Submit your Article

Nepal has a new Minister for Youth and Sports.

Perhaps this is the opportunity for the nation to come up with robust solutions to develop two areas of policy-making that have been traditionally neglected and relegated to a second-class status within the domains of decision-making. Biraj Bhakta Shrestha is the new minister and he has some daunting tasks ahead of him.

To be fair to his predecessor, Dig Bahadur Limbu, it would be interesting to assess what has been done during the previous government. Yet is it not yet a practice to review and give scores to what has been achieved. Perhaps it is also difficult to do so because rarely do governments of the day have a clear vision of goals and tasks to be achieved portfolio-wise.

Coming to the new minister, from what newspapers are saying, there is an air of optimism about Shrestha and what he could do.

Let’s not forget that he belongs to a party, the Rastriya Swatantra Party, that has considerable leverage over Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal.

The first big mission for him is to make his ministry relevant, a heavy weight within the echelons of power in Singha Durbar.

For now, it is almost a mission impossible considering the disregard that, so far, youth-related policies have been objects of.

How about starting a series of consultations with youth organizations and sports stakeholders?

This is certainly a no-brainer and I do hope that Shrestha and his team are already coming up with a bold exercise of listening to and engaging with them.

Imagine a series of meetings, quite informal in nature, in Kathmandu but outside the walls of Singha Durbar and around the nation where “open mike” sessions can unfold in an environment where participants can feel the freedom to speak their minds.

They would also feel empowered because perhaps, this time around, there is now a higher chance that their voices and concerns would also count.

Indeed, there are a lot of things that need discussing.

To start with, are the current national policies effective?

Well, we already know the answer to this question.

The key point would be finding practical, doable ways to turn them around.

Probably, commonsense would indicate that there is no time to radically change the existing plans.

Instead, there might be space to twist them and modify them a bit, in order to make such plans more effective.

Giving ownership to the stakeholders is one step to strengthen the Ministry of Youth and Sports but then, it is going to be paramount to get the buy-in of the prime minister.

This means not only more resources for it but also a special attention to the policy proposals that are going to be mapped out and then implemented.

Coming up with an ambitious but at the same time realistic action plan with achievable milestones is going to be the second most important thing for Shrestha.

Reviewing and assessing the institutional effectiveness of the bodies under the ministry should be on top of this list.

For example, how fit for the purpose are institutions like the National Youth Council or National Sport Council? What about the National Olympic Committee?

What about the motivation, strengths and constraints of the employees of these bodies? How can the staff working there provide more value for their work?

Having their concerns fully on board would give Shrestha an edge to turn around these institutions.

Within both portfolios under the purview of the ministry, youths-related and sports-related, there are certainly linkages and commonalities that have not been meaningfully exploited.

Ideally, the National Youth Council or National Sport Council should not work in silos as it is common practice now.

Instead, there should be in place an institutional cooperative framework to carry out, though through different means, the overarching goals of the ministry.

Talking about implementation, it is also essential to come up with a partnership framework with NGOs and not for profit organizations, especially in the youth sector.

There are so many promising organizations active in areas like youth leadership and climate action but funding is always a thorny issue.

The more the ministry works with them, the easier for the nation to realize ambitious goals of development.

It’s also of paramount importance to work out a strategy to empower the provinces’ work in the empowerment of youths, including through sports.

This is a tough area also because, within the Rastriya Swatantra Party, there is a certain dose of skepticism toward provinces.

At the same time, each of these two dimensions has specific subsets of areas. For example, promoting volunteerism should be a major agenda of the ministry.

Perhaps this is the right time to dust off the draft National Volunteering Policy that has been waiting for a formal endorsement by the Federal Cabinet for more than three years.

We know very well that volunteerism has been underappreciated and its value has been underestimated.

It should not be the case because civic engagement, the engine behind any volunteering activity, is an essential part of the national fabric.

The problem is that it has never been fully leveraged nor understood.

