Submit your Article

Over the last few weeks, there has been an intense conversation about reforming the national education system. The debate started with the decision by what has now been redenominated as the Ministry of Education and Sports to cancel formal examinations for Grade 5 students.

The news has been welcomed by educationalists and practitioners as an important milestone to modernize the whole education sector. Yet while this shift can have a profound impact, I am wondering if we are missing the bigger picture in this conversation.

I do trust the expertise and knowledge of those who are being involved in this field and I do hope that this reform can generate a new momentum for even more ambitious reforms, especially for the public, community-run schools. It is important to remind ourselves that the vast majority of these schools are still vastly behind their private counterparts and I am not just referring to infrastructure.

In this regard, it is worthy to note that the important public resources have been invested in upgrading local schools and the outcome of this effort is clearly visible. While the focus of the conversation on education is often, and correctly so, centered on how to enhance quality education, having better, more modern and ideally more welcoming facilities can be an important factor that positively influences and determines teachers’ motivation and enthusiasm.

It is also, in a way, about dignity and respect and not only those of the teachers and other professionals working in the schools but also children. Learning in larger classrooms that are also better equipped can make the difference. Recently visiting a community school on the outskirts of the Kathmandu Valley, I admired the use of smart touchscreen technology installed in each classroom.

Yet, in the majority of cases, the infrastructure hosting these schools, despite the modernization process they underwent, remain inadequate and far from modern standards.

At the same time, the way the learning process continues to be off mark and well below what we should expect from a quality public education system is a major concern. Probably we will have to wait for more systemic and ambitious reforms by the new Federal Government, including a rise in the educational requirements to be able to teach, a complex and costly process that cannot happen overnight.

Setting higher standards and reviewing the license system in a way that would also cover primary education is also difficult because it would mean solving the conundrum of temporary teachers, many of whom would end up losing their jobs.

We are talking about thousands and thousands of jobs here and a bold reform must start from the foundations of the learning system, when children, many of whom are deprived of the possibility of attending Early Childhood Education, join the primary education cycle. Because it is here where the future trajectories of a child are shaped and it is here where their professional paths start.

It is not preposterous to tie ECD experiences and the learning outcomes stemming from primary education to a child’s chances of succeeding or failing at life. There is a mountain of evidence that shows the correlation between these two, studies that prove that investments in early stages of the learning cycle do considerably pay off after many years.

The nexus is evident: children attending public schools could have a different, better future if they were really engaged in a meaningful learning process, would directly and clearly benefit the whole society because of the contributions these students would be able to give to the country’s economy.

A study, “The Role of Education Quality in Economic Growth” by Eric A. Hanushek and Ludger Wößmann highlights “how educational quality—measured by what people know—has powerful effects on individual earnings, on the distribution of income, and on economic growth”.

The same research clearly states that “just providing added resources to schools is unlikely to be successful; improving the quality of schools will take structural changes in institutions”.

In short, the focus on enrollment has been important and considerable success has been achieved in this area but this is simply not enough. Pursuing changes in the national education system needs to go beyond a sectoral, silos oriented approach.

Let’s not forget that public, community schools remain epicenters of national poverty because only low-income families send their children to these institutions.

Poor families send their children to institutions that are very accessible compared to private institutions (the fact that they are totally free must be demystified because some charges do still take place) but these schools still remain unable to bring transformative changes in the lives of these children.

Classrooms are still crowded and unfit regardless of the presence of smartboards. The quality of teaching remains low or, at very best, questionable. Sports are not practiced nor encouraged in the same ways they are in many private schools. Moreover, there is no mixing and interactions with children from more privileged backgrounds, entrenching historical discrimination and inequities. Poor children interact with poor kids and this is not a problem per se.

Lack of social mobility is the real issue here. These are determinants of a child’s future life trajectory. Of course there are outliers, excellent students from disadvantaged backgrounds attending public schools and are able to outperform many peers from more privileged backgrounds but what about the majority of these kids?

Who is serving us in cafés, who is attending to us in the supermarkets? You can imagine the answer and these are, in many ways, already success stories. What about those kids ending up in the streets or doing extremely precarious and dangerous occupations?

There is no job that does not deserve respect but why do only certain children always end up doing certain jobs? Tackling inequities in the society would bring more economic development and this would be a win-win for kids from vulnerable backgrounds but also for the broader society.

Can the new government try to untangle the inextricable and self-preserving nexus of inequity, low quality education and insecurity and marginalization that so far has been so unbreakable? It is worthy of reviewing UNICEF’s State of the World’s Children 2025, Ending child poverty: Our shared imperative.

Efforts at improving public community schools of Nepal cannot be delinked from an even more daunting mission of dealing with poverty and marginalization.

This report could not be clearer: “For children, poverty undermines their health and development, limits their ability to learn and leads to weaker job prospects, shorter lives and higher rates of depression and anxiety. For societies, poverty undermines future economic prosperity and by depriving communities of hope, it creates conditions in which violence and extremism can thrive”.

While it is certainly positive that the recently announced budget has increased the allocation of the education sector by Rs 7bn compared to the current fiscal year, allocating a total of Rs 218.3bn for the education sector, we need a very focused effort to transform the public education system.

There has also been an emphasis on scholarships and school meals for children from Dalit community and this is very positive. Yet a much bigger vision is required. The state, with the support of the civil society (this cannot be discounted at the moment, considering the crisis that most of the NGOs are facing) must indeed turbocharge the goal of bringing quality education in the local community schools.

