Submit your Article

All major political parties in Nepal have intellectu­al wings, or so they say. But in reality, very few poli­cy ideas, let alone good ones, are generated within party struc­tures these days. Shrinking space for intellectual autonomy both in and outside the party in gen­eral further compounds this problem. As a result, the policy environment remains seriously compromised, allowing political hustlers to peddle half-backed ideas that serve particular interest groups rather than the general public. This is becoming a serious problem for our young federal republic.Our parties have to introspect on their structures and institute necessary changes, including their intellectual wings, if our third attempt (post-1950, post-1990 and now post-2006) at insti­tuting meaningful democracy is to bear fruit. Our major parties have not undergone the kind of mod­ernization Samuel P. Hunting­don discusses in his seminal book Political Order in Changing Societies. Parties are still stuck in this mindset of fighting against a totalitarian regime. Democracy has come and gone in Nepal, in part due to the inability of the victorious democratic forces to adapt to the task of governance. Governance is a complex process that calls for the right culture, autonomous institutions and dis­persion of power.

In our latest election cycle held for the three tiers of gov­ernment, Nepali Congress per­formed badly largely because of its unwillingness to change the narrative of that previous era. While the left parties offered a vision of prosperous Nepal, even though without specifics, Nepali Congress chose to raise the spec­ter of totalitarianism of the left forces. The public was simply tired of the nearly seven-de­cade-old fear mongering.

This was clearly a triumph of hope over fear. But unfortunate­ly, for a government that has been given a two-third majority to deliver on that promise, we haven’t seen the kind of clarity and drive towards modernization that is necessary to execute an ambitious vision of prosperity in the new federal set-up. On the contrary, all signs point towards regression under the misplaced notion of a strong government. A strong government doesn’t mean concentration of power or, in our case, a super prime minister—it means decisiveness enabled by an informed policy environment; it means delegation of authority with clear oversight and account­ability mechanism.

Prime minister undermining his ministers by emboldening secretaries to defy them sets a bad precedent. Ministers need to be given space to perform and get relieved of their duties when they fail to do so—a prime ministerial prerogative, no doubt. A clear test of the government commitment to modernization is whether it builds institutions or undermines them.

In the long run, a party can deliver and thus continue to remain in power only if it keeps generating new ideas. And this can only come from debate and contest of ideas, not simply by toeing a line. All of our political parties need to modernize, but in our case, there are few aspects that need extra focus.

Working culture: Our polit­ical culture remains stuck in a bygone era with all the trappings of a feudal system. Leaders do not like to be held accountable and expect the party rank-and-file, and increasingly, even the intellectuals, to be subservient. It feels like we removed one king only to be replaced by hundreds of minor kings, each with a sense of entitlement of emperors.

Party structure: If there are to be reforms in governance, reforms are necessary in the party structures, too. There can­not be a modern government without a corresponding modern party apparatus.

Competence and qualifications: Spending several years in jail for democracy cannot be the only qualification and justification for giving someone a key government position. Training and experience need to count besides the time one has invested in politics.

Individual discipline: Last but not the least being self-disciplined is the key to inspiring same level of rigor in others too. A minis­ter can only push his colleagues in the ministry for results if he/she shows high level of consisten­cy and commitment towards a common goal.

But it would also be unreal­istic to expect our senior lead­ers presiding over a traditional party structure and culture to suddenly push for modernization of the government.

My body became stiff and I felt acute pain in my shoulders. Although I had back pain every now and then I had seldom experienced such excruciating pain in my body. My heart was beating unusually, my body trembled and my hands slipped from the keyboard of my laptop due to sweat. There was a ton of work left and I could clearly see that I could not turn out a decent assignment by the due date; I suspected an anxiety attack and Google confirmed my suspicion. Interestingly, the anxiety attack sub­sided with my partner offering to help me with the assignment. We all have experienced anxi­ety at some point in life and it is but a normal human experience. Unfamiliar situations like first time away from home, first date, first presentation, first job interview, to name a few, can cause anxiety. Anxiety can result from all kinds of situations like getting married, becoming a parent, appearing in an exam and not all discomforts led by anxiety are counterproductive. Anxiety can sometimes be benefi­cial as expressed by Dahal (2016) in Understanding emotions, “a little bit of anxiety before an exam or pre­sentation can keep her focused and yield better results but too much of it can make things worse”. So the question arises: when is anxiety beneficial and when does it become a problem?

Normal anxiety is intermittent, the stressor is rational and the anxiety goes away with removal of the stressor whereas it becomes a problem when it tends to be chronic, irrational and interferes substantially with life functions. Problem anxiety may manifest as avoidance behavior, incessant worry, difficulty with memory and concentration and takes a toll when it becomes intense and affects the regular functioning of an individual. What’s worse? Problem anxiety if not dealt with properly may lead to anxiety disorder.

