Submit your Article

Before discussing the issues around fairness, let me tease out its meaning. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as ‘impartial and just treatment or behaviour without favouritism or discrimination’. The definition seems straightforward, which is about not being impartial in treating others. If ‘fairness’ is searched on Google, it will provide more than 315m hits in less than a second. The websites include meaning, definition, examples, blogs and companies that work for fairness. Additionally, the Cambridge Dictionary categorizes ‘fairness’ as a Band-5 English word. That means ‘fairness’ is repeated 1-10 times in every one million words used. What that means is—there is no shortage of knowledge about fairness.

Despite being a common word, the understanding of fairness is diverse and differs from person to person, time to time and community to community. Let me give three examples and show a diverse understanding of fairness. In 1974, we had a puja (a religious event) in our house. Upon completing the puja, my father gave tika and money to some, just tika to some and nothing to the rest. My brothers and I got the tika but not the money. All my sisters got both tika and money.

I witnessed the second case in 1992. In a family, both husband and wife used to work for a commercial bank. They used to share the transport while going to the office and coming home. Other than during office hours, the husband used to read newspapers, watch TV, call friends and relatives, meet people and attend club meetings. The wife did have a different schedule that included cooking food, cleaning the house, washing clothes, shopping for groceries and preparing their children for school. I thought it was unfair to the wife. One day, I approached her and asked how she felt about the work she was doing at home. Interestingly, she never thought about the unfairness in daily life. She said, “I treat my husband as god. How can I ask him to do the dishes? This is my duty and little service to him.”

The third case links to a community school I saw in 1996. I visited a primary school in Palpa district, where I spent a day with a teacher and students. The primary school had three classes (Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3). Due to the low number of students, one teacher had to teach all students. While passing through the school, I saw wide age-ranging students sitting in one classroom. I learned that the youngest in the class was five years old, and the eldest was 13. Was it fair for students to study in the same class despite the expectations of developing skills and knowledge of different levels? Didn't those students deserve a better education?

The analysis of the above three examples provides multiple facets of fairness. The first one demonstrates the diverse understanding of fairness between father and son. Even though the difference seemed individual, deep-rooted culture and rituals played a vital role. The puja incident hurt me badly. It was unfair treatment to me and my brothers. Why couldn’t we get money? Even though I did not know the actual value of money, I knew its importance in getting sweets. I cried for money, which I believe was the cry for fair treatment. My requests were not heard, my tears ignored, and my questions overlooked. I was discriminated against sisters. The second case is an example of ignorance of fairness. Since the actions are accepted as a duty or the best act of a human being, fairness-related issues are not realized and raised. The third case is very broad in the sense of fairness. Many people may not even realize how people were treated differently.

Given the complexity of the understanding, the meaning of fairness is relatively straightforward for those who often miss the criticality in evaluating their thoughts and ideas when making decisions and distributing resources. Only those people who realize unfair treatment may better understand the importance of fairness. From a fairness perspective, people could be divided into three broad categories—some always get the benefits and feel it is deserved, some are always treated unfairly and believe that is what they have earned, and the rest do not understand the difference or do not care about fairness. Even though fairness lies in every action and decision, deep-rooted thoughts and ignorance cover unfair incidents. As a result, people do not pay much attention to fairness.

My sticking point regarding fairness was the unfair treatment in puja. The incident was one of thousands happening in the village every day. Even after three decades, I do not think these examples have become uncommon and outdated. If you have not gone through any of the unfair situations, you might be a privileged person. That means your position may have blocked the vision for differentiating fairness from unfairness.

The issues can be viewed from three broad perspectives–moral, social and legal. I took a moral view and expected equal treatment from my father. I expected my father to be impartial while making decisions and distributing resources. But my father took a social approach while treating me and my sisters differently. The government took a legal perspective in making the decisions for teacher allocations, maintaining the student-teacher ratio in the country. From the students’ point of view, their birth was random to the place, which should not have been penalized by deputing fewer teachers.

Fairness becomes more complex when happiness and profit are involved. For example, during an ultralight flight over Pokhara about a year ago, I marveled at the breathtaking views of land, rivers, lakes and vibrant communities–Pokhara is a canvas made of nature and hands! That is what I felt on landing. While I enjoyed the experience, the company earned profit. In return, the local residents had to cope with noise and polluted air. Is it fair for them?

Whilst considering everyday actions and decisions, can anyone be fair in all situations? Perhaps the obvious answer is no. What will happen if society lacks fairness? How far can a society go with favoured decisions and partial resource allocations? If these questions point toward a dark future, this is the time to think and act for a fairer and wiser society.

