Submit your Article

There is a saying that in an autocracy, one person has his way; in an aristocracy, a few people have their way; in a democracy, no one has his way. Now, the question is, would you prefer a self-intuitive leader or an unprejudiced one, who welcomes multiple thoughts in decision-making?

I recently came across an interview with a well-known municipality representative of Nepal. He proudly said being a leader with precise visions, he does not need to take advice from others. This reality-based short story depicts and sums up our political condition in which leaders/power-holders generalize their interests as a group or community’s interest guided by their self-intuitive knowledge. I wonder why our political parties and leaders are evolving into cult leaders. Why are they so reluctant to listen to others to identify the real policy problems by diving into some basic questions like what is the context, who are the key actors and other stakeholders, what is the policy problem, what are the relevant variables and outcome criteria?

Policy problems have multiple realities. It is a universal truth that reality is multifaceted, and actors entertain different ways to understand the issues and employ several criteria to work out solutions. In the political arena, there are many situations that we cannot measure, classify, and understand thoroughly. A positivistic interpretation cannot unveil many dimensions of policy problems as people reflect their limited knowledge, time, and memory. It is crystal clear that this sort of practice to analyze a problem will ultimately lead to a conflict in society. Thus, policymakers should adopt a dynamic approach to deal with a web of underlying realities of problems.

The next most fundamental thing is that policy issues are value-laden. Social values and policy problems co-exist in parallel. Values include justice, freedom, respect, community, and responsibility. Something can be two or more different things at once when problems appear along with social issues. To say it precisely, diverse groups may not hold the same thoughts on the same political phenomena as they judge it based on their principles, beliefs, status and many other elements. The Gurung community might hold different views from the Newar community on the same subject matter. Thus, policy-makers should be ultra-conscious about not destroying social harmony and contracts.

In the policy universe, problems intertwine with each other. It means a problem may have more than one variable. Policy problems arise from sociological, psychological and economic systems. For instance, multiple causes may be behind youth unemployment. To find diverse causes of the problem, public officials have to go through research and analysis before making decisions. Understanding the dynamics of the issues helps design effective policies and prevent unintended consequences This is one of the fundamental ways to ensure the rationality of decisions with adequate evidence.

Decision-makers should accept that their knowledge is limited. In his decision theory called Bounded Rationality, Herbert Simon talks about how our knowledge is partially rational. Human beings attempt to satisfy their personal interests, rather than optimize solutions. We often tend to analyze each subject in terms of our individual interests. He further believes humans cultivate logic and reason based on prior knowledge and experience, which ultimately leads to a false sense of rationality because we do not have all the information available. Deborah Stone, a renowned scholar, identifies that poor decisions of those in political power are the main reason for unfairness and unrest rather than culture, geography, climate, or any other factor. Hence, policymakers should be open to suggestions and criticisms for a healthy democratic practice.

The involvement of diverse groups/peoples helps to strengthen democratic practices in decision-making. James Buchanan, a Nobel laureate, assumes that individual political actors are guided by their self-interest in choosing the course of action to their best advantage. Circumvention of this practice is essential in developing nations to foster good governance. There is an old Sanskrit proverb that it is only through the articulation of diverse opinions that truth will finally emerge. It shows how important communication is among diverse groups to keep petty interests of power holders in check. Frank Fisher has introduced the ‘Argumentative Turn’ technique to exchange ideas among decision-makers. This technique allows ample opportunities for constructive debate, discourse, and conversation promoting communication among diverse thoughts in policy analysis. The main idea is that reason/logic does not evolve in individualism but in collectivism. This methodology being humanistic, subjective, and non-deterministic would help promote healthy discourse on political controversies.  