Abolishing formal exams in Grade 5 can be the linchpin of a broader reform—one that goes beyond education alone to give underprivileged children a better life. 

Everything must be put under discussion. Are all local governments able to support and fulfil their mandates in the educational sector? How can a new crop of teachers be phased in a way that does not disrupt the system? How can social workers and mentors paid by the state be involved to support the many cases of dysfunctional families that are disrupting so many children’s lives? The stakes cannot be higher.

Children from vulnerable families must have the right to a successful and meaningful life and not end up doing low paid jobs simply because they never had the opportunities to imagine a different future. While it might be expensive to design and implement a welfare centered public education system, there is no doubt that, in the long term, such a system would bring transformational changes in the society, turning Nepal into an equity oriented nation.

Can we imagine, before 2030, Nepal attending a G20 Summit as an invited participant? At present, this proposition may sound preposterous, impractical, even impossible. But allow me some space to explain why it may not be entirely out of reach.

First of all, this question concerns Nepal being invited only as a guest to the G20, a symbolically important platform with considerable convening power. It is a space where leaders from the most influential nations of both the Global South and the Global North converge to discuss some of the most pressing contemporary issues.

It is also a forum where other countries that matter are invited. For instance, leaders from middle powers and still-influential nations such as Spain, the Netherlands, and Singapore regularly attend as guests. At this moment, Nepal does not count for much in the international arena. But if upcoming elections were to herald a new era of genuine good governance anchored in political stability, the story could be very different.

No one can predict Nepal’s post-election political scenario. Yet, with a degree of optimism, we could assume that if national politics were cleaned up and properly fixed under a serious prime minister and a stable governing coalition, the country could acquire the conditions necessary to be taken more seriously.

It is hardly conceivable that even five years of complete political stability would allow Nepal to become a lower-middle-income economy. But if politics deliver at the local, provincial, and federal levels, and if a capable federal government is in place, then a credible trajectory can at least be set.

In the international arena, Nepal could begin to be noticed by punching above its weight with an unassuming confidence rooted in inner strength. If such a scenario were to materialize, the country could gain prominence not only regionally but also globally.

There are several areas where Nepal could showcase expertise and help elevate global conversations starting with the obvious one: climate justice.

Nepal must significantly deepen its engagement with the UNFCCC Secretariat, the guardian of the Paris Agreement. At COP30, the so-called “Mountain Agenda” was formally acknowledged, but a long journey remains before it evolves into a concrete action plan. One of the central goals of national diplomacy should be to pursue this agenda effectively, even with shoestring budgets.

In this context, the Sagarmatha Sambaad should become an annual event, possibly focused primarily on climate change but designed in a way that connects meaningfully with other critical issues such as artificial intelligence, inequality, and business and human rights. These themes are intrinsically linked to climate justice. AI-driven data centers, for instance, are already showing major impacts on local ecosystems and carbon emissions. Climate warming disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, widening existing inequalities. Meanwhile, the business and human rights agenda becomes essential when countries seek to build climate-resilient infrastructure.

This web of interconnected issues could turn the Sagarmatha Sambaad into a recognized regional and international platform for serious debate. The goal should be to reach a point where the government’s efforts to invite respected speakers gradually fade, because diplomats, scientists, and political leaders actively want to come to Nepal, unwilling to miss the opportunity the Sambaad offers.

Kathmandu or Pokhara should also bid to host major dialogues within the UNFCCC framework. As I have written before, this is not organizationally impossible.

Beyond climate, democracy-building remains one of Nepal’s genuine success stories, despite the messiness and corruption of national politics. There is no perfect democracy anywhere, and no democratic society without corruption scandals. Even Nordic countries—often considered ideal—face their own challenges, albeit better managed.

This is precisely why a future federal government should take a bolder stance in promoting democracy and human rights internationally. Nepal could partner with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and other UN agencies to host major events in Kathmandu through a sustained series of initiatives.

Another opportunity lies ahead as the UN and the international community prepare to discuss a post-2030 development agenda, once the current Sustainable Development Goals expire. Nepal could host early convenings and, more importantly, lead intellectually, especially on the localization of the SDGs, an area long neglected despite its potential to place people at the center of development and governance.

In doing so, Nepal could champion democracy, human rights, and localized development in any future global framework.

Such engagement, which embraces global issues from the perspective of a developing nation seeking sustainable prosperity, could significantly alter how global leaders perceive Nepal. Bold ideas matter. Barbados, for instance, reshaped debates on debt sustainability through innovative proposals. Nepal, too, could initiate internal reforms that allow intellectuals, scientists, business leaders, and young people to propose and share ideas more easily.

In essence, the state must find ways to open itself to its own citizens. This would allow Nepal to attend global summits with meaningful propositions, rather than delivering scripted speeches shaped by international agencies.

Consider artificial intelligence. Nepal has never meaningfully participated in global AI summits, likely due to ignorance, lack of foresight, and chronic political instability. Yet an opportunity may soon arise, as India is set to host a major AI Impact Summit in February, which could offer Nepal a chance to engage and network.

Finally, if Nepal aspires to global recognition, it must not neglect the regional arena. Just days ago, SAARC marked its 40th anniversary. The regional organization is in disarray. Yet Nepal should not abandon the pursuit of regional cooperation.

Even if India and Pakistan continue to block progress at the leadership level, Nepal should seek to invent new ways of fostering South Asian collaboration. SAARC is more than just leaders’ summits; it includes technical mechanisms that, if supported—even symbolically—can still make a difference.