The author is the subject lead for Business Management (UG) at De Montfort University, Leicester and holds a PhD in the performance of small and medium enterprises

For sometime now, a burgeoning cum ballooning verbal battle between the Mayor of Kathmandu, Balendra Shah alias Balen and the CPN-UML party and its supremo, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, has become ghastly aggressive and personally pinpointing as well. After being elected the mayor of Kathmandu, Balen himself humbly visited Oli at Balkot. Maybe that visit was a rightful reflection of respect and earnest veneration to Ba. Handing the tabla, a musical instrument, on behalf of the host to the guest on that day spoke volumes about heaping harmony. But that relation has been ruined almost irrevocably. Ba and Balen are determinedly mired to fire words at each other’s slaughter these days. 

UML MP Rekha Sharma’s case, indication of monetary embezzlement in purported Giribandhu Estate, acrimonious comments on the commencement of new political equation, reprimand in the case of garbage being thrown at the door of the road department, management of slum dwellers, basement parking at Dharahara and many other issues are building the battle on. A few weeks ago, the supporters of both sides campaigned in un-following each other on social media. Of late, Balen’s bold move to penalize UML party committee on the charge of spoiling city sanitation in the pretext of organizing a protest assembly has taken the feud to new heights. These situations have posed many questions for most observant onlookers. In the past, some other unusual and non-ordinary situations had also bewildered this contributor.

Perplexing bewilderment  

Once in the vicinity of Thamel, a taxi was crushed when it hit a person who was walking on the road. This was only a heard incident but not a verified one. But a question arose: was the man strong or the taxi weak? An RCC bridge built over the Dudhkoshi river was destroyed by a breeze, a few years ago (So read the news!). Then another question arose: was the wind strong or the bridge weak? Last year, at a party, a man with a glass of Coca-Cola was seen hypnotizing and commandingly controlling in talking to another man who was drinking whiskey. Another question followed, naturally: was Coca-Cola strong and whiskey weak? After Narendra Modi was elected as the Prime Minister of India for the first time with a comfortable majority, this author himself raised this question at an international conference: did Modi win or did Rahul Gandhi lose?

Now, a similar question has arisen: has Balen become stronger or UML is becoming weaker? Why should an established party, its president and the prime minister of a country wage a verbal war against an independent person or a mayor? Why should he be afraid? Growing immersed in civil service rather than engaging in imbroglios and verbal contretemps on social sites only earnestly indicates political maturity, although social media is an incontrovertibly important tool in current politicking.

After Barack Obama was elected president for the first inning, he thanked the man who invented smartphones through the phone itself because the phone or the social network operated through the very device contributed significantly to his victory. Today’s time is assumed to be the time of 'government in pocket'. Everyone has a tool in their pocket that can update about the government and has the power even to change the government. A book titled ‘Like War: Weaponization of Social Media’ concludes that social networks are the active and prominent political weapons and forts now. The role of social media has been seen to be increasingly important in the leadership formation and Balen’s remarkable rise is a proof of this. A few references may be helpful in juxtaposing the battle of speech between the UML and Balen.

Helpful references

In the last election, the number of seats the UML won in the House of Representatives (HoR) came down a bit compared to the previous election. The number of membership renewals at Mission Grassroots disappointingly and dismally served the campaign. In the election of 2022 compared to 2017, the popular vote also graphed down by more than five lakh. Not a single candidate bagged victory in the first by-election of the HoR. Performance graph charts mere modicum of success in recent local-level by-election. Balen defeated UML’s candidate in the metropolitan election in Kathmandu with a wide margin. Balen brought the UML’s hotspot into heavy havoc and almost an apparent dismissal. 

Balen has around 2.1m followers and Oli has around half a million followers on social media. Has the head of the government and the UML become so weak as to be shivered and quivered with a mayor? Why is the UML, which fought against the aristocratic system, despotic power and authoritarian feudalism in the past, confronting an individual, mere a mayor of a metropolis? Is it not that the UML is becoming pro-regressive in the name of confronting Balen? Isn't the war of words with Balen becoming woeful for Oli?

Leaders who boastfully promised to transform Nepal and make it like Singapore or Switzerland have evidently made it one of the poorest countries in South Asia. A political party should be worried about this and channelize its energies to improve the situation. 

But why does a local level and its chief seem of being as cardinal count and as an arch nemesis? Has Balen, an individual, become equally strong to UML or a national party, the government leading power of the country, equal to the head of the government? Or has the UML debilitated to the level of one person, one local level? Time demands a merciless review and engagingly anchored analysis.