The restructuring of governance through the newly promulgated constitution allows us to revisit the status of mental health

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders pub­lished by the American Psychiat­ric Association, which is widely accepted worldwide as the reference for classification of mental disor­ders, defines anxiety disorder as “the presence of excessive anxiety and worry about a variety of topics, events, or activities. Worry occurs more often than not for at least six months and is clearly excessive”.

www.webmd.com describes anxi­ety disorder as an umbrella term that includes panic disorder, social anx­iety disorder, specific phobias and general anxiety disorder. The exact causes of anxiety disorders are hard to tell but they can be linked with changes in an individual’s brain, changes in their environment and even the genes they inherit. Anxiety disorder may severely impact areas of life related to the stressor for anx­iety and may expand beyond these areas to other aspects of life and functioning. The good news is it can be managed and treated. Realizing that you have an anxiety issue is the first step to change.

A few simple but helpful tips that might help to manage the symp­toms of anxiety are cutting down on caffeine intake and eating right, exercising regularly and sleeping adequately. Talking to a professional can help identify the stressors of anxiety and deal accordingly. A number of medical and psychologi­cal conditions can also cause exces­sive anxiety, e.g. prevalence of heart diseases or extreme time pressures and excessive workloads.

A mental health professional can investigate if medical illnesses are causing the symptoms of anxiety. These professionals use question­naires and other tools for testing prevalence and intensity of anxiety disorder. There are various treat­ments used to deal with anxiety disorder which may be a combi­nation of one or more medication (including antidepressants) and psy­chotherapy (counseling, cognitive behavioral therapy).

The biggest reason preventing people from seeking professional help in anxiety related issues is probably the stigma associated with poor mental health. We superficially and quickly associate mental health issues with complete loss of mental balance and rush to label seekers of mental health services as ‘paagal’ or ‘baulaha’, words that have severe negative connotations and cause stigmatization and ostracization of the individuals so labeled.

Matrika Devkota (2011) in Psy­chology International flags that individuals with severe mental disorders, as well as their family members, are targets of stigma and discrimination to the point where they hesitate to come forward for appropriate treatment.

He says although there is an increased awareness of mental health in recent days, there are also numerous challenges to get­ting mental health care in Nepal including inadequate mental health professionals and treatment facili­ties, inadequate budget and admin­istration for mental health services, and absence of consumer or pro­fessional organizations advocating mental health issues.

The restructuring of governance in Nepal through the newly pro­mulgated constitution allows us to revisit the status of mental health in the country. It is a time where practitioners and policy makers can collaborate for a new Nepal where all its denizens have access to ade­quate mental health services. Social Workers can play a big role to raise awareness on mental health, to fill the gap for trained professionals and to advocate for the cause.

 ‘Singha Durbar Gaugauma’ was a widely used political slogan during the debates on state restructuring and elections cam­paigns. What this implied was that as the country had adopted a federal system of governance, the political power vested in the center would be devolved to local bodies so that the state-administered services would be easily accessible to people from far-flung places. Based on what I observed in and around the Singha Durbar during a recent fieldwork for my doctoral research, if what the politicians’ pledge—Singha Durbar Gaugauma—means simply reproduc­ing the microcosms of the Singha Durbar, this is absolutely not what Nepali people aspire for. Let me begin with a few represen­tative vignettes from my observation around the Singha Durbar premises.

l When a Secretary refused to see him, a middle-aged man said: “Singha Durbar is no different to America… Italy for us, sir.”

l Another young man, holding some loose folios in his hands, was venting his ire when the other person on the phone presumably denied him a “pass”: “I just need to drop off my documents, sir … it’s urgent. I’m right at the gate…”

l A couple of baffled looking young men who were seeking informa­tion about employment oppor­tunities abroad, walked up to me and asked: “Do they let you in with a citizenship certificate?” When I said that they would require you to produce a “pass”, they whis­pered something in each other’s ears and walked away in silence.

The Singha Durbar houses 24 important state apparatuses, includ­ing all major ministries. However, if people do not personally know some officials or party-workers to help them obtain a ‘pass,’ they cannot access those state machineries. But if the general people are restricted entry, who are those thronging the chambers of Secretaries, Ministers and other high-ranking bureaucrats?

My observation revealed that they are interest groups, party affiliates, or dalals with some sort of nexus with people in power and politics. Obviously, the valuable time and energy of the state officials could have been put to better use.

What I found more shocking was the country’s bureaucracy. I had an appointment with a Secretary for 1 pm, but unsolicited visitors meant that I had to wait for above an hour. What is more, when I entered, the Secretary’s eyes were glued to the table in front, and he did not even bother to heed my presence. Deem­ing that to keep standing would be a disrespect to my dignitary, I decided to sit on the empty sofa nearby. As I was about to take my seat, one of the three other officials (perhaps sub­ordinates to the Secretary) rather offensively told me to avoid that sofa as if sitting there would violate its sanctity.

Insignificant though such encoun­ters may sound, they tell us about the state’s effects on the everyday lives of people. More importantly, they provide a window into larger processes of governance and power, and also reveal the fundamental character of our State and its bureau­cracy. The state is indeed a set of practices enacted through relation­ships between people, places, and institutions and not a unitary object. Everyday encounters such as the ones presented above raise some fundamental questions: Despite a restructured political system, what explains the perpetuation of the status quo? In the (good) governance discourse, why do ordinary people’s everyday lived experiences not get sufficiently voiced?