Nepal should adopt a pragmatic approach: advance whatever cooperation is possible without requiring top-level political consensus. Simultaneously, it could invest in the creativity of South Asian civil society by convening regional gatherings aimed at reimagining cooperation beyond current geopolitical constraints.

One immediate, symbolic step could be for Prime Minister Sushila Karki to formally visit the SAARC Secretariat, an easy logistical task, yet rich in meaning. As for BIMSTEC, Nepal should continue its engagement, hoping gradual progress will follow.

All these steps point toward one objective: raising Nepal’s international profile through a deliberate, tailored strategy. Such a strategy would move incrementally, setting higher horizons step by step.

Nepal can be ambitious internationally while remaining grounded and humble, demonstrating a new way of conducting diplomacy—quietly, but with determination. If these elements converge into a coherent policy agenda, then it may not be so unimaginable for Nepal to one day receive an invitation, as a guest, to a G20 Summit.

Natural ecosystems play a vital role, even if we often take them for granted. We continue to exploit them without realizing that the consequences will eventually come due. As a highly climate-vulnerable country, Nepal should pay particular attention to its natural habitats. Those who dedicate themselves to protecting and safeguarding these ecosystems deserve deep respect, for their work is often dangerous and their lives can be at risk. Political institutions at all levels—from local governments to the federal state—carry clear responsibilities that cannot be avoided or ignored. The state must do everything in its power to protect natural ecosystems and ensure that no infrastructure project or industrial undertaking is allowed to violate or destroy them.

Procedures enshrined in the constitution and laws must be followed to the letter. At the same time, the state and its elected representatives have a duty to ensure the safety of citizens who stand at the frontlines of the fight against environmental degradation.

This is not what happened on the night of 10 January 2020, when an unsung hero, someone who deeply valued the rule of law and the sacrosanct environmental rights codified in Nepal’s legislation, was brutally murdered.

Dilip Mahato was a young, promising engineering graduate who had just completed his final semester in India. Back home with his family in Dhanusa’s Mithila Municipality, he remained active in environmental work. Without hesitation, he left home in the middle of the night to stop illegal sand extraction from the local Aurahi River.

For his courage, Mahato paid the ultimate price. Not only was he killed, but his family’s entire existence changed for the worse, beginning an odyssey that continues to this day. He tried to stop an illegal activity that, tragically, remains widespread across Madhes and the broader Tarai.

The perpetrators and masterminds behind the assassination were arrested and brought to trial. Yet the process has been marked by several unfortunate twists, and the current status of the case is unclear. No news outlet has recently covered the issue, and this silence is deeply troubling.

At the end of last year, I wrote an opinion piece urging that commemorative actions be taken to honor Mahato and celebrate his life. Among other proposals, I suggested establishing an award in his name for national and local environmental human rights defenders.

This year, I attempted to advance this idea, but I failed. I hoped to collaborate with promising local youths active in environmental work. While our discussions were warm and encouraging, nothing concrete materialized. The September uprising further derailed momentum, and my attempt to build a small “coalition of the willing” gradually lost focus. I regret losing the moment when I could have pushed a bit harder and been bolder, even though the initiative was never meant to be about me; my goal was for locals to lead the process.

As I write this column, the anniversary of Mahato’s death approaches once again. I had nearly given up on doing something meaningful to commemorate him, but the truth is that it is never too late. We still have enough time, even at a modest level, to act. Mahato’s sacrifice deserves a national award in his name. The federal government should take the lead, ideally in partnership with the Madhes provincial government, and work with civil society and the legal community.

Nepal has several prominent lawyers deeply engaged in protecting environmental human rights. Deepak Adhikari, the journalist behind Nepal Check, recently wrote an insightful piece for Mongabay profiling some of these legal trailblazers, including Prakash Mani Sharma Bhusal, whom he described as a pioneer in advancing environmental law in Nepal. Other distinguished lawyers include Dilraj Khanal, who along with Senior Advocate Bhusal successfully fought back a law permitting infrastructure projects in protected areas in 2024. The article also highlighted senior advocate Padam Bahadur Shrestha, who has represented Mahato’s family.

With advocates of this caliber, it is not impossible to imagine a civil-society–led “Dilip Mahato National Award for Environmental Human Rights Defenders.” With imagination and goodwill, such an initiative could even become an internationally recognized distinction honoring defenders from Nepal and the broader Asia-Pacific region. I acknowledge that these proposals may seem ambitious, even grand. But we can always start small, with a simple commemoration to honor Mahato.

Law campuses across the country could host seminars on environmental human rights and the broader field of business and human rights. What matters is doing something—anything—in Mahato’s name. Even a modest action involving his family would mark a meaningful beginning.

As Nepal strives to build a prosperous, sustainable, and equitable economy, it has a chance to lead in promoting environmental human rights. This field of law is neither financially lucrative nor safe; the risks for those who practice it are real. Recognizing Mahato’s sacrifice, and sharing the stories of other unsung heroes who continue to defend their fragile local ecosystems, could become a defining moment in Nepal’s recent history, and a step toward the just, resilient future the country aspires to build.

It is unsurprising that it is getting hard for the members of GenZ to channel a unified, coordinated voice. After all, while I am not, in any way, minimizing or downplaying the role of youths on Sept 8, I am not completely sure that we are dealing with a real movement.

We are talking about something very loose, not even a network but a “dynamic” that, though super powered by social media enabled connectivity, is itself disconnected and divided on many instances. A movement requires organization, a vision, precise and articulated goals and a unifying leadership.