If UML has not made any mistake, has no shortcomings and has nothing to do with some of the allegations coming from Balen, then it ought to focus on main issues of the country. If the entire party has to be shaken and upset because of Balen, when will the UML find time to deal with burning issue facing the country? The uncommon situation of the PM against a mayor and entire party against just an individual has created a solid mountain of immense doubt. Is it that the UML has its confidence crashed? Does it have a moral deficit, has it lost self-esteem or juggernaut fear has arisen in its folds as citizens have started to trust others?

This contributor is never in the favor of either Balen or Oli or any party, he does not want disagreement and disharmony between them to swell ahead. He is aware that mutual arrogance and pride can cause another conflict in the country. Both Balen and Ba should not be word warriors against each other; they ought to be dedicated and devoted in the service of the citizens within their jurisdictions.

The Asia-Pacific region has been grappling with a troubling trend of democratic backsliding. However, strengthening political participation among youths in the region can serve as a bulwark against the erosion of democratic norms.

This message was echoed by youth leaders who joined the Asia Center-led regional dialogue “Youth Voices, Strong Choices: Political Participation in the Asia-Pacific,” co-convened with the Global Democracy Coalition and Club de Madrid on 26 November 2024.

Apart from youth leaders, the event also brought together representatives from IGOs, INGOs and CSOs based in Thailand. With a total of 41 representatives, the event offered an opportunity for all present to share their views, present their activities and engage with youth beneficiaries.

Voicing their concerns, youth from Nepal, India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Malaysia expressed their frustration at being excluded from political participation. They felt that if this concern can be addressed, youth can effectively contribute toward halting the democratic backsliding in Asia.

Among the challenges, they pointed out, was the lack of effort to remove barriers that hinder their participation within political parties. This includes the absence of youth engagement from rural communities and economically-disadvantaged groups who remain visibly disengaged from urban political party activities. The noticeable lack of representation from the working-class and marginalized communities has exposed the structural economic and political lack-of-resources barriers hindering youth participation within political parties in the Asia-Pacific region.

Even when youths hold decision-making roles, such as in parliament, young parliamentarians often face challenges in gaining influence within their parties and are kept from leadership roles. As a result, their potential to drive significant reforms or shape policies is frequently stifled, limiting their ability to advocate for the issues that matter most to youth and marginalised communities.

They also often lack the necessary resources and institutional support to build their capacity and sustain meaningful engagement in political settings. This lack of support manifests in various ways, including limited access to mentorship, insufficient opportunities for professional development and a scarcity of funding or logistical resources to carry out their initiatives.

Without these, young people often find it difficult to navigate the complexities of political systems, build strategic alliances or effectively champion their causes. The absence of such support further reinforces the barriers to youth involvement in politics, leaving young parliamentarians isolated and vulnerable to political marginalization.

To overcome these challenges, the youth gathered presented some ideas on how to build a culture of political engagement among the young people in the region.

First, promoting education and awareness programs that emphasise the importance of youth participation in democratic processes, human rights issues affecting them and their communities, and the value of civic responsibility is essential. Initiatives such as the Experiential Citizenship Education Programs for Schools, and Life Skills Development by CMCA (Children’s Movement for Civic Awareness) in India provide an opportunity for young adolescents and youths to engage in democratic processes at the grassroots level.

Second, establishing quality leadership and mentorship development programs helps equip young people with the skills and confidence necessary to engage in democratic processes and constructive advocacy within their societies. Toward this end, initiatives like the Women and Youth in Democracy Initiative (WYDE) Network of Young Decision-makers in Malaysia offer a platform for young leaders to build their capacity.

Third, creating or strengthening youth participation platforms such as youth councils, youth parliaments, and youth advisory boards, is crucial to ensure young people have a voice in democratic governance and decision-making. The Children’s Assembly in South Korea, for example, serves as a strong model of youth parliament, allowing youths to participate in the legislative process by proposing and debating solutions to real-world issues.

Finally, these initiatives must be complemented by policies that address the specific needs and challenges faced by youth, particularly those from marginalized communities, with legal and financial support to ensure meaningful opportunities for empowerment. Save the Children’s Adolescent and Youth Empowerment in Sri Lanka is an example of support for technical leadership aimed at ethical child participation, which feeds into governance and national-level practices.

In addition to these initiatives, it is also essential to rethink how youth can apply digital activism to build grassroots awareness about key challenges and direct electoral participation, providing a platform where youths can voice their concerns, share experiences and collaborate on solutions. This shift is particularly important in addressing the persistent barriers that continue to hinder youth participation in democratic processes, which remain dominated by an older generation that holds key decision-making positions.

