While pursuing a Bachelor of Development Studies back in 2011, I was engrossed in questions of development and prosperity. Along with some economics, sociology, development, and research courses, a series of unresolved questions occupied my mind: What routes lead to development and prosperity? What policies benefit the country and its residents the most? Is it better to have a market-led development or a government-led development? Back then, pursuing a degree in development studies wasn’t only about getting a job; I was also concerned about the country’s development, a sentiment that may have arisen as a result of indoctrinated nationalism during my school days.
During my undergraduate studies, I had the opportunity to observe the work of some non-governmental development organizations. The more I saw of their work, the more dissatisfied I became: their huge administrative costs, including handsomely paid overseas consultants, in comparison to the amount that reaches targeted people, and their hidden goals. As a result, a critical attitude toward such groups began to emerge. During one of my field visits to Saktikhor, Chitwan, I was shocked to learn that one of the development agencies had structured a health camp in such a way that residents would be required to bring home medicine as well as a bible. This acknowledgment made me more critical of non-governmental development agencies and piqued my interest in research as another option to pursue.
Think tank to rehabilitation center
I had the opportunity to work as an intern in a Kathmandu-based research institute during the fifth semester. On one of the working days, my immediate supervisor said, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” The quote convinced me enough; after all, one is paid for his job, while we are given nothing for free. Along with my internship, I eventually came across prominent names like Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and Friedrich Hayek, as well as their concepts. I was also learning to write blogs and articles at the same time. Market-led development, I was taught, is better for a country. I was taught that the smaller the government, the greater the chance of prosperity. My college lecturers, on the other hand, taught that huge government interventions lead to prosperity. I wasn’t old enough to understand what was right and wrong. I was perplexed.
In one of my senior’s conversations, he emphasized why governments should not set minimum wages by recounting an anecdote of the Cobra Effect (unintended consequences of public policy) in ancient India. He claimed that while populist politicians may set a higher minimum wage, it ultimately hurts workers since businesses lay off employees to decrease costs in order to sustain profit. I was persuaded by his logic, but I could not readily accept that the government should not set a minimum wage because my single mother worked as a housemaid at one of Kathmandu’s casinos. I still wonder what one should hold on to—reasoning or lived and witnessed experiences. I continued to be perplexed. What is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad kept flowing through my mind. He went to the extent of saying that there is no such thing as a public interest for the public is nothing but conglomeration of individuals. I was perplexed again. He recommended a few works the following days, including George Orwell’s Animal Farm, James D Gwartney’s Common Sense Economics, and Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead.
On one of my holidays, I decided to buy those books and went to the bookstore. I bought the books that were recommended to me because I have been writing poems since middle school and also a big fan of literary works. Apart from the books that were recommended to me, I also bought Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Gay Science, despite not knowing who Nietzsche was at the time, because I liked several of his aphorisms and verses.
While learning the fundamentals of research, I attended an event hosted by the institution where I worked. It had convened a meeting of our country’s top legislators and business leaders. My responsibility as an intern was to take notes on the event's speakers. As the sessions came to an end, I realized that capitalists were pressing for legislative changes that would benefit them. Following the seminars, there was a grand closing party, with attendees approaching each other with drinks in hand and engaging in informal lobbying.
Wouldn’t such lobbying conflict with public interests, I wondered! With the passage of time while I was learning to write, read and make sense of the world; I came to realize that as an intern there I, rather than working as an independent researcher, was merely working to promote the ideas of free-market and capitalism.
After six months of working at the institute, my internship period came to an end. I wrote several blogs to promote the ideas of free-market capitalism and Austrian economics, as well as co-authoring one working paper on property rights. It was as if I was praying to a god who I didn’t believe in.
I was looking forward to working in another research institute since I wanted to improve my research skills. Fortunately, after finishing my undergraduate studies, I was given the opportunity to conduct study on the post-earthquake scenario. I was hoping for step-by-step guidance from seniors because I was new to research. Unfortunately, the research institution fired me in the middle of a three-month assignment citing reasons such as sharing a research project with members outside the organization. Back then, I had written some emails to people outside the organization seeking help for the project I was assigned.
I began to feel restless after being sacked from my work. For several nights, I was unable to sleep. Questions like “what is right and what is wrong,” “what is good and what is bad,” made me more agitated. My inability to work as a researcher, as well as my own thoughts, along with marijuana use, made me increasingly restless, insomniac, and delusional. I was ultimately admitted to a mental rehabilitation center.
“God gives me serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can change, and wisdom to know the difference,” was inscribed on one of the walls of my rehabilitation, where I lived for a month. These words had spoken to my soul. I was dissatisfied with the way aid organizations operated in Nepal, but I eventually understood there was little I could do about it.
Reflecting back with aphorisms and books
After I got out of the rehabilitation center, books became my friends. Instead of going out and meeting up with friends, I discovered solace in poetry and literature. Instead of visiting friends, I would write poems and read books because I was embarrassed to meet them. In Nietzsche's The Gay Science, I felt as if I found some answers to questions I had previously. To be honest, I had no idea who Nietzsche was when I bought it.
“There are no facts, only interpretations,” he writes, and “whichever interpretation prevails at the given time is a function of power not truth.” These words spoke to my soul. Maybe what I was taught (capitalism and free market as ultimate truth) is the virtue of power not of truth. Concessional loans and grants provided to developing countries like Nepal by institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund are frequently subject to conditions.
The conditions they propose best serve ideas of free market capitalism, and the Structural Adjustment Program is one of the pieces of evidence. Meanwhile, in a world where capitalism has developed the belief that people can do whatever they want for profit and self-interest, Nietzsche’s other aphorism makes a lot of sense. “That which is done out of love takes place beyond good and evil,” he writes in his book Beyond Good and Evil. Because businesses work for the exclusive sake of profit, capitalism is subject to questions on morality.
Another Nietzsche aphorism spoke to my spirit while I was still in a state of intellectual perplexity. “Every profound thinker fears being understood more than being misunderstood,” he writes. The latter may hurt his vanity, but the former hurts his heart, his sympathy, which continually cries, “Alas, why do you wish to go through what I went through?”
Because the aphorisms and phrases attracted my interest in Nietzsche, I began watching Professor Jordan B Peterson’s online lectures, where he frequently discussed Nietzsche. I purchased a book by Peterson and discovered that it partially answered my confusion about political-economy. He writes in his book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, “....Almost every political or economic conversation follows this pattern, with each participant striving to justify a predetermined, a priori viewpoint rather than learning something new or adopting a different perspective (even for the novelty). As a result, both conservatives and liberals believe their positions are self-evident, especially as they get more radical.”
Suraj Dhakal