Good governance should be at the center of not only development pro­cess but also of the entire statecraft. However, often, such everyday lived experiences are largely seen as insig­nificant, or we (both social critics and citizens) simply take them for granted. The dusty, broken streets of Kathmandu get painted and embel­lished overnight for the BIMSTEC but are forsaken the next day; we simply take this for granted. There is no water in our taps; again we take it for granted. The psyche is so accus­tomed to the everyday aberrations that we consider them integral parts of our life, and any anomalies of the state hardly ever provoke us.

To stay silent would mean abetting the state in the production of what Michel Foucault calls ‘governmen­tality’ that rules through the willing participation of ‘government-able’ subjects. Let’s shun status quo; let’s question, critique, and even thwart those seeming normalcies that make us ‘subjects’ and not ‘citizens.’ As for the Singha Durbar, the first step should be to ban the frequenters from it. No more impenetrable, sta­tus quoist Singha Durbars.

While it’s common for us to hear that we need to learn from China’s devel­opment, no body offers an insight on how the Chinese growth came about. Some view it as a result of a strong authoritarian government, but they don’t tell us why a bil­lion-plus people willingly accept a different form of government to most of the world’s. Then there are those who believe Chinese development resulted from effec­tive use of FDI, and because of the capacity of its past and present leaders. This too doesn’t explain the development because parts of China are still poor and corrupt leaders are arrested every year. Others believe it has to do with Confucianism and the Chinese desire for “order.” So what makes Chinese peo­ple accept the system? What has led to China’s development? Why have there been no popular protests against the government since Tiananmen 1989? These questions are vital in understand­ing China’s growth.

The answer to all these ques­tions is nationalism. Not the defensive nationalism that pits one people against the other but a constructive sort that only wants good for one’s country. ‘National humiliation’, ‘national pride’ and ‘national power’ are the three concepts that bind the people and the government and that’s what leads to China’s development. It has nothing to do with commu­nism and Confucianism.

National shame

All of China’s rebellions and revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries were motivated by the sole intent of avenging the nation­al humiliation suffered in the tur­bulent 19th century, beginning with its defeat by the British-led coalition in the Opium War in 1840. From the Chinese perspec­tive, hierarchy had been turned upside down and it was their duty to restore the “natural” order. No wonder that every time China lost a war, there was a rebellion/revolution aimed at restoring the order or China’s dignity.

First in the series was the mes­sianic Taiping Rebellion led by Hong Xiuquan. Hong believed that he was the son of God and younger brother of Jesus sent to the earth to establish the king­dom of heavenly peace. His call to the Christian monarchs includ­ing queen Victoria of England to submit to his authority at a time the Europeans thought of China as the ‘sick man of Asia’ was one reason why the Christian Europe­ans allied with the Qing to defeat the rebellion in 1860s.

China’s defeat in the Jiawu War with Japan in 1895 and Euro­pean powers’ continuing dis­respect of Chinese sovereignty resulted in another nationalist rebellion, the Yihetuan Rebel­lion (or the Boxer Rebellion in English). The Boxers believed their practice of martial arts gave them supernatural powers and they were invincible. If the Taiping wanted to oust the Qing dynasty for failing to protect Chi­na’s interests, the Boxers wanted to kick out foreigners for bullying China. Well, they too were defeat­ed by the foreigners.

Then came the first modern revolution against the dynasty that had disastrously failed to pre­serve the honor of the Chinese race. The Xinhai Revolution or the republican revolution led by Sun Yat-sen in 1911 succeeded in overthrowing the Qing dynasty. But it too failed in restoring order and in containing foreigners and avenging their undermining of Chinese sovereignty.

The failure of the republican revolution led to the commu­nist revolution in 1949, again to restore the hierarchy that had been violated since 1840. Establishing an egalitarian society was the secondary aim of the com­munist revolution. Just as the previous generation of rev­olutionaries had done, the communist party propaganda machinery stressed, even after the 1949 revolution, that in Shang­hai’s Huangpu park there was a sign that read “No dogs and Chinese allowed” to motivate the young Chinese to join the revolu­tion (according to historians there were no such sign).

Even when Chairman Mao was able to tell the foreigners to pack their bags and leave China and reenter only when they accept­ed China’s terms, this was not enough to avenge the humiliation. How exactly China would gain its rightful place and respect was still a dilemma.

Angry isolation from the world or friendly engagement with it without sacrificing the goal of making the world take China seriously was a question that Chairman Mao dealt with right up to his deathbed. During his reign, China was dealing with foreigners on its own terms and some degree of national pride was restored, but it was still poor. Moreover, the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s had turned it into an even bigger mess.

The Chinese leaders includ­ing Chairman Mao realized that there was no pride in poverty. A radically new approach had to be explored. A plan was made in the early 1970s but it would take some time before a strong leader emerged to improvise it and avenge the humiliation and restore China’s rightful place in the world