Policymakers have to formulate policies in various situations. They should comply with the democratic spirit to ensure good governance in underdeveloped nations. There are a few things that policymakers should be aware of before making policies. The most fundamental thing is that policy problems have multiple realities with values. They should know the dynamic nature of problems. To overcome such political dilemmas, they must be mindful of their limited knowledge and allow adequate room for people in policymaking.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a Chinese project introduced in 2013, has generated interest and concerns around the world. Through a network of highways, railroads, ports and other infrastructure, it seeks to link Asia, Africa, and Europe. One of the 149 nations that have ratified BRI is Nepal. Between China and India, Nepal has experienced its fair share of BRI-related advancements. This article investigates the contention that Nepal will fall into a debt trap as a result of BRI and analyzes the economic, geopolitical and developmental ramifications.

Understanding BRI: The BRI is a massive international infrastructure initiative that aims to link nations through a network of ports, highways, trains and other crucial infrastructure. It aspires to improve connectivity, trade and investment between participating countries. However, worries have been mounting in recipient nations over a possible debt burden resulting from these initiatives. In the case of Nepal, BRI’s effects are wide-ranging and intricate. Before signing any agreement related to BRI, Nepal must thoroughly weigh its advantages and hazards. 

The debt debate: According to critics, BRI projects, most of which come with Chinese loans attached, could result in a debt trap where recipient nations struggle to pay off their debts, which reduces their ability to make strategic decisions. Nepal may encounter this problem, given its constrained fiscal capability. Also, proponents highlight the possibilities for infrastructure development, economic growth and job creation that BRI projects may offer to Nepal.

There is a chance that Nepal may gain a lot from BRI. It might help in enhancing the nation's connectedness, boosting its economy and generating jobs. However, there are worries that Nepal could fall into a debt trap because of BRI as China is presumably ‘giving unfavorable loans to developing nations to seize their assets’. This claim has been made in relation to BRI and other Chinese investment initiatives in underdeveloped nations. The debt trap argument is supported by some evidence. For instance, several nations, which borrowed money from China, have had difficulty paying back their loans and have been compelled to cede control of critical resources like ports. To be clear, not all Chinese loans are predatory, and the debt trap argument is frequently exaggerated.

BRI engagements: Nepal has expressed interest in BRI and sees it as a chance to address its lack of infrastructure. The BRI’s proposed cross-border road, hydropower, and railway projects have the potential to improve Nepal’s connectivity and energy security. The financial viability, environmental effect, and transparency of these initiatives continue to be a source of concern.

Risk factors

Debt sustainability: China’s loans account for a sizable amount of Nepal’s external debt, raising concerns about the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio. Implementing projects successfully and achieving strong economic growth are essential for repaying these debts on time and avoiding a debt catastrophe. 

Geopolitical implications: Given its ties to both China and India, Nepal’s participation in BRI has geopolitical implications. Maintaining a balance between these two powerful neighbors is essential for the stability of Nepal. 

Project viability: The long-term profitability, potential for revenue generation and adherence to environmental and social criteria all play a role in how economically viable BRI projects are in Nepal.

Mitigation techniques: Nepal might use a number of techniques to avoid falling into a debt trap and profit from the BRI. 

Transparent project evaluation: Thorough cost-benefit evaluations and open tendering procedures can be used to find projects that are both fiscally and developmentally feasible for Nepal. 

Diversified partnerships: Including a variety of parties like global financial institutions helps lessen reliance on a single lender and advance monetary stability. Put an emphasis on local benefits: Projects that promote local employment, technology transfer and skill development should be given first priority to maximize the beneficial effects on Nepal’s economy.

There are opportunities and hazards involved in the complex discussion of whether BRI will trap Nepal in a cycle of debt. To maximize the advantages and reduce potential risks of BRI, Nepal’s rigorous evaluation of project viability, transparency decision-making, and proactive interaction with different partners will be essential. Nepal’s response to BRI projects will influence its economic and geopolitical trajectory for years to come as the initiative develops.

The world is under two major threats now—“tech threat” that is challenging sovereignty of nations and impinging on personal sovereign dignity of individuals, and “Religious Radicalism” that could foment civilizational clashes and lead to ethnic cleansing.

A tech battle between China and the US, along with disinformation from big tech and social media have been challenging tech and democratic order. The US, India and the UK—the oldest democracy, largest democracy and the champion of parliamentary democracy—are going to polls in 2024 amid risk of disinformation or influence of AI and ethnic nationalism.