GenZ, at least for now, has no organization but has some vague though important goals. Certainly, there is a common thread bringing all youths together, the dream of a country free of corruption and nepotism, a nation that can tap into its immense potential by offering opportunities to all.

But it appears divided on many key issues like the direct election of the prime minister. It also lacks, at least in the traditional sense, a real leadership. Some personalities have emerged and they have taken a more prominent role but they cannot legitimately proclaim to represent the great diversity of the whole GenZ.

There are several groups representing different interests, each assuming the responsibility of bringing forward certain voices, channeling particular perspectives and views that reflect the complex reality on the ground. In a way, such division mirrors the fragmentation of Nepali society where caste and ethnicity still have a huge role.

But there is an opportunity for a shared leadership that could help turn GenZ into a real movement with a loose structure but clear objectives and common messages. Such a type of leadership would not be centered on charismatic individuals but rather it would reflect a more inclusive and egalitarian approach.

In a way, social media that have been correctly criticized for enabling misinformation and disinformation, spreading chaos and confusion, could play a positive role in ensuring that the less visible voices can be finally heard.

Yet, at the end of the day, GenZ might need something different and more powerful and it is here that deliberative practices could become useful. I imagine a sort of “States General” of the GenZ or a “General Assembly” where the diverse voices can find a common platform.

Let’s call this idea the GenZ Civic Forum. Such a proposition would be based on the best practices stemming from deliberative democracy where, in general terms, citizens come together to listen to each other, reason together and then deliberate.

The GenZ Civic Forum could come alive both in the online sphere but also in person. Both processes would be complementary to each other with the former offering an opportunity to individual youths or groups of them to elaborate proposals in an initial stage.

An online platform, in essence a web site, could be created for this purpose where new ideas and propositions would be uploaded and visible to other users. It would be essential that each proposition would entail a certain level of details and specifics rather than generic and simplistic ideas just being thrown out.

Basically, while the format should not be overly complex, users would be requested to make an effort at elaborating and elucidating their propositions, including by bringing in some comparative examples from other nations. Each proposition, once uploaded, could be assessed and even scored by other users in what could be a scoring system.

To simplify the experience, propositions could be made in different categories. One, at macro level, related to the biggest issues like the nature and shape of political systems, for example about direct or indirect election of the Prime Minister or issues related to the electoral system. Then at a lower level, propositions could be fielded through sub-categories in areas like basic education, science and innovation, health, business and commerce, social protection.

In a second phase, online discussion forums could be organized around the above issues. It would be improbable that consensus would emerge on every single issue but at least, the participants would educate each other by listening to each other. Clear moderation rules should be set in order to ensure that everyone would have an opportunity to share her idea and the principles of inclusion and equalities are fully respected and upheld.

With some creativity and ingenuity, it is very possible to imagine in person gatherings at local levels wherever feasible and possible. There would be common rules that would follow the key cornerstones of deliberative democracy where participants set aside for a moment their held positions and genuinely try to understand others’ views.

Local experts could be called to share their opinions and expertise.

For example, professionals with a health background could share their thoughts about how to improve the public health system and fully regulate private hospitals. Experts from education would share their considerations on ways to strengthen community schools.

Imagine a local GenZ Civic Forum where in one session participants delve on matters related to one particular area while in the next one, they focus on another area. At the end, common propositions would be forged once the participants would spend time to reflect and talk to each other in an open, unbiased and respectful manner.

We could even envision a central level Civic Forum with representatives from the local forums. I do understand that many readers might find these ideas excessively naïve or idealistic but deliberative democracy is a reality and it is being practiced around the world, both in the Global South and Global North.

Is it going to be easy? Is it going to be that simple to run GenZ Civic Forums local and at national level? There will be challenges and difficulties and many details must be sorted out but the bottom line is that a different way of doing politics is not only imaginable, it is also possible.

In the end, even if all the challenges are sorted out, the dream of a deliberative democracy wave powered by GenZ might not happen. The incoming elections are pushing many members of the GenZ to make a choice and take a side, often by deciding to run themselves.

Rather than trying to find a common position, they will be under pressure to differentiate each other and try to emerge from the pack. Having members of the GenZ running for elections is a very good thing but let’s not forget that politics as usual are ineffective and traditional election based democracy is in crisis and not only in Nepal.

It is a pity and a missed opportunity but the good news is that deliberative democracy can co-exist with elections… This means that the GenZ Civic Forum can become a reality even if there will be a big number of GenZ elected in the next parliament.

At the end of the day, politics should not happen only in the chambers of powers but also in the chambers full of unelected citizens. Also because the new crop of MPs will be always in need of a reality check and it will not harm them to stay quiet and listen to the citizen peers, not only once in a while but periodically and in a structured fashion where deliberative democracy will reign. 

Perhaps it was not just outrage against corruption and nepotism but something that goes much deeper to the unequal structure of the system that led to the recent spate of destruction and violence in Nepal. Now youths will have a unique window to shape the future of politics of the country. Will they remain united? Will they be able to offer pragmatic proposals to change the ways politics work?

In trying to make sense of what unfolded in the past few days, I cannot help but think if corruption, nepotism and the greed driving them are the only factors to take into account in order to understand the rage that unfolded in the streets. Certainly, violence that can never be condoned nor justified was driven by a sense of revenge toward all those youths who were murdered on the streets.

While the trigger of the destruction is clear, is it worthy to reflect on the deeper causes that might have unleashed the fury and outrage we witness. Here I am not specifically focusing on the manifest acts of vandalism and looting from which the vast majority of the so-called Generation Z (Gen Z) have correctly dissociated themselves from.

