critique to the increasingly popular narrative to one of the widely spread beliefs that the International system is an emerging multipolar. The term ‘multipolar’ has been repeatedly invoked in academic debates, by diplomats, policy analysts and media commentators. Global leaders like Antonio Guterres, Olaf Scholz, Emmanuel Macron, Lula da Silva, and Vladimir Putin present multipolarity as an imminent reality every now and then. Bakkevild argues that the narrative rests falsely on the concept of what an actual multipolarity is all about. In response, Bekkevold presents a carefully assembled series of empirical evidence that unfolds how great-power capabilities are distributed clarifying, what truly constitutes the great-power standing

Bekkevold’s idea of multipolar means having at least three state variables as an imperative element such as enough military capacity, economic weight and global influence to shape international outcomes. In this scenario, according to him, only two countries at present fulfills this criteria: The United States and China. At its baseline, this essay roots with Neorealism theory where the diffusion of power is prominently present. Reviewing the commonly contested countries such as Russia, Brazil and India, he claims that each one of them does not meet the criteria. India, for instance, has been an emerging power in the last few years but possesses only a fraction of its economic budget in comparison to China’s economic budget. Similarly, the European Union too, cannot function as a single unified pole because other European countries have very different national interests and their own approaches to foreign policy. 

Japan and Germany might be wealthy but they still lack the global reach. Russia has nuclear weapons but its economy too, falls short. In that sense, the conclusion he draws in true sense, is that none of these countries can become as close as the United States and China are. His explanations are backed by concrete measurable data as he refers to SIPRI defense statistics, IMF GDP rankings, and naval deployment figures. These data gives an empirical weight to his argument which is based on political aspiration rather than a structural set of realities. The fact that the United States and China together account for half of global military expenditure, and that China’s GDP counters the combined economies of countries in the world marks a significant scale of unmatched domination.

The most interesting part of the essay is when he mentions three reasons that challenge the popular beliefs of the multipolar world. The first reason being the idea of multipolarity as widely accepted because it is a normative concept which invites a fair international system where the fear of one power gaining momentum and outweighing the other do not exist. The second reason being, that the sense of multipolarity serves as a way of intellectual avoidance as it hints on the intention of such people who want to avoid the new form of Cold war. The third reason is that these things used in common, so as not to leave out the space for the USA to place their leverage. 

Part of why these reasons come out is from the influence of political desire rather than an empirical reality. In such a scenario, the author’s explanation showcases a gap between people’s perspective and the functioning of the world order. While the author claims the fact confidently, he bases it around the idea of failed global power distribution and making policies rests around it, which can create serious strategic mistakes. The author’s key point to be noted is around how countries’ failed attempts to understand multipolarity in real sense leads to failed strategic mistakes. 

Strategic systems motivate policymaking and when policies are made according to multipolarity, and it leads to policy failures. For instance, his example of Macron claiming Europe as a “third superpower” demonstrates how simple rhetoric confuses allies and creates unrealistic expectations, including Beijing. Similarly, investors who misread the global system risk making costly strategic errors. 

In that sense, the author’s perspective fits perfectly with a neo-realistic theory offering explanations about material power like military strength and economic size where every other 4 country goes competitive to gain power. And nowhere does the author mention explicitly about soft power which makes it even more clearer as to the significance of struggle for power gain. The treatment of global power therefore, is relatively static, however the arguments put forward are persuasive enough to improvise the misled narratives. Illustrating the position of the USA and China and the world as a Bipolarity, the author’s motivation holds truth about struggle for power. 

The analysis in a nutshell, mirrors the persistent enduring human impulse for power as highlighted earlier, where proximity to power dictates false perceptions, false narratives and false strategic led behavior. Therefore, whether or not the world order is multipolar or bipolar becomes secondary when the desire for power becomes a full fledged influencing factor in the International System. So, in arguing that the world is bipolar is Author’s own conformity that power gravitates towards the strongest–that today’s world order is constantly shaped not by aspirational rhetoric alone but by the hard realities of material capabilities, demanding strategic clarity rather than comforting imaginations.

