Submit your Article

‘A country is dead if it is full of anarchy’.

The quote above is not a self-invented nugget of wisdom. It is the reply from Yudhishthir to one of the many questions from a Yakshya, a semi-divine protector of a pond brimming with water located in the middle of a forest. 

Close by the pond, Yudhishthir finds four of his younger brothers (Bhim, Arjun, Nakul and Sahadev), out in the woods turn by turn as per his instructions to quench their thirst, lying unconscious. Apparently, better senses prevail over Yudhishthir. He somehow suppresses an acute thirst and is patient enough to answer Yakshya’s questions, a far better alternative than facing the archer’s wrath like his brothers, who, it turns out later, tried to head straight into the pond to sate themselves instead of heeding the protector’s warning and bothering to answer his questions. 

Yakshya fires many no-nonsense questions at Yudhishthir and the latter answers them all very wisely. 

The quote in the beginning of this piece is part of Yudhishthir’s answer to one of the questions about death. The full reply from Yudhishthir, considered a manifestation of Yamaraj, the god of death, goes: A person facing extreme poverty might be considered dead; a country is dead if it is full of anarchy.

The Q & A session, detailed in the Mahabharat, has a happy ending. Pleased with Yudhishthir’s wisdom, the Yakshya ultimately brings the fallen Pandavs to life and they all get to quench their thirst to their hearts’ content. 

The Yudhishthir-Yakshya Q & A session is long over, but it is quite relevant even in the federal secular democratic republic of Nepal of this day and age. 

At present, Nepal seems to be in the midst of an ever-lasting turmoil. Kathmandu (its nerve centers like Maitighar Mandala the vicinity in particular, which lie quite close to the seats of the three organs of the state) has been the hotbed of protests of all sorts. Recent days have seen protests demanding amended citizenship provisions, justice for loan-shark victims, teachers’ protests against the government’s indifference toward their demands and a days-long stand to make Kathmandu Metropolitan City fulfill the demands of street vendors.   

Even as a myriad groups continue to show their respective strengths on the streets and bring the Nepali state to its knees, the latter appears too helpless to deal with multiple crises gripping the country. The economy is not in the pink of health. The rule of law has become a chimera. There is a growing feeling in the society that influential people can get away with grave crimes in this country.

The transitional justice process is not making much headway. People are losing faith over the government’s ability to curb corruption by bringing high-profile corruption cases to their logical conclusion. 

Anarchy reigns supreme and the country is on sickbed. The onus is on the government to bring the country back to health before it’s too late.    

There is a saying that in an autocracy, one person has his way; in an aristocracy, a few people have their way; in a democracy, no one has his way. Now, the question is, would you prefer a self-intuitive leader or an unprejudiced one, who welcomes multiple thoughts in decision-making?

I recently came across an interview with a well-known municipality representative of Nepal. He proudly said being a leader with precise visions, he does not need to take advice from others. This reality-based short story depicts and sums up our political condition in which leaders/power-holders generalize their interests as a group or community’s interest guided by their self-intuitive knowledge. I wonder why our political parties and leaders are evolving into cult leaders. Why are they so reluctant to listen to others to identify the real policy problems by diving into some basic questions like what is the context, who are the key actors and other stakeholders, what is the policy problem, what are the relevant variables and outcome criteria?

Policy problems have multiple realities. It is a universal truth that reality is multifaceted, and actors entertain different ways to understand the issues and employ several criteria to work out solutions. In the political arena, there are many situations that we cannot measure, classify, and understand thoroughly. A positivistic interpretation cannot unveil many dimensions of policy problems as people reflect their limited knowledge, time, and memory. It is crystal clear that this sort of practice to analyze a problem will ultimately lead to a conflict in society. Thus, policymakers should adopt a dynamic approach to deal with a web of underlying realities of problems.

The next most fundamental thing is that policy issues are value-laden. Social values and policy problems co-exist in parallel. Values include justice, freedom, respect, community, and responsibility. Something can be two or more different things at once when problems appear along with social issues. To say it precisely, diverse groups may not hold the same thoughts on the same political phenomena as they judge it based on their principles, beliefs, status and many other elements. The Gurung community might hold different views from the Newar community on the same subject matter. Thus, policy-makers should be ultra-conscious about not destroying social harmony and contracts.

In the policy universe, problems intertwine with each other. It means a problem may have more than one variable. Policy problems arise from sociological, psychological and economic systems. For instance, multiple causes may be behind youth unemployment. To find diverse causes of the problem, public officials have to go through research and analysis before making decisions. Understanding the dynamics of the issues helps design effective policies and prevent unintended consequences This is one of the fundamental ways to ensure the rationality of decisions with adequate evidence.

Decision-makers should accept that their knowledge is limited. In his decision theory called Bounded Rationality, Herbert Simon talks about how our knowledge is partially rational. Human beings attempt to satisfy their personal interests, rather than optimize solutions. We often tend to analyze each subject in terms of our individual interests. He further believes humans cultivate logic and reason based on prior knowledge and experience, which ultimately leads to a false sense of rationality because we do not have all the information available. Deborah Stone, a renowned scholar, identifies that poor decisions of those in political power are the main reason for unfairness and unrest rather than culture, geography, climate, or any other factor. Hence, policymakers should be open to suggestions and criticisms for a healthy democratic practice.