I am rather focusing on the hatred toward politicians that was so intentionally violent and aggressive. It would not be incorrect to define these feelings as hatred. Yet it is one thing to profoundly despise corrupted politicians and their family members but it is a different thing altogether to use violence against them.

This is unacceptable no matter the levels of disgust felt against them. That’s why it is important to reflect if corruption and nepotism are the only elements to take into consideration while trying to comprehend the factors that led to such brutal violence. Is it perhaps that the dirtiness of politics is just the tip of the iceberg rather than the foundational elements that can explain what happened?

By watching online videos and pictures of the incidents that occurred, I feel that many young people involved in them were feeling, for the first time ever, a sense of empowerment. Perennially alienated by an elitarian political system, with their voice suppressed and without any channel through which they could express their grievances and frustrations, youths of this nation felt powerless.

Perhaps a vast majority of them also felt disrespected and completely ignored and systematically discriminated against. The youths of this nation who belong to historically marginalized groups have been shrugging off their frustrations, unable to fully speak up also because their problems and issues were never truly embraced by some of their peers.

Could also a lack of recognition together with a want of more equity and fairness have led to the outrage that suddenly materialized itself through brutal violence? Could it be that the time of reckoning for truly helping build an inclusive and equitable nation has arrived? The country has a unique window of opportunity to really press for change through unity and inclusiveness.

It is a rare occasion to try to build a new country where all the youths, including those from marginalized and historically discriminated communities, have a voice. In order to do so, unity is a must but it is also equally important to harness people’s listening skills. It is almost ironic that in an era of massive use of social media, whose defense was what brought thousands of members of Gen Z to the streets on Sept 8, people stop attempting to understand each other.

And listening carefully is a paramount skill that must be strengthened because while there are many good things in having platforms where everyone can talk and express their opinion, there is also a need to slow down, listen, analyze and reason. But what will happen onward? 

Will the youths of this nation resist the comeback attempts from the political elites? We know that it is impossible to completely sideline the traditional parties, something that would be probably unwise because it is hard to conceive a completely “tabula rasa” from which rebuilding the country, brick by brick, would be possible. But the young generations have at least the power of bargaining with the entrenched political interests and they have a considerable amount of assertive authority at the moment and this for the first time ever in their lives.

Whatever propositions they express, they will count and be taken into consideration. But will they be able to come up with a coherent plan and ideas? This is an incredible opportunity to re-write the playbook of politics, making the whole system more inclusive and just.

Let’s not forget that the violence that we saw in the streets is a symptom of a wider and much more complex condition afflicting the nation. The greed that has turbocharged the corrupted political system that, apparently, has fallen, must be contextualized and understood from the perspective of the oppressed. Only engagement, participation and unity among youths transcending their different backgrounds will offer the most effective tools for real empowerment.

Their political emancipation and freedoms will arise from there.

Starting on 3 Nov 2017, the Université de Montréal, a premier higher education institution in North America and beyond, initiated an ambitious journey that involved hundreds of citizens that came together to discuss Artificial Intelligence.

In partnership with multiple stakeholders including the provincial and local governments and academic think tanks including the prestigious Mila—Quebec AI Institute, the goal of this exercise was ambitious and pioneering at the same time: defining the key ethical principles who should drive the development of AI.

Through multiple sessions covering different topics and themes, around 500 participants started discussing broad ranging ethical principles that should always be at the foundations of any discourse on AI. The whole undertaking was defined as a “collective”, an informal initiative where associations, think tanks, government agencies, academic institutions and citizens come together to discuss and deliberate on one of the most daunting topics of our society.

We are talking of an unprecedented technology with untapped potential that, at the same time, carries enormous risks. The shift towards an AI centered economy, if not properly and adequately managed could trigger tectonic consequences that can be devastating.

Nepal recently approved its first ever AI Policy. This is, without questions, an important milestone for the country but from here, where to go? How to ensure that this new document will be different from other policies that, almost by default, always struggle to get implemented? The new policy envisions also a set of new institutions like an AI Regulation Council and a National AI Center.

A new AI-driven and centered governance is being shaped but will these institutions be effective, meaningful and, importantly, inclusive? Will experts and citizens alike be enabled and allowed to participate beyond the usual tokenistic approaches? Like for climate change, our societies are utterly unprepared for what might happen with an unregulated AI.

As I wrote in this column a few weeks ago advocating for a new set of multi-stakeholder governance that can address the challenges of climate warming, I do believe that an emerging nation like Nepal that aspires to become a lower middle income economy over the next decade, must be prepared. Both challenges, climate and AI, will test the resilience of our systems.

Certainly, more developed and industrialized nations will have to face more daring times, especially in relation to the shocks their economies might suffer from a race to the bottom in which corporations will cut their work-force and rely more on AI agents. In both cases, the resilience of our political systems, especially in democratic settings like the ones Nepal is enjoying, could come under stress.

We are already aware of the risks associated with waves of social media driven waves of misinformation and disinformation. These problems are going to be further magnified by AI. That’s why we need to talk about a Just Transition, an important element of the climate discourse, also for the rollout of AI, ensuring that no one is left behind, including the most vulnerable classes.

Frankly speaking, the concept of leaving no one behind might be way too timid for a future dominated AI. Actually, the risks posed by the AI are more about crashing and rolling over millions of people rather than leaving them behind. In order to be able to tackle a potentially devastating scenario, the Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence based at Stanford University, has come up with a series of important research papers inspired by what the Founding Fathers of the American republic had done with the Federalist Papers.