In the sports field, there is so much to be done, especially at tapping the potential of youngsters, starting from childhood.

Nepal should not only focus on boosting and developing its elite athletes even though, for obvious reasons, it is essential to recognize and acknowledge them.

Positively enough, at least for the major sports, something has been happening in this regard.

Yet it is essential, while making difficult choices and prioritizing for funding, to recognize that promoting sports at young ages is very important.

Doing so would require a cross-sectoral effort because, for example, schools and colleges do play an important role in this regard.

Think about the role of private colleges in promoting basketball.

Yet future champions should also emerge from public schools and here some collaborations with the Ministry of Education, also under Minister Shrestha’s party, could make a difference.

Then there is the vastly-neglected area of adaptive sports.

Athletes with disabilities deserve the same respect and treatment received by their able-bodied peers.

Many of them are frustrated and their potential is severely impacted by lack of action to support them.

Wheelchair table-tennis, wheelchair basketball, blind cricket and deaf football, for example, just to mention a few disciplines, have a huge scope for growth if investments are made.

Then, setting some targets will matter. How many youths of the nations would be undertaking volunteering activities?

How many of such acts would be one-off versus more long-term ones? How many interschools sports competitions should be organized?

How many medals should Nepal aim for at the next South Asia or Asian Games? What about the targets for Los Angeles 2028?

The new Minister for Youth and Sports has tons of work ahead but only a different style of work and grounded ambition can help him.

I wish Minister Shrestha best of luck.

The author is the co-founder of ENGAGE and The Good Leadership. Views are personal

Notwithstanding all that national politics got people accustomed to, its shenanigans, backdoor dealings and secret negotiations, most of us were surprised by the lightning speed through which Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal shifted side and dropped the Nepali Congress from the government.

While it is true that there have been some misunderstandings and disconnects between the CPN (Maoist Center) and the Nepali Congress, few people really were expecting such a rapid change of government.

Once again, we got a confirmation that trust and commitment are not valued currencies in politics.

Rather what always prevails and, at the end count, are cynicism, unhealthy ambitions and a thirst for power for the sake of holding it and extracting the maximum benefits out of it, mostly for personal interest.

We do not need to spend many words on PM Dahal’s attitudes and capacity to retain power at any cost. Most of the citizens just got a strong validation of their feelings about him, a confirmation that the PM is a unique master at preservation and survival.

Probably, we should not even spend too much words on Rabi Lamichhane and his party, the Rastriya Swatantra Party.

Instead of staying out of power and leading a constructive politics of opposition, criticizing the government when it is due but also able to contribute with good ideas any time the occasion would arise, Lamichhane chose to jump and join the government.

It is all quite depressing if you think about it.

If you care about the future of the country, if you are genuinely interested in politics as a platform to change the society for better, then this gloomy scenario makes you really wonder about the future.

If political events stand as they are and continue in such a way, then it is obvious and clear that a sense of doom and hopelessness among people will prevail and it is already happening as we know.

Yet, is there any way to change this status quo and the way politics work?

As an observer to the vicissitudes of this nation, I believe that there are two venues to change the current state of affairs.

One idea is to copy, adjust, simplify and recalibrate some practices that occur in the United States of America.

The other instead is more about a system change in the way liberal democracy works not only in Nepal but also around the world.

While the latter is more complex, bold and certainly more visionary, the former instead could be more doable and practical, a way to ensure that only serious candidates get elected to the parliament.

Let’s start from here.

In the USA, as most readers know, there is a galaxy of so-called Political Action Committees, a complex and uniquely American way of supporting, mostly financially, certain candidates over others.

These tools, known as PACs, come in a variety of forms and they are correctly objectionable for their opacity.

Thinking about how such mechanisms could be improved and made more transparent and adapted to a totally different context go well beyond the scope of this piece.

Certainly, with all the alleged corruption that goes on in the electoral process in Nepal, it would be intriguing to explore ways to bring more accountability to the system.