As a writer, I will continue to write as long as the fight concerns the public and the country. I often wondered what if one day every social media app and site were to shut down? This was just me being curious, not knowing the larger consequences. Today, however, such contemplation feels urgent.

As I write this, my eyes shift between the desktop and the window, reflecting on the weight of the present ban imposed by the government on 26 social media apps, including WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram,YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), and LinkedIn.

The official reason: these apps failed to register as per the Social Media Bill tabled this year. The law mandates that social media platforms register themselves with the government, designate a contact person, and appoint a grievance officer to handle complaints. It also allows the government to deny or revoke operation if a platform is considered a threat to national sovereignty, national interest, and social harmony. Additionally, the Supreme Court has ordered both domestic and foreign social media platforms to be listed with the government to allow monitoring of “unwanted” content. 

This isn’t the first instance that Nepal has imposed such restrictions. In 2023, TikTok was banned, only to be lifted after its registration issue was resolved.

For years, Nepal had been showing improvement in the global index of freedom of speech and e-governance. But with bans on social media platforms, the country could slide down the index, tarnishing our reputation in the international arena. 

We are well aware of how social media has deeply shaped our lives. From connecting people across distances to educating minds, creating opportunities for employment, and even serving as a source of income—it has, in many ways, become another world we inhabit.

As a graduate of media studies and a current student of international relations, I understand the government’s concerns. Sure, sovereignty cannot be compromised. Yet, I also question whether such a sweeping ban is the right decision. There should be a logical and a diplomatic route to approach things that are of public concern.

Now, with the ban curtailing the very basics of our fundamental rights—the right to freedom of expression (17), in this case the freedom to choose a medium, to express, and to be seen; the right to communication (19), the freedom to speak out; and the right to information (27), the freedom to access public knowledge—I am left to wonder about the right to social justice (42), which demands ‘inclusive participation and equitable opportunities’. 

Our constitution clearly states the sovereignty and state authority of Nepal shall be vested in the Nepalis. So, without the people’s fundamental rights, sovereignty itself loses meaning. So the real question remains: is the latest ban on social media really about safeguarding sovereignty or is it a form of media censorship. 

As Nepal is set to graduate from least developed country (LDC) status in 2026, the stakes are even higher. Restrictive policies could undermine Nepal’s credibility, discouraging potential investors, international partners, and stakeholders. 

What we need is foresight and transparency in our laws and policies. As a citizen, we all must speak truth to power.

Sitting me down, my father passionately recounts the story of his childhood—how he walked an hour up a steep-rugged road just to reach school. For him, receiving education at that time was a distant dream fraught with all sorts of hardships; an idea of a sense of fulfillment. Alien to such an experience, his story gives me a layered understanding of his world of the yore.  

Reflecting on his story, I am contrasted between his experiences of thought and mine. The world is shaped by the instant world of information bombarding today. The world we live in is “participatory culture” Henry Jenkins states in Convergence Culture: where old and new media collide (2006). Stalder (2006) writes about unlimited accessibility to information materials achieved with just one finger tip by referencing Manuel Castell, adding that youth culture develops in the spaces of flow.  

To read and write is no longer a confined dream now, but a hand to hand willing-reality that all of us can tap on anytime with virtual classrooms, webinars, youtube channels, podcasts and content creations awaiting us, eager to deliver information and knowledge.   

The digital space has brought everyone closer to reality and altered our lives. The more advanced technologies have become, the more of our identity sharing and building connections. Social media apps such as Tik Toks, Facebook, Instagram provide us with an opportunity to show and to be seen. Smartphones use advances more for our comfort. The sharing culture has made the world a global village (Easa, 2019) as we can connect with friends by sitting in opposite corners of the world and discussing similar contents. Yuval Noah Harari points out in Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (2015): For the first time in history, young people all over the world listen to the same music, watch the same movies and idolize the same celebrities. This reinforces the idea of a sharing culture that, according to Anthony Giddens  (Runaway World, 1999) fosters similar values that bind us with a single framework of aspiration.  