By addressing the barriers that hinder youth participation in democratic processes, the gathering affirmed the need for constructive communication and active youth participation, along with providing youth with resources to sustain their momentum on a long-term basis.

The role of student movements and civil society collaborations in fostering collective action has proven successful in some instances, such as in Hong Kong, Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines. Empowering youth is therefore not just a necessity; it is a crucial step toward building a more inclusive and resilient democracy to prevent further democratic backsliding. To this end, it is important to continue building a culture of democratic and civic participation among young people in the region.

The judiciary in Nepal has been under increased criticism in recent years due to claims of political meddling, corruption and incompetence. Historically seen as the last bulwark of justice and the last judge of constitutional norms, the court has revealed weaknesses in its defenses. These cracks expose a deeply ingrained misconception: that Nepal’s court is completely impartial and impervious to corruption. In actuality, Nepal’s judiciary’s independence is still a complicated illusion that is influenced by both internal and foreign factors. It should serve as a check on authority, a defender of the law, and an upholder of justice, as is the case in many democracies. But in Nepal, a number of issues make it less successful, which makes people wonder if it really reflects these principles or if it is just a façade. The independence of a court is essential for upholding the rule of law. 

However, political interests frequently exert pressure on Nepal's court, undermining its independence. Appointments and decisions can be influenced by political parties and their leaders, raising questions about potential bias. A conflict of interest arises when judges are chosen based more on their political connections than their qualifications, raising questions about their capacity to make unbiased decisions.

Political appointments

Political meddling in the selection of judges is the main grievance directed at Nepal’s judicial system. Although political forces frequently exert excessive influence, the constitution has procedures intended to guarantee neutrality in appointments. There is a contradiction of independence inside dependency since the Judicial Council, which is in charge of nominating judges, has members who are also chosen by political players. This system, which is supposed to maintain a balance of power, unintentionally makes it possible for political objectives to influence the court. The politicization of Nepal’s court is another mistake. 

Decisions that are influenced by politics undermine the justice and impartiality that the legal system is supposed to provide. Politicians frequently have excessive control over judicial nominations, guaranteeing that their supporters hold important posts. As a result, judges may feel pressured to support the interests of those who made their appointment possible, which undermines their capacity to act impartially and independently.

Myth vs reality

One of the main myths that is still spread is that corruption does not exist in Nepal’s courts. Although the court is generally regarded with respect by the people, persistent allegations of bribery and corrupt activities cast doubt on its impartiality. Subtle and pernicious corruption spreads through a number of avenues, from lower courts to higher judicial seats. The rule of law is allegedly undermined and public faith is eroded when judges are accused of favoring parties with financial incentives or influence.

Justice fatigue

The widespread backlog of cases in Nepal’s courts is another serious problem. Despite the basic right to a fair and prompt trial, many litigants must wait a long time for justice. Overwhelming caseloads, little resources and a shortage of staff are problems for courts. Some call this ‘justice fatigue’—a situation when litigants completely lose trust in the legal system—is brought on by the procedural delays. The idea that justice postponed is still justice is erroneous; in actuality, it is justice denied.

Obstacles to reform

Political opposition and bureaucratic delay have made Nepal’s judiciary reform a difficult process. Because of entrenched vested interests and a lack of political will, several attempts at structural transformation have failed. Constitutional clauses intended to protect judicial independence have been construed selectively, frequently in a way that benefits the powerful. Enacting significant change is difficult since it involves not just changing the legislation but also the culture in which the judiciary functions.

Restoring trust

Systemic reforms are necessary to rebuild public trust in Nepal's judiciary. Important initial measures include tackling corruption openly, ensuring that judge appointments are made on the basis of qualifications rather than political ties, and implementing technology to expedite case handling. More accountability, which may be attained by open audits and supervision, may also lessen the likelihood of corruption and rebuild confidence.

In summary, Nepal’s judiciary is at a turning point as it struggles with the myths of independence and incorruptibility. Both institutional change and a change in public opinion are necessary to achieve an independent and equitable legal system. Only until these ingrained misconceptions are confronted and dispelled by an unshakable dedication to justice and openness will Nepal’s judiciary be able to live up to these values. Significant obstacles confront Nepal’s court, undermining its function in the democratic process. Public trust is undermined by problems with accountability, independence and openness as well as political meddling. The judiciary must distance itself from political influence and make a commitment to impartiality and openness in order to operate efficiently. Nepal’s judiciary cannot genuinely become a pillar of justice until these changes are implemented.