Civilizational clashes fueled by ethnic nationalism in different countries reflect domination of religion over religion, culture over culture, human over human and civilization over civilization. This can challenge social-civilizational or democratic order.

“Hate crimes” embedded in religious beliefs can have spillover effects and cause ethnic war, causing huge losses to civilization, if not handled with utmost rationality. 

The author is a geopolitical analyst 

On Sept 24, former King Gyanendra Shah visited Taleju Bhawani Temple in Bhaktapur, where he was received by a large crowd. The gathering surpassed his previous visits when he was still the monarch, elevating the spirits of royalist forces.

The temple area falls within the territory of the Nepal Majdoor Kishan Party, an orthodox communist group known for its soft spot for monarchy. Amid enthusiastic cheers for the former king, his supporters fervently chanted slogans demanding the reinstatement of the monarchy. Leaders of the pro-monarchy Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) hailed this assembly as a testament to the growing support and calls for the restoration of monarchy and Hindu state, abolished by the Constituent Assembly in 2008.

Rabindra Mishra, senior Vice-chairperson of RPP, emphasized the political significance of the massive gathering in Bhaktapur through his X (formerly Twitter) post. Mishra, a former journalist, has evolved into a staunch advocate for the reinstatement of monarchy. 

And as economic hardships have fueled frustration among the populace, royalist forces are harnessing this resentment to push their political agenda. They argue that the removal of the monarchy worsened the country’s political and economic situation, making its revival a potential remedy. However, a counterargument questions whether the monarchy, even during its reign, could have addressed these issues effectively, given that over 15 years have passed since its removal.

King Gyanendra, despite his peaceful demeanor after losing the crown, has recently become more active and expressed interest in returning to power. He provides monetary support to royalist parties but maintains distance from direct political involvement.

RPP is the leading advocate for reversing the current political trajectory. Led by Rajendra Lingden, the party secured 14 seats in the national parliament in the last year's election, and has been pushing for pro-monarchy and pro-Hindu agendas 

The party plans to organize protests against federalism, republicanism, and secularism after the Dashain and Tihar festivals.The RPP’s supposed call to arms aligns with mounting criticism of federalism, particularly within the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML. 

While some view the large gatherings at the former king’s public appearances as a sign of support for monarchy, others, like Professor Lokraj Baral, caution against equating it with a desire for monarchy’s return. He argues that people are indeed frustrated with the government, but this doesn’t necessarily translate into support for monarchy.

Baral’s reassuring observation hardly offers any consolation amid the extremely divided political landscape, poor governance, and economic crisis. Security agencies, including the Nepal Army, view identity-based federalism as a security threat. They reckon cases of communal violence, particularly in the Tarai region, are on the rise due to identity politics.

There are still risks of communal tensions in eastern Nepal, mainly in Dharan. Repeated clashes between two communities have also been reported in Malangawa, the district headquarter of Sarlahi. 

While the government and major political parties busy themselves in securing their interests, various religious outfits and anti-federal elements are stoking religious and communal discords.

Recently, teachers and doctors across the country are also in protest with their own sets of grievances and demands. Last week, teachers from across the country gathered in Kathmandu protesting the Education Bill registered in Parliament. While the government has reached a tentative agreement with the agitating teachers, a section of teachers are still protesting.

Doctors and medical professionals are also up in arms against an alarming surge in the incidents of assault on their colleagues. The victims of loan sharks and fraudulent financial institutions are also in protest. All these developments show that the state and its apparatuses are not on top of things. Amid all these pressing concerns, Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal and a number of his ministers are in foreign trips. 

As concerns over the government’s inaction on various economic, social, and political issues mount, public protests are only but expected, says Baral. But he reiterates that the current crises in no way can bring back monarchy.  Observers warn as economic condition worsens and social fabric frays, there is a risk of rogue elements exploiting the public frustration. The RPP seems to be doing the same thing. Same goes for businessperson Durga Prasai who has  threatened to bring thousands of people out in the street after the Dashain festival.