Posted on

Is Nepal Heading to a Psycho-Society ?

During the past few years, we Nepalese have had to hear some very-psycho and some super-psycho news.

The list would go forever. But I won’t irritate you with too many of them.

The question is – did we hear these kinds of news before, say two decades back ? YES, we did. But definitely NOT AS MANY.

Twenty years ago, a single murder case used to make national headlines. Each case used to talked about in homes, tea-shops, offices, buses, and carrom-board games, and almost everywhere. It used to be sung during Teej. It would be sung by गन्धर्वs home to home.The nation would mourn and sympathize the victims.

Why are such brutal murder cases everyday news these days? What elements in our society have incited such crimes? What steps are necessary to minimize them in future ? Those are the aspects I shall discuss in this article. Note, for ease, the politically motivated crimes are out of scope of this discussion.

Maoist’s War
While the Maoist war started and ended for a totally different objective, the killings and suffering it brought changed the Nepalese social landscape forever. It not only displaced tens of thousands of people, but also made people hard-hearted, distrustful, and unfriendly. Gone are the days when साँझका पाहुना were भगवान, when walking during nights was not unsafe, and when strangers gathered warm smiles rather than suspicious looks. Maoist war left an impression on people that killing is not a big deal and that one can come away with it if he/she has money or people/mass in pocket.

Uncontrolled Urbanization
This is the root of several social problems of Nepal. Crime is no exception. Too many strangers with different standards of living, with their own values, accumulated in limited areas, in no time. This is comparable to the reaction inside a beaker with several chemicals poured into it simultaneously. In this scenario, even minor incidents can easily turn unnecessarily violent. Also, it becomes a perfect ground for organized crime.

Poverty and Unemployment
This is the main reason for crime and hooliganism. Poverty incites meanness, greed, anger, and all sorts of negative thinking. Plus, when people have nothing to do, they find ways to utilize their brain. In older days, the only way to do so used to be by time-passing in chiya-pasals and bhattis. Now, in cities, young and energetic jobless people are capable of more than guff-gaff and card-playing. When, the attitude is negative, then this potential can prove disastrous for the society.

Insufficient Moral Education
Nepalese education badly needs to include contents on morals and ethics in textbooks and courses. With the constant increase in population, higher criminal rates are inevitable unless people are educated to adjust themselves in the (newer) society. However, general attitude of typical Nepalese to people of different kind (to both foreigners and fellow countrymen of different race/sex/standard) is usually unhumble if not hostile. Also, Nepalese attitude are driven more by emotion than by reasons. To name a few emotion driven काण्ड: The Hritik-Roshan kanda, the destruction of the Kathmandu mosque after the murder of 12 Nepalese in Iraq, and the recent reaction that Tasleema Nasreen’s remarks on Nepal provoked on Nepalese cyber-youths. Without proper education and moral values inside each citizen, the Nepal cannot escape from crimes.

Impunity
Impunity does not directly incite a psycho-crime. However, it does send encouraging message to potential criminals. Criminals feel safe on their part to carry out illegal activities. Without checking all kinds of crimes – murder, corruption, etc – the society cannot prosper; without prosperity, crime rates do not fall.

There is a pattern in the example cases I listed in the beginning of this discussion – the victims are from weaker part of the society: children and young women. The perpetrators in such cases are mentally unsound, for otherwise they would not commit the crimes on first place. In the plight of Nepalese society (which I mentioned above), they find easy to amplify their temptation.

Hostile crimes are not uncommon in developed countries too. In fact, they are often much more violent and ruthless in matured societies. US citizens are victims of mass killings in universities and schools by often young and confused people. Recently, Norway saw a massive bloodshed on its soil. First world countries are prepared to battle such issues to prevent them from happening again. However, in case of Nepal, where we are fighting to solve basic problems, the above mentioned aspects need to be addressed. The other areas that need attention are: tighter law enforcement, stable governance, and higher morale for security forces.

Posted on

The Outsider : An Insider’s Review

AlbertCamus

Just finished reading the famous novel “The Outsider” by the famous Albert Camus.

Albert Camus

Camus is a 20th century French writer, journalist, and philosopher who won the Nobel prize for literature in 1957. He was born in 1913 in the then French Algeria and grew up as a poor fatherless kid in Algiers. His famous publications include The Outsider, The Plague, The Fall, and numerous other books.

‘Camus could never cease to be one of the principal forces in our cultural domain, nor to represent, in his own way, the history of France and of this century.’ – Jean-Paul Sartre, in Camus’ obituary (excerpt from the Introduction section of the book).

The Wikipedia is a better resource than I am for other details. Click Here.

Camus’ writings gave rise to a philosophy called absurdism. Philosophy is not my area of expertise. However, the outside-the-trend insights in his writings are expressed in a very easily-understandable narration. The Outsider is itself the best example.

