New Sociability Shapes Nepal Into Open Society

Nepal hosts a rich tapestry of topography, population, language, culture, art, literature and religion. It harbors countless varieties of groups, associations, federations, social and cultural associations, public opinions, political parties, interest-based institutions and identities, thus making the nation liberal to shape an open society. Freedom of association, expression and right to information entrenched in its constitution are crafted to make governance open, transparent and accountable to the public. Right to information is an inalienable right of Nepalis. 

They can invoke this right to demand the disclosure of all the decision-making of the public institutions relevant to their affairs, except in matters of national security and integrity of the state and those pertaining exclusively to private matters. Nepalis can lodge criticism and investigate matters of public importance.  In theory, this disclosure can make the state, market institutions, civil society and private actors open but its practical side is an issue of critical inquiry.  Responsible press, courts, civil society, educational institutes and an attentive public are institutional safeguards of openness. They also produce knowledge and truth and their vigor can set the standards of public life. 

Secrecy enemy of democracy 

They check the undue use of power by authority at the cost of the canon of public morality. Secrecy is an enemy of democracy. It breeds corruption and illicit practices, which increase the cost of governance for the poor Nepalis.  Nepal’s diplomacy, technology, trade, education, migration, culture, art, literature and people-to-people interactions with the outside world have made its society susceptible to openness and expanded the scope of affinity in democracy, human rights, market economy, civil society and professional solidarity. Nepali students, diaspora, workers and Gorkha Army have added additional inputs to its openness.

 Digital webs have connected their societal elements to the global sphere, easing finance, business, interaction, attention and socialisation. But it is important for the government to preserve, promote and distribute the common good of the nation to its people so that each of them holds a stake in democracy as a mediating agency between them and the state.  The rise of the standards of living of Nepalis make them citizens with equal rights and duties and keep a balance between property rights to individuals and the shared community of all.

Right to work, social justice, social security, social protection, social inclusion, quota and positive discrimination for weaker sections of society and sectoral rights to certain groups of population has constitutionally opened the access of Nepalis to institutional resources of the state. They are guiding principles for public policy whereby people can attain self-actualisation. Openness of the operation of political power builds trust between the government and the governed, decreases the cost of cooperation and enables democracy to operate in a transparent and receptive way. There is one benefit in the openness of Nepali society. It brings leadership under public scrutiny and cuts the cult of personality in politics.    

The grasp of all constitutional rights requires productive investments in the real economy and meeting the essential needs of Nepalis where dynamic sectors can act as links in multi-economic chains.  The state paternalism to defend fairness, equity and ecological protection needs to be balanced with peoples’ negative liberties habitually stoked by rights-based NGOs, civil society, media and professional bodies. The negative excess against the state can rot it from below. Nepalis can realise their rights if the state is robust in resources, institutional integrity, leadership grit and a coherent vision. 

Has the social inclusion policy of Nepal fostered an open society for all groups to engage or only allowed organised groups while excluding the unorganised ones? Has it eased inter-group teamwork in resource sharing and built trust for public action? Nepali state must be able to subdue the anarchy of free will of individuals, deep state, anomic groups and radicals for whom sovereignty is an enemy. The raison d’etre of the Nepali state requires it to perform basic state functions in matters of security, public order and public goods, which cannot be privatised for elite interests. The theory of power elite defends the doctrine of inequality, which Nepal’s constitution despises because it aims to create an egalitarian society. 

It also rejects popular sovereignty which is embraced by the constitution, because elite theory, like neo-liberalism, dents the interests of toiling masses, practically cuts equality of opportunity and constrains the social mobility of ordinary Nepalis. The bifurcation of education, health, communication and other vital opportunities has created an emotional gap between the public and private spheres and urban and rural areas. This gap has generated an unstable situation for perpetual bargaining for power and lawless openness. Others believe in the withering away of the state, still others want to divide the sovereignty or weaken it so that the market can easily atomise the population and penetrate political spheres.