PACs could perhaps offer an imperfect but more morally acceptable form of reigning malpractices in the system but my interest here is to focus on just some of their aspects that have less to do with the financing of campaigns.

The idea is that citizens of the country could form groups, even informal, to assess not only the moral and ethical leadership of running candidates but also their credentials, their expertise.

Regardless of the parties for which they will run, aspiring members of the Parliament at federal and provincial levels but also those proposing themselves to lead smaller local governments should be assessed based on their own character and performances.

If they are serious, competent, well-prepared and have good ideas, then such candidates should be made more visible, more prominent.

Citizens united even in small groups could do that.

Because the electoral game in Nepal is not so clean and fair, at the end of the day, we all know that what really matters is the “dough”, the money that moves around to win over people’s votes.

Instead, citizens, also based on their political preferences and ideologies, should be able to identify serious and promising candidates and support their campaign.

In the USA, there are many types of platforms, including Emily’s List that is a PAC focused on electing progressive democrat women.

What is captivating is not the financial support, the money put in the electoral campaigns throughout the States, though they are very substantial but requires a specific legal framework that is found only in the USA.

The most interesting part is the capacity-building, the non-financial support that the candidates “selected” by the organization, can count on.

This technical support can really make the difference in preparing a candidate to run a successful campaign.

The training offered vary from “Defining your values” to “Delivering your message” to “Effective campaigning”, just to offer an idea.

The bottom line is that there should be a way to ensure, also in a nation like Nepal, that more able, honest, integrity driven politicians are supported to emerge and win.

Even without a big “infrastructure” in place like the one of Emily’s List with its ambitious mandate of providing political competencies to its candidates and its mission to get elected only a certain typology of them, people in different constituencies in Nepal could come together to “study” and evaluate those running for office.

This could represent a much simpler way to ensure that the best candidates get elected, a bit like what happens in a caucus, another uniquely American mechanism used during the primaries, where citizens gather to discuss and choose their preferred candidates.

Again, there is no need to copy the whole mechanisms here mentioned, this won’t be practical either.

Yet there should be ways, even informal and within the current electoral system, that enable citizens to focus on picking candidates for their quality, because they deserve getting elected.

A citizen might not vote for a serious and competent candidate because of her ideology but the same citizen should be in a position to identify her best option according to her way of thinking.

Obviously, these ideas also provide an opening for more independent candidates, even if, running as an independent, should not be seen as a default guarantee of seriousness and wisdom.

The other option, something that deserves a full column on its own, would instead consist in rethinking the current liberal democracy framework.

I would not certainly change it for a dictatorship of the proletariat but would instead consider offering people more room to participate in the decision-making.

I am referring to forms of deliberative democracy that would not replace nor substitute elections, the core of the current liberal system.

Instead, more deliberations would allow citizens to decide and complement the work being done by elected politicians. But this is another story.

Ultimately citizens should not get resigned to what has been happening in politics with all its downsides. Forming new parties might not be the best way forward but empowering citizens with a stronger saying throughout the electoral process could instead be one.

Views are personal

Over the last few days, I have been thinking about the connections and interlinkages between agency, voice, representation of minority groups and the role of leadership in strengthening and reinforcing them.

The trigger was an invitation to participate at a discussion program organized by Rastriya Dalit Network (RDN) Nepal, one of the leading organizations representing Dalit citizens in Nepal during the World Social Forum.

Over the course of the years, as an external observer and practitioner, I have been grappling with questions related to ways that vulnerable groups can emerge.

On the one hand, personal and positive leadership is indispensable and with it also comes a great level of personal accountability. I do believe that leadership is something that is widespread around the society. It does belong to each single individual but the problem is that, too often, it goes untapped, unexplored.

Yet, if you are a citizen belonging to a vulnerable group like Dalits or persons with disabilities, Muslim or citizens belonging to gender minorities or if you are a woman, then, it’s much harder to leverage this innate dimension. But, if certain conditions are in place, conditions that must stem from the wider society, then it can emerge with positive spillover effects.