The involvement of diverse groups/peoples helps to strengthen democratic practices in decision-making. James Buchanan, a Nobel laureate, assumes that individual political actors are guided by their self-interest in choosing the course of action to their best advantage. Circumvention of this practice is essential in developing nations to foster good governance. There is an old Sanskrit proverb that it is only through the articulation of diverse opinions that truth will finally emerge. It shows how important communication is among diverse groups to keep petty interests of power holders in check. Frank Fisher has introduced the ‘Argumentative Turn’ technique to exchange ideas among decision-makers. This technique allows ample opportunities for constructive debate, discourse, and conversation promoting communication among diverse thoughts in policy analysis. The main idea is that reason/logic does not evolve in individualism but in collectivism. This methodology being humanistic, subjective, and non-deterministic would help promote healthy discourse on political controversies.  

Policymakers have to formulate policies in various situations. They should comply with the democratic spirit to ensure good governance in underdeveloped nations. There are a few things that policymakers should be aware of before making policies. The most fundamental thing is that policy problems have multiple realities with values. They should know the dynamic nature of problems. To overcome such political dilemmas, they must be mindful of their limited knowledge and allow adequate room for people in policymaking.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a Chinese project introduced in 2013, has generated interest and concerns around the world. Through a network of highways, railroads, ports and other infrastructure, it seeks to link Asia, Africa, and Europe. One of the 149 nations that have ratified BRI is Nepal. Between China and India, Nepal has experienced its fair share of BRI-related advancements. This article investigates the contention that Nepal will fall into a debt trap as a result of BRI and analyzes the economic, geopolitical and developmental ramifications.

Understanding BRI: The BRI is a massive international infrastructure initiative that aims to link nations through a network of ports, highways, trains and other crucial infrastructure. It aspires to improve connectivity, trade and investment between participating countries. However, worries have been mounting in recipient nations over a possible debt burden resulting from these initiatives. In the case of Nepal, BRI’s effects are wide-ranging and intricate. Before signing any agreement related to BRI, Nepal must thoroughly weigh its advantages and hazards. 

The debt debate: According to critics, BRI projects, most of which come with Chinese loans attached, could result in a debt trap where recipient nations struggle to pay off their debts, which reduces their ability to make strategic decisions. Nepal may encounter this problem, given its constrained fiscal capability. Also, proponents highlight the possibilities for infrastructure development, economic growth and job creation that BRI projects may offer to Nepal.

There is a chance that Nepal may gain a lot from BRI. It might help in enhancing the nation's connectedness, boosting its economy and generating jobs. However, there are worries that Nepal could fall into a debt trap because of BRI as China is presumably ‘giving unfavorable loans to developing nations to seize their assets’. This claim has been made in relation to BRI and other Chinese investment initiatives in underdeveloped nations. The debt trap argument is supported by some evidence. For instance, several nations, which borrowed money from China, have had difficulty paying back their loans and have been compelled to cede control of critical resources like ports. To be clear, not all Chinese loans are predatory, and the debt trap argument is frequently exaggerated.

BRI engagements: Nepal has expressed interest in BRI and sees it as a chance to address its lack of infrastructure. The BRI’s proposed cross-border road, hydropower, and railway projects have the potential to improve Nepal’s connectivity and energy security. The financial viability, environmental effect, and transparency of these initiatives continue to be a source of concern.

Risk factors

Debt sustainability: China’s loans account for a sizable amount of Nepal’s external debt, raising concerns about the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio. Implementing projects successfully and achieving strong economic growth are essential for repaying these debts on time and avoiding a debt catastrophe. 

Geopolitical implications: Given its ties to both China and India, Nepal’s participation in BRI has geopolitical implications. Maintaining a balance between these two powerful neighbors is essential for the stability of Nepal. 

Project viability: The long-term profitability, potential for revenue generation and adherence to environmental and social criteria all play a role in how economically viable BRI projects are in Nepal.

Mitigation techniques: Nepal might use a number of techniques to avoid falling into a debt trap and profit from the BRI. 

Transparent project evaluation: Thorough cost-benefit evaluations and open tendering procedures can be used to find projects that are both fiscally and developmentally feasible for Nepal. 

Diversified partnerships: Including a variety of parties like global financial institutions helps lessen reliance on a single lender and advance monetary stability. Put an emphasis on local benefits: Projects that promote local employment, technology transfer and skill development should be given first priority to maximize the beneficial effects on Nepal’s economy.

There are opportunities and hazards involved in the complex discussion of whether BRI will trap Nepal in a cycle of debt. To maximize the advantages and reduce potential risks of BRI, Nepal’s rigorous evaluation of project viability, transparency decision-making, and proactive interaction with different partners will be essential. Nepal’s response to BRI projects will influence its economic and geopolitical trajectory for years to come as the initiative develops.

The world is under two major threats now—“tech threat” that is challenging sovereignty of nations and impinging on personal sovereign dignity of individuals, and “Religious Radicalism” that could foment civilizational clashes and lead to ethnic cleansing.

A tech battle between China and the US, along with disinformation from big tech and social media have been challenging tech and democratic order. The US, India and the UK—the oldest democracy, largest democracy and the champion of parliamentary democracy—are going to polls in 2024 amid risk of disinformation or influence of AI and ethnic nationalism.

Civilizational clashes fueled by ethnic nationalism in different countries reflect domination of religion over religion, culture over culture, human over human and civilization over civilization. This can challenge social-civilizational or democratic order.

“Hate crimes” embedded in religious beliefs can have spillover effects and cause ethnic war, causing huge losses to civilization, if not handled with utmost rationality. 

The author is a geopolitical analyst