Entitled the Digitalist Papers, the contributions, written by renown luminaries from across different disciplines, offer insights and suggestions to ensure that AI systems can, as Dario Amodei explained in a powerful essay, “Machines of Loving Grace”, be capable of doing incredible and so far unthinkable things for the benefits of humanity.

Amodei, the CEO and co-founder of Anthropic, is one of those sector leaders who are the most aware of the potential downside of an unrestricted, unethical turbocharging of AI systems. Among these essays that are aimed at rethinking America’s social compact and strengthening its democratic political systems in such a way that it can thrive in an era of AI, Lawrence Lessing, a legal scholar at Harvard Law School, penned “Protected Democracy”.

In an era where democracies are already being tested and are showing deep cracks in the system, Lessing calls for forums where citizens can discuss and deliberate without any undue influence and undeterred by the polarization that already is eroding the trust in democracies. He proposes the establishment of forms of “protected democracy” based on citizens being able to come together, discuss and deliberate based on reasons and facts. “Democratic choice requires participants engaging on the basis of a common understanding of a common set of facts. We already don’t have that; AI will give us even less” he wrote.

“We live now in an unprotected democracy. As we come to our views about what is to be done and who is to be supported, we are exposed to information by a media that has an agenda unrelated to crafting collective, coherent understanding”. Lessing thinks of citizens’ assemblies as forms of “protected assemblies”.

The risks associated with AI can derail the democratic fabric of the United States of America due to its power to further polarize the society by spreading misinformation, disinformation and overall turbocharging orchestrated campaigns of maligned political influence. It will also widen the equality gap because AI systems will be controlled by a miniscule group of powerful interests, a combination of political and economic actors within a few nations.

Lessing concludes,”We, as a people, are thus increasingly vulnerable politically to the effect of AI.” While the Digitalist Papers are focused on America, also developing nations, especially democracies like Nepal, must be prepared. That’s why it is important to start a conversation in a very structured fashion on how AI can shape the future development trajectories that Nepal is striving to achieve.

Deliberative democracy, a topic I often cover in my pieces, can truly make the difference in involving and engaging the people, especially the young ones, in a future where AI will increasingly play a significant role. Slowly the effects of AI systems that potentially might not be completely under human control whose outcomes cannot be understood (the problem of interpretability), will also be felt here in Nepal.

This is not a dystopian scenario but the phase in which AI reaches the level of Artificial General Intelligence, AGI that equals and exceeds human capacities, is not far from now. AGI will be the biggest scientific breakthrough that, as fascinating and as potentially scary as it will be, will represent a steppingstone for a further giant jump, the arrival of an inevitable superintelligence akin to what we watch now in the movies.

Internationally, there have been also discussions to create a Global Citizens Assembly focused on AI. ISWE Foundation, a leader in the promotion of transnational models of citizens’ deliberation, together with Connected by Data, has already conducted some studies. Can also the policy makers of Nepal imagine similar initiatives in which the people are empowered to first understand and second to decide how AI could be developed?

Because of its young generations who thrive in the digital world, Nepal could stop being a slow mover that just simply copycats the best practices. While it would be silly not to learn from the experiences matured by the major developed economies in the field of AI, Nepal must also take the lead. From a late adapter, the country could become a trailblazer at least in terms of showing the world that is doing its homework to lay down a pathway to harness AI for the benefit of its people.

On 4 Dec 2018, after a year of intensive debate, amid the cold of Quebec’s winter, the Montréal Declaration for a Responsible Development of Artificial Intelligence was endorsed. Its ten principles are centered on well-being, respect for autonomy, protection of privacy and intimacy, solidarity, democratic participation, equity, diversity inclusion, prudence, responsibility and lastly sustainable development. The declaration is a blueprint to guide any nation trying to develop a safe and secure AI framework.

It was a truly pioneer document that ensured some basic forms of legitimacy because citizens ‘participation was a key cornerstone to the whole initiative. Interestingly as a collective, the stakeholders involved in facilitating the discussions also conducted other activities including research and educational training on AI and human rights.

How will AI help transform Nepal? Will the country be able to gain from this new technology while minimizing its side effects or will the nation continue to blindly follow others without any homework? For AI to be a WIN WIN in the country, let’s involve and engage its citizens. The AI policy that the federal government just approved is important but the way it will be executed will be even more crucial.

The 70th anniversary of the establishment of bilateral relationships between Nepal and China is an important milestone for both nations but it is obvious to say that Nepal has been benefitting the most from this relationship.

Over the years, Nepal proved to be a reliable and trusted partner for Beijing and it is worthy to observe that Kathmandu was able to forge a strong relationship with China without putting its own strategic interests in jeopardy. Co-habiting a space hemmed between India and China, while it can bring multiple advantages, can also be a tricky endeavor.

Balancing off different interests and trade-offs between New Delhi and Beijing requires high skills in navigating foreign diplomacy without forgetting in the equation, the role of the United States that, with the exception of the incumbent administration in Washington, has also been a strong and important partner for Kathmandu.

Thanks also to the presence of different communist parties in the country, Beijing has been able to assert its influence and it is remarkable how swiftly China has been capable of boosting not only its development assistance but also its soft power in Nepal.