What am I talking about? Very practical things to start with.

Why not start with better designed and much more substantial scholarships not only at primary levels for Dalit students but throughout the whole educational cycle? What about tailor-made apprenticeship and internship programs that should at least provide decent living stipends?

These are very tangible and, I would argue, also minimalistic measures, in the sense that, if implemented, they would not require astronomical resources nor any legal provision.

At the same time, there should also be a conversation about more systemic initiatives that are as needed as the former but are also more complex to put in place. Why so? Because they would need the buy-in of the whole society, especially the assent of those in or perceived to be in the so-called historically more dominating groups.

For example, a better and stronger proportional system without loopholes, a system that would really provide representations not only to Dalit citizens but also to other marginalized groups. A conversation should also be tabled about stronger quotas, that though imperfect as they can be, they do potentially represent a game-changer tool to create a stronger, fairer level playing field.

As an observer, I do realize not only the complexity of these issues but also their sensitivity. That’s why only a national conversation can pave the way for reasoned, deliberate discussions. Yet these tools, some practical interventions, some other more strictly anchored to the realm of policy making can truly make the difference.

Thanks to them, citizens from vulnerable groups can be more visible, they can be heard and they can be part of the conversation and, consequently, they can contribute to the wider society. We need to be clear on one thing here: There is no automatism, no guarantee of success.

The reason is simple because, as strong as these measures can be, alone they won’t suffice, they won’t be enough.

Here enters the role of leadership and personal accountability. Leadership is about consistent actions that bring positive outcomes but also, as we all know, the same can bring failures. With failures that are inevitable come frustration and with it, the possibility of simply giving up becomes higher and higher.

Yet this grinding process of self-amelioration is the key to personal success.

The society in Nepal is in dire need of having more people from minority groups to be “good” at succeeding because positive achievements bring recognition and respect. Leading through actions does not require only good communication skills or charisma. What is also needed is know-how and expertise and being in a position to put those into practice.

That’s why the tangibles discussed earlier can truly mark a positive difference in what is a positive feeding loop that generates change, first at personal level, then at societal one. In more practical terms: You have to work hard but also you have to have the conditions in place as well if you want to have a shot at life.

But there is another element in this very hypothetical theory of change that could contribute in making Nepal more just.

Here I go back to the discussions related to the World Social Forum. RDN Nepal is organizing a ‘Dalit Parliament’ but this is a misnomer.

The Parliament, obviously, is not a real parliament. It is, instead, a much-needed forum for discussion and debate within the Dalit community. It is mostly a series of one-off events held annually where different groups, different stakeholders address issues and problems and try to find a common ground.

It is an important platform but there is the potential of making it even stronger. This so-called parliament could be structured on much more solid grounds in the form of a permanent, though loose, forum that meets regularly and consistently.

Obviously, we have to be realistic about what such a forum can achieve but having in place a venue where groups, activists but also concerned citizens can freely talk, can be a very positive development.

That’s because it would help bring in a sense of having a collective voice, a voice that would represent different views and opinions but would also enrich the conversation.

This dimension would complement and reinforce the efforts from the wider society and the ones stemming from the single individuals belonging to marginalized groups, helping generate reflections that could lead to change.

The goal would not be to agree on everything but rather having a place where voices are heard and ideas shared. While each group in such a diverse nation like Nepal has its own identity and traditions, ultimately what could help the country achieve more diversity and inclusion is a real national conversation.

Something that is not fragmented and divided by specific features, grievances and negotiating positions but instead is driven by the enriching and common elements, the sum of its parts that pulls the country together.

A recognition by the wider society that it is a common responsibility to make the country more inclusive and diverse, a sense of personal responsibility and willingness to contribute from those lagging behind and more collective voices talking to each other, could truly make Nepal fairer, better and more just society for all.

The author is the co-founder of ENGAGE and of The Good Leadership. Views are personal