Think Before You Follow

Where are we heading? The recent trajectory of Nepal's social-political landscape represents the paradoxical reality – we are either making up our minds to emigrate or growing our agitation, leading to violent repercussions. As a nation historically known for our resilience and peace-loving nature, Nepal is now positioned at a crossroads, grappling with political turbulence and vigorous cultural shifts. This has been about the political mishaps and upheavals and the culture we are developing.

An old memory clicked when I was going through the recent incidents where streets were disturbed by the demand to bring back the monarchy. Back in 2006, when I was giving my SLC, rather than concentrating on my studies, I was engulfed in an intense sense of fear and uncertainty due to the April Uprising (Jana Andolan II). The situation turned out to be the same after 20 years, where the SEE-attending students had to face conditions, but demand was precisely the opposite. Both situations have arisen for the same person, but then it was for dethroning him, and now it is for reinstating him. The eerily reminiscent highlighted an unsettling reality – acceptance of the same leader who was overthrown then is now seen as the only hope for a better Nepal. This reversal highlights a prime emotion of Nepalis in contemporary society – have we become so insecure that now we are easily swept away by the slogans put forward to us by a few opportunists? The culture of following the crowd has made us a mere scapegoat.

The trends and hashtags on social media have become determining factors for us to decide what and how to support. Like it's said, that little knowledge is dangerous; the superficial knowledge we are endowed to our negligence to know the deeper intentions of our own have made us vulnerable to any new whims brought to our sight. Undoubtedly, the March 2025 protest resulting in violent confrontation put forward a serious question about the legitimacy of governance and the efficiency of the democratic institution, but should this be a cause of another protest and, again, the loss of life and property?

The demand for monarchical restoration amid political instability is not new globally. Countries like Thailand and Spain, among others, continue to witness advocacy for monarchy despite practising other forms of governance. The dilemma, however, lies in discerning whether pro-monarchy sentiment is genuinely rooted in a belief in the monarchy's effectiveness or merely a reaction to the failures of elected governments. We often fail to acknowledge that the shortcomings of current leadership do not automatically validate the actions or righteousness of leaders from the past.

However, the real question is not about the system we are governed by. During a recent protest, I saw a Nepali celebrity's social media post that read, "It's not the king or the politicians who need to change—it's the public." This statement holds a certain truth. Public movements, whether "pro" or "anti", are often driven more by trending opinions on social media than by informed personal reflection on the real consequences of such actions. Often, people jump into causes without considering the long-term implications. In doing so, we risk misusing the freedom our forefathers once dreamed of. Having a voice in the system is a privilege many of us take for granted.

The advent of social media has significantly altered public discourse, as complex political and economic debates have been directed by simplistic narratives based on viral content rather than substantive analysis. The rapid proliferation of hashtags and trends has amplified reactionary politics, which shape public discourse. Political misinformation has made political consciousness prone to populist rhetoric rather than long-term institutional thinking. Globally, similar trends have been observed. The United States 2021 Capitol riots and Brazil's pro-Bolsonaro protests in 2023 highlight how digital misinformation and populist appeals can drive mass mobilisation without critical introspection. If Nepal does not address this issue through media literacy and institutional safeguards, the nation risks being trapped in cyclical unrest.

However, the prime concern over here is the growing overemphasis on the individual rather than the system in Nepal's political culture. No person should be of great importance, as s/he might become a tyrant in the long run. Thriving democracy heavily relies on a strong system rather than charismatic leadership. Various countries have testified to this reality. For instance, Venezuela's overreliance on Hugo Chávez's leadership while neglecting systemic governance reforms is believed to be the primary cause of its economic turmoil. Vladimir Putin's prolonged rule in Russia has led to the erosion of democratic institutions. Nepal's political landscape showcases similar tendencies with political elites, who, whether monarchical or democratic, are often regarded as the ultimate problem-solvers rather than the system itself. If given more attention for a more extended period of time, an individual, powerful by either birth or by vote, starts presuming them to be the most powerful ruler with a know-it-all attitude. This is fatal for the nation and the person since "power corrupts"; psychology invades all. So, a well-regulated system is the only way to check and balance hegemony.

Consequently, it's time for us to act wisely rather than be mere puppets of ideas. We should be cautious of misinformation and disinformation, and the government should play a vital role in checking the authenticity of the information. We should develop a culture of self-contemplation rather than following the crowd. The education system should be designed accordingly, and moral education should be emphasised equally from the primary level. The good aspects of our culture should be promoted and developed, and the intellectual aspect of our decisions should be explored. We should be aware that even though dissatisfaction with governance is valid, given the situations we stand in today, blind adherence to populist rhetoric will only hinder national progress.

The emphasis must shift from individual-centric leadership to a strong, system-based governance model. In the digital age, there is an urgent need for a more discerning and analytical populace that can thoughtfully navigate the complexities of modern political discourse. Nepal's future hinges not on individuals we unquestioningly support or oppose but on our collective wisdom and informed civic engagement.

(The author is a technical officer at National Archives of Nepal.)