I often read mesmerizing reports from reporters invited to China to observe firsthand and then report and explain back home the huge improvements in the lives of Chinese citizens over the last 30 years, enhancements that have been accompanied by a turbo state-led capitalism that supported China’s rise. I have a huge admiration for China’s history and ancient civilization while as someone who grew up in the West, I have also a critical view of certain policies and positions taken by Beijing.

I never expected China to turn itself into a democracy but at the same time, I do not have an uncritical view of some of its approaches related to human rights and freedom of expression. Yet I always had a strong desire to try to understand the nuances of certain policies because in politics as well as in governance, we cannot simplify everything through “white and black” lenses and this is particularly true for a complex country like China.

Because understanding the ways the Chinese Communist Party works and the multilayered governance structure of its political and administrative systems are complex endeavors that require a lot of expertise.

In short, observing and trying to make sense of what is happening in China is indeed a fascinating thing and I do believe that the West should make a much bigger effort at grasping the nuances of China’s political system.

Nepal, despite its links with India, has managed, quite successfully, at building important bridges with China. At the same time, even in relation to the Road and Belt Initiative, Beijing’s flagship global program, Nepal has been able to push back with due respect and smartness. At the same time, the civil society of Nepal has been able to forge stronger relationships with peers in China and slowly a stronger knowledge of the country is emerging and this is a good thing.

Yet, I do feel that members of the press corps and activists should also develop a more holistic understanding of China. I never believed that a paradise on Earth exists, a nation capable of embodying perfection in all its spheres of life where no problems exist. This not only applies to China but also Europe, Australia or the United States of America or any other nation.

As a European, I can be proud of our democratic credentials and freedom of speech I can enjoy back home. I can also certainly assert that the EU has also been struggling with double standards and I wish the Europeans could always walk the talk in matters of upholding human rights domestically but also in their foreign policies. So, I do not take it easily to criticize the second biggest power on Earth, especially when China has been doing a lot for the nation that has been hosting me for many years.

Yet, as Nepal’s consciousness of India has matured over the years because the citizens of the former know very well the mindset, culture, politics and foreign policies of the latter, I do believe that slowly a more “complete” view of China will emerge.

From Beijing’s perspective, this inevitable evolution of views is not necessarily a negative thing because real partnerships require the space also to vent some criticisms or simply different perspectives. As China might sometimes vent its frustrations toward Kathmandu, it is normal that Nepal can be in a position to question certain policies and positions taken by Beijing, not out of disrespect, but simply out of sincere and trustworthy commitment to make the bilateral relationship stronger. This would happen because the rapport between the two will be enhanced when the interests of the smaller partner are better addressed and the latter becomes more assertive.

Nepal learned how to navigate its relationships with its south neighbor, developing a sense of self-confidence in also pushing back whenever needed. At the end of the day, such a level of candid approach might annoy New Delhi but at the end of the day, India knows that the relationships are stronger when both parties feel comfortable at expressing each other even if the positions are different.

Eventually, the same would happen with the northern neighbor. This would represent a new level of relationships between China and Nepal that, rather than being one-sided, are more mutually beneficial because they are more balanced.

Finally, I want to take an appreciative view of what China has been doing for Nepal. With the exception of the Ring Road work that I believe has been poorly designed (see the number of lethal accidents that have occurred so far since the revamped partial motorway has opened from Koteshwar to Kalanki), China has been playing a huge and very generous role in supporting Nepal.

I recently read of plans that China will build a bone marrow transplantation facility at the BP Koirala Memorial Cancer Hospital in Bharatpur, Chitwan.

There are also discussions on important expansions at Civil Service Hospital in Kathmandu, a hospital entirely built by China that, since its start of operations, has already seen important upgrades. These are key infrastructure projects for Nepal, very tangible initiatives at direct benefit of local peoples. At the same time as Nepal is proceeding to graduate from the category of least developed nations, would it not also be essential for Kathmandu to start doing something to help China? I do understand that this might look like a ridiculous proposition but instead I do believe that Nepal is about to reach the point where it can also show gratitude to its northern neighbor.

As Kathmandu tries to learn more about the almost unimaginable improvements in the lives of Chinese people and how Beijing has been prioritizing the right to development, Nepal can also show its templates and success stories. For example, how the nation halved its poverty and levels of social exclusions and how its political system, despite its own issues like instability and corruption, proved to be indispensable for such progress. Nepal could also do much more in promoting its culture and way of dealing with internal problems and differences and why not establish an exchange program where hundreds of Chinese students come here to learn about the country?

If millions of Chinese students have flocked to the USA, why not have some of them also learn Nepal’s way to development and prosperity? Frankly speaking, the university system in Nepal, while having its own share of challenges, also counts with some best practices. Higher education is just one area where Nepal could do something to reciprocate China’s generosity.  Without a doubt, there are many other areas where Nepal can do its bits to show that it is not taking China’s generosity for granted.

On July 23, the International Court of Justice issued a groundbreaking Advisory Opinion clarifying that states have an obligation to tackle climate warming. The ruling, while not binding, also affirmed, in an unequivocal way, the duties and responsibilities of nations who have been historically responsible for the emission of carbon fossils. The AO is certainly charting a new phase both in the field of climate negotiation and in the realm of climate litigation, with the latter set to expand and scale in ways that are difficult to imagine.

At the same time, it might be useful to reflect about the trajectory, the pathway that led to the Hague where the ICJ is located. We should not forget that it all started with a group of law students at the University of South Pacific in Suva, Fiji. They were the ones, emboldened with sheer confidence and ambition, who had started working on the rationale, the legal case for which the ICJ should step in. It was because of their irreverence and perhaps recklessness that we have reached this turning point in the fight to uphold the Paris Agreement. Their stories have been celebrated worldwide and rightly so and by now, there have been many articles, videos about them.