 The wavering of heartland elites and their poignant disconnect from the periphery, except during elections, has bred a threat to the efficacy of an open and tolerant society for collective action. Both people and patriots claim that the Nepali state should keep public goods under the domain of its institutions, stand above the dominant interests of society and fight against the negative effects of globalisation, which has eroded its constitutional outreach and union of the space, economy and people. A certain self-sufficient nature of the state is vital to enable people to self-determine their constitution, politics and development policies.

Both Hegel and Montesquieu claim that if a nation’s constitution is drafted in the image of other nations without capturing the spirit and culture of the people and national conditions, it cannot endure. People lose ownership of it. The Nepali constitution is facing this problem. An open society is a learning society that eases adaptation. Only the dissemination of education and information in the entire society can make public institutions accountable to their duties. An educated public does not fan the flame of discontent against the legitimate authorities, which is hard to control. 

An open society is receptive to ideas, technologies and cooperation with the global community to enable the national society to fulfill its needs of progress and detribalise it. But the ideas must be indigenised to supply as input for leaders so that it fits well with national aspirations. The growth of knowledge and adaptation of polity are evolutionary processes. Nepalis adjust to these processes through socialisation and acculturation. Democracy is bound up with the law-based state. Outside the state operates predatory geopolitics, which is power-based.

 If the writ of the state is narrowed by the capture of its institutions by political parties, untrammeled globalisation, growth of autonomous institutions within the state and sub-national forces exercising negative liberties, the loyalties of people remain fragmented. The ability of the state to create discipline in society is important so that centrifugal forces do not become disorderly to openness. The right of Nepalis for information about the proper use of public money calls for improvements in their living conditions with incentives, opportunities and responsibilities.  

One key element of an open society is the culture of public deliberation in matters of politics, laws and public policies. This enables Nepalis to effectively participate in public issues and build civic competence nursing the belief that their actions influence the course of politics and public policies. Ironically, public discourse in Nepal, however, is confined to seminars, workshops, conferences and closed-group meetings of experts where access to the wisdom is denied. Even the national conventions of political parties are concluded within three days, where the voice and participation of the local leaders are hardly entertained. Only top leaders make non-policy rhetoric. 

Shifting voters’ de-alignment and swing in the leadership mark the deinstitutionalisation of Nepali political parties. This is the reason tech-savvy youths are divinising the digital space to criticize the style of leadership and justify participatory democracy where intergenerational justice is nurtured. Openness of Nepali governance institutions can control the influence of special interest groups, free riders, rent-seekers, corrupt and criminals, monopolising profits and socialising the cost for the people through a robust national integrity system. It can enhance the ability of the elected government to distribute public goods in the entire society and muster legitimacy.

When attentive segments of society closely watch the functions of governing institutions, they are less likely to indulge in misconduct contrary to the lawful path, a path that breaks the vicious cycle of criminalisation of politics and business, creates rich ground for people’s participation in governance and musters the trustworthiness of institutions and leadership. It equally smashes both political and economic syndicate distorting the spirited spirit of democracy and the market.  Constructing a sustainable future of Nepal requires a shared prosperity where the state formulates laws for immigration control, conscripts nationals in the army, offers welfare benefits to its people and exercises national self-determination.

Transmission of knowledge 

Inter-generational transmission of knowledge and widening opportunity are vital for all Nepalis to create an open-access order. The binary mode of education must be abridged to remove the emotional distance between the students of private and public learning centres and engage both in shouldering the duty for nation-building. The digital web’s true potential for an open society is crystal-clear. What is unclear is whether it can balance the interests of the individual, society and the state in its global edifice? How can Nepalis grasp the desires for sustainable progress, participatory democracy and projection of national identity in the ethical use of digital stream and open space for social imagination? 

The winner-takes-all political economy in no way spurs trust in society for openness, reduces transaction cost and delivers public goods to the people. Nepal’s bond to digitalized networks has opened its society’s interaction to the global flow of goods and offered certain opportunities. But its democracy may risk techno-feudalism, money and media if their structures remain undemocratised, where push and pull factors propel society to only extroversion. 

(Former Reader at the Department of Political Science, TU, Dahal writes on political and social issues.)