About the Book

TheOutsider-AlbertCamus
Original title: L’Etranger (French).

Also translated as The Stranger by other translators. First published in 1942. Camus wrote it when he was 28.

A very small book; you can finish it in a few days, if not hours. Several translations are available. The one I read was translated by Joseph Laredo and is about 120 pages in A6 size.

Stuart Gilbert’s translation of the book in pdf.

The Outsider is often referred as an “existential” novel. However, Camus himself denied he was an existentialist.

Characters

Meursault: the protagonist. He is a French born and living in Algiers, Algeria. A young man who lives his own life. He thinks logically and has very little emotion within him. He has his own reasons for everything he does. His attitude is not easily accepted by the society – hence, an outsider.

Marie: Meursault’s girlfriend. A kind and beautiful lady who eventually wants to get settled with Meursault. She is attracted to him for the weird person he is. But at the same time, she is worried that this very nature of him might embarrass her someday.

Raymond: A neighbor man who befriends Meursault to overcome his trouble with his own girlfriend. Meursault eventually has to pay a very heavy price because of this friendship.

And there some other minor characters too. But I shall skip them!

Plot

The book opens with, “My mother died today. Or maybe yesterday, I don’t know…” This is a very unconventional way to express a sensitive issue like mother’s death.

Meursault had admitted his mother to a nursing home facility in the countryside because he could afford time and money to keep her with him. He reluctantly goes as far as the old people’s home and does not show any interest to see his mother’s body. His weirdness of not showing emotions at the demise of his mother takes everyone in the facility by surprise. He further astonishes his neighbors by going to movie and getting drunk in the next few days. Every time someone tries to console him, he tries to explain that it is not the case, sometimes even frustrating him.

According to Meursault, there’s no use mourning at his mother’s death because she’d have died someday anyway.

Meursault develops a friendship with Raymond, his neighbor. Meursault is eventually dragged into Raymond’s enmity with his own girlfriend and her brother, an Arab. On a very hot summer day when Meursault and his friends are all having a good time at a beach, they encounter the Arab and his friends. After a few complicated events, Meursault ends up shooting a man killing him on the spot.

Motive to kill, he has none, but it’s the reflex to self-defend himself. It is also the blinding and blazing sun that has made him lose his balance.

In the days that follow, in the court, Meursault is portrayed as a freak (and hence, the outsider) for sending his mother away to an old people’s home. His indifference to her death is also taken seriously by the court. He vehemently tries to explain his point of view, which goes in vain. The court (which represents the society as a whole) tries to single him out on the basis of what sort of person he is rather than what crime he has committed.

I shall not divulge the ending though. You’d be disappointed at me when you read it. But I can promise you, the second half of the novel is very interesting. Meursault’s logic of accepting/denying the situation he faces, is something that insiders have hard time believing. And, an adamant man he is. It’s impossible for anyone to persuade him into doing something that he does not believe in. An example is his refusal to believe in the God.

In this book, Camus has portrayed the life a young and carefree man who has his own ways doing things. He has no grudges against anyone, but is somehow framed into a situation that he has no intention of getting into. The society criticizes and severely punishes him for not behaving and not acting as everyone else.

Like they say, सुनेको पोखराभन्दा देखेको पोखरा राम्रो !, there are far more aspects that have not been introduced here. I hope you read it for yourself. Happy reading !

Posted on

Is the ‘French Model’ of Governance best suited for Nepal?

So, what is the “French model of governance” that the UML is advocating as the “middle-path” between what the NC and the CPN-M are bargaining for ? Is it the best option for Nepal ?

Let’s first discuss on the systems the CPN-M and the NC are strongly proposing.

Westminster system
It is comparable to the British and the Indian systems. The Prime Minister, elected by the parliament, has the executive rights. The head of state, typically a president or a monarch, usually performs ceremonial roles.

Yeas : the NC and Madhesi groups. Nays: the CPN-M .

Pros: As the chief executive (PM) is elected by the parliament, this system rarely gives rise to any sort of dictators. Also, probably suitable in the context of countries like Nepal where the country is bhukka, yet the exercise to bring down the government starts even before the government gets a full shape. As the change in government leadership is fixed within the parliament, taxpayers are less burdened with frequent elections.

Cons: The PM’s policies do not fully reflect the people’s spirits. As the PM is elected by the parliament, she answers more to the parliamentarians and less to the people. Her term is decided by how well she “pleases” the parliamentarians, not by how well she executes for the people. Now, in near-ideal political scenarios, the two are (almost) equivalent. However, in the Nepalese context, all we need to do is look back the political developments of the past twenty years – pajeros, Bangkok trips during no-confidence votes, jumbo government, and extreme corruption, to name a few. Nepal is a perfect ground to abuse this system to the full.