However, let us not forget that, it is also worth remembering another part of the story. It was because of the Government of Vanuatu that the case for an AO could be brought to the General Assembly of the United Nations, an indispensable step to reach the ICJ. A small island nation of approximately 320.000 people was able to gather the required support from other member-states and convince them of the urgency of approaching the ICJ. It was a long and complex journey that started in 2019.

When I first heard this story, I could not stop thinking about the following question: if the students that had dared to start this process were from Nepal, a nation much bigger and powerful than Vanuatu, would they have received the same level of support from their own government? Well, this is an inescapable question.

While it is true that the federal government in Kathmandu embraced the case during the hearings at the Hague, I have been wondering if Nepal would have been able to garner the 105 co-sponsor nations at the General Assembly without whom the resolution would have never passed. Perhaps the key question is not really about the diplomatic capacities of Nepal at the UN. Probably it would not have been unimaginable for Kathmandu to bring together enough co-sponsors like Vanuatu did, ensuring that the resolution paving the way for ICJ’s intervention would pass through consensus at the General Assembly.

The real question to ask ourselves is another one: would, at first, the government have listened and backed a group of its own law students? This is a fundamental aspect to discuss. It is also important to remember that Nepali youths were also very active in supporting the cause globally. Some of them have been taking the lead at national and regional level through the World’s Youth For Climate Justice, the global movement that was initially spearheaded by the students at the University of South Pacific.

The same group of youths played an important leadership role in ensuring that the Government of Nepal could have a strong representation when the country defended the need for an AO during the official hearings at the ICJ in December last year. It is probably safe to say that without their involvement, Arzu Rana Deuba, the Foreign Minister of Nepal, would not have given a strong and convincing statement at the Hague.

Therefore, it is appropriate now to think about the future months when the AO’s principles will start reverberating in the international community and yes in the court of justice around the world. While it is impossible to summarize here through a few lines some of the legal principles and substantive statements from the ICJ, it is worthy to remember that the justices also expressed their opinion on the states’ responsibilities to prepare the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). These are the commitments that all the parties to the Paris Agreement have pledged to implement in order to reduce (in jargon, “mitigate”) their carbon emissions.

According to the AO, the preparation and implementation of NDCs are not entirely discretionary for the governments. In practice, it means that these documents must be ambitious and each respective country must have concrete plans to effectively implement them so that they can scale back their emissions. Only in this way, the entire international community can collectively be able to limit global warming to 1.5°C as per the Paris Agreement.

Even more far bridging is the fact that parties to the Paris Agreement not drafting or not doing enough to implement the NDCs, can be found in breach of international law and their action or omission can be considered an internationally wrongful act. This is a very important aspect of the AO that perhaps has not received adequate attention as most of the commentary has been on the duties and responsibilities of industrialized nations’ responsible for anthropogenically-induced climate change.

For developing and emerging nations, the part of the AO on the NDCs requires utmost attention. Preparing an ambitious NDC is a complex task and Nepal has been showing leadership when it recently finalized its latest version, the third overall since the approval of the Paris Agreement. It also means that the country needs to introspect and reflect on the tools and policies at disposal to ensure that it can do whatever it can to implement the NDC. While many of its components will depend on foreign assistance on the part of the polluting industrialized nations, a lot of its implementation will rely on effective and transparent governance at both national and local levels.

And here another question: does Nepal have in place effective mechanisms to ensure that those parts of the NDCs under its direct control, the ones implementable without any form of foreign aid including funding for loss and damage or even possible future compensation, can be achieved? Even in the case of Nepal being able to receive the much-needed climate finance from outside, will the country be able to use these resources effectively and transparently? That’s why it is appropriate for the nation to brainstorm on the most effective tools and mechanisms to ensure that Nepal does whatever is possible to implement the NDCs parts where it has a direct control on the outcomes.

One way to start rethinking the national climate governance is to have solid mechanisms to engage members of the civil society. We could imagine a National Climate and Biodiversity Council consisting of members of civil society, including representatives of academia. It is important to also include the area of biodiversity because, as we know, we are talking about two sides of the same coin even if then, at the international level, nations have the burdensome duty of dealing with two completely different negotiation mechanisms.

Half of the seats available in the Council should be assigned to local youths who would represent the whole diversity of the nation, therefore also ensuring the participation of youths from historically marginalized communities that, so far, have been less involved and engaged on climate work. The Council should not be just a sounding board for the government but a platform that can, on one hand, propose ideas and solutions, while, on the other, keep a check on the government’s implementation of the NDC.

The central level body at the federal level could work in partnership with similar mechanisms at provincial levels with some sort of loose and light coordination between the two levels. Memberships could come through consensus and ensure that certain criteria are met in order for someone to be able to claim a seat. I am talking about a voluntary role that, if obtained, will only be for a limited amount of time, perhaps one year or maximum two years with the possibility to renew it for another year.

Another option would be to have a body that is exclusively composed of youths, a Youth Climate and Biodiversity Council but I am afraid such an approach would only invite tokenistic results and its work might not be taken seriously. Remembering how the international community got this trailblazing AO is paramount. A small group of law students were able to initiate a global movement and, with the right support, they made history. Then, why not entrust more policymaking responsibilities, including some forms of decision making to them in implementing the Paris Agreement at the national level? After all, who can better ensure that AO will be literally upheld and put into practice?