As people moved to online spaces, the concept of global consumer culture widened and things that were brands in the 60s or 70s remained no longer a brand. As many changes occurred including the choices and tastes of people, certain names like Nike, Apple, Netflix, k-pop became a global brand that established themselves with an identity. This “identity” as identified by Zygmunt Bauman in Liquid Modernity (2000) is constructed more from shared consumer cultures than inherited traditions.
Today’s youths are shaped more by smartphones, which makes them more inclusive, individualistic and anxious (Schmitt, 2023). They have started to become more vocal about contemporary issues as movements like #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo have shown. 

At the same time, the Arab Spring is a testament showcasing the power of a globalized culture to come together for a purpose with social media acting as a fundamental tool for protests and advocacy.  

Moreover, this distinct psychological nature shaped by the media among youths has made them approach things in life flexibly. 

On certain aspects of the society such as marriage, gender issues and career choices, youths are more likely seen as liberalists. For them, finding love is important, daughters are not a burden and nor are family business responsibilities as they have the confidence to carve out their own life paths. 

Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology (1973) by Clifford Geertz emphasizes the importance of understanding culture through the lens of local, specific contexts, rather than relying on broad generalizations. The integration, therefore, implies intergenerational beliefs and thoughts. 

When I listen intuitively to my father’s story of what he used to do in the past, I only sense that I was born in a time when the internet was booming. I don’t decline his lived experiences but they don’t resonate with me because they seem distant to me at this time. Hence, I agree to disagree—not in the act of defiance but in the act of forging a networked co-existing path shaped by a dialogue, respect and discussion. Our world lenses are not much different but it’s just that we see the world differently.

So much importance is given to our physical appearances but rarely do we realize what it means to be bullied, to receive negative remarks over weight and height. It is always convenient to pass a quick comment judging a person on the basis of their appearance rather than waiting for the latter’s reaction. These days, there is so much noise around the ‘right’ body type. The desire to acquire validation and happiness stems from commercial advertisements that put too much emphasis on your body. Culturally, from early on, we are so used to societal standards that we forget we are much more than just our physical form. Even today, we think thinner bodies are preferred over larger bodies. Interestingly, back in the 1800s, paintings and portraits of ‘plump’ people were revered. For many years, people perceived larger bodies as having access to food and money while condemning thin ones for being poor. Amy Erdman in her book titled ‘Fat Shame: Stigma and the Fat Body in American Culture’ traces the transition of heavy bodies to the right body type. By the 19th century in England, everything was perceived the same way. Author Sabrina Strings states in her book titled ‘Fearing the Black Body: The Racial Origins of Fat Phobia’ that fatphobia was drawn from colonialism and race. The body size parameters aren't supposed to be calculated, they are supposed to be compassionate. Believing that standard body types will make us feel good and look good has filled our mindsets. So, by comparing our bodies with that of siblings, cousins and friends, we are not just discouraging bodies but disconnecting from humanity just to fit in the norm. Practicing to look the standard size has always had a negative impact on the body as it has often led to mental health issues, including depression, anxiety and low self-esteem. Body is always visible so what you think and feel exactly shows out. It is therefore important as a socially-inclined being to understand that whatever body it is, most important is your heart and head as they truly represent you. As kids, when they laugh and hide their mouths under shitty jokes, which they aren’t aware of, it’s not at all surprising because they too learnt from what they saw and heard. When you say things like ‘hey, you’re too small to play basketball! or ‘hey, my breath can blow you!’, many do not understand what it gives people. Just a quick pleasure of being superior? No one can ever be completely at ease with how they look because someone may always be better, smarter and two steps ahead of you. This doesn’t mean you should look for things that can change your body. You got to remember that you chose this body because it was meant for you. Remember, there is always a reason to be that way. And it’s completely fine. Many do not understand that the body is not an object to fixate. It's supposed to be unique. You and I, why we look so different is also the reason why this world looks so beautiful! That we do not need to look for our bodies but we want our bodies to look for what we are in the creation. The constant emphasis on bodily appearance means we will keep pretending, which will swap us from our original identity. This isn’t real and this isn’t who we are supposed to be. People associate with our identities more than our physical form. Our bodies just help people to visualize. Do you think all that is left of our identity is our body, even then? The author is a third year student of English Literature and Journalism. She is interested in reading and writing about society, gender and identity