One question comes into mind – Why do the NC and Madheshi groups favor this system ? Is it because they are closer to India in more ways than the rest of the major players are ? If the answer is ‘yes’, that would be merely a sentiment and is not justified. Another way to analyze the scenario would be to consider the political demography of Nepal. The leftists – the major parties being the CPN-M and the CPN-UML, if put together, enjoy a clear majority. Although Nepalese communists are not united even within their individual parties, let alone in the national front, a mutation in this character of theirs at some point in the future (if, by chance, it happens), would seriously challenge the existence of non-leftist parties. So, it sounds natural for non-communists to seriously advocate for a system which requires satisfying (to some level) the minority.

Executive President
Examples would be, the United States (of course), South Korea, Indonesia, and even North Korea, to name a few.

Yeas: the CPN-M. Nays: the NC and the rest.

Pros: As the president is directly elected, her “degree of obligation to answer to the people” is more than in the case of Westminster system. I am talking in a practical sense here. With an all powerful president, we can expect less noise and fewer obstacles from the middle-level politicians. The veto power makes the president further powerful. Thus, it is comparatively easier to implement the voice of the people in a relatively shorter span of time. Choose a disciplined, innovative, and inspiring president and you can expect your country to rise the ladder of social/economical development. This model also favors quick decision-making (and implementing), swift policies, and better regulations.

Cons: With all the power concentrated (almost) solely on one person, it is easier to compromise this system. A democratically elected president can well change into a dictator.

Why does the CPN-M want this system implemented? Is it solely based on the common perception of the communist ideology? If yes, the current the CPN-M party structure itself contradicts with the model they are advocating for. The different factions, one each among the Chairman and the three Vice-Chairmen, with their own individual pockets of members from the grass-root level to the central committee, it will be surprising if this model worked even if the Maoists themselves came to power. Needless to add the fact that the party itself is in the verge of split. Are there other reasons then ? Is it a tool to gain a greater power or a state capture? If that is the case, then we have our answer – no further logical reasons needed.

The French Model
Is this model really the middle-path between the previous two? Is it flawless ? Does it check dictatorship while allowing swift decision-making and implementing ? Above all, does it address the challenges and notoriety Nepalese politics/politicians time and again bring to the system ?

In France, the directly elected President shares executive power with the Prime Minister, her appointee. The PM, however, has to maintain majority support in the parliament. Hence, there is a balance of power between the President and the parliament.

Pros: A power balance between the directly elected president and her appointee PM supported by the parliament. Dictatorship is checked.

Cons: Complex. Is this model really suitable for Nepal ? Is the power sharing possible ? Most common scenario would be – a parliament controlled by the opposition. In such case, and which is very probable considering the present day political make up, there is a huge risk of a political vacuum. Let’s consider the fact that the government-formation clause of the current interim constitution has been changed for already a few number of times, owing to the differences among the political parties. When disunity is the reality even during constitution writing process, when the country is supposed to best unite, this model of governance is sure to invite complications during normal circumstances in the future.

Why is the CPN-UML proposing this model ? Given the UML’s middle-path stance in the path, it is natural to assume its intention as yet another mediation role. Besides, this proposal can also be taken as the UML’s attempt to ensure its own existence in the post CA period. With its rank dropped to No. 3 after the CA elections, the UML’s confidence of solely gaining the executive role has, no doubt, dropped. The system that would best ensure its presence in the post-CA scenario would be the one that requires consensus amongst the political players, and hence, the French model.

The Suitable Path Ahead
Constitution of a country is not something to be written every now and then. It is a very crucial time of the history as it shapes the country for decades (and even centuries). In order to make this constitution an ever-lasting one, it is necessary to look beyond the current political demography.

The primary challenge the post-CA governments have to tackle is the economy. In order to quickly catch up with the heavily tech-oriented world, swift policies need to be implemented. Building infrastructure is another mission. There are countless “to-do”s in the list.

To summarize, Nepal needs a system that best ensures fast decision-making and implementing. That is to say, the Executive President system is the best option. But how can we minimize the risk of the single point of failure of this system? How can we ensure no dictator rises to power ? How can we avoid the North Korean path ?

One method would be to limit the maximum number of terms an individual can serve as the President, as is the case in the US. Next, to be simultaneously implemented, would be to make the judiciary system independent and robust (I mean in practical sense; theoretically, it is usually the case). Also, establishing independent institutions, such as, anti-corruption bodies, secret agencies, etc could also check on any abuse of power.

(Note: The ideas expressed above are solely of the author’s. It is not biased against any political party. And, the discussion on the structure, pros, and cons is made on a general sense.)