A new generation of idealists has taken to the streets, carrying the country’s discontent with the status quo. With our youth bulging abroad or coopted in the political process, an air of dependency had gripped nation. Despite some important messages, activists, campaigners and organizers lacked the agency to alert the government and were left mired in infighting. Having exhausted almost every visible political alternative, the country was unsure of the direction of change while remaining confident in its inevitability.
So, when lads and lasses began coming out in strength saying enough is enough, they rekindled hope. But one laced with fear. Lacking identifiable leadership and an actionable agenda, the danger of activism descending into anarchy persisted. So far, the social media-driven movement has largely retained its original creativity and discipline, despite organized efforts by the government and others to discredit it. Demanding accountability from the government on money spent in the fight against COVID-19, the protesters hope to stay focused on improving the system, if not replacing it. For cynics hardened by Nepal's accumulated political experience, though, faith prevails in the phantasm of fear.
The campaign could tweak its message inward, while demanding transparency and accountability from the leaders. Have our leaders failed us, or have we expected too much of them? The contract between the leaders and the led is predicated on an implicit yet important certainty. Politics costs money and a heavily politicized polity such as ours entails even heavier expenses.
Republicanism is an institutional replacement and secularism a state of mind. Federalism was not coming on the cheap. New tiers of leaders were never going to work for free, especially at a time when politics has become a profession and privilege a key perquisite of power. When the President engages in public acts ostentation while the people are languishing in pain, the outrage is understandable. Comparisons with the abolished monarchy, too, become irresistible. But maybe we should pause to remember that it is one of us - and who we chose - who sits at the helm of the nation, not someone anointed by descent.
That a fervent royalist here is defending the decorum of the personification of republicanism should not detract from that inherent distinction. Frugality is undeniably a virtue. Still, the office of the head of state holds a dignity that demands a level of deference customarily associated with his or her peers around the world. Today, there seem to be a dozen potentates in place of one king because of the factionalism inherent in our turbulent democracy. It would be nice if the leaders we elected and defeated could get along well. It would be better if they worked, ran parties and mobilized followers for little or no money. But don’t expect them to tell us they can’t.
Amid the prevailing passions, a plea to adjust our expectations sounds a lot like a shameless defense of the political shenanigans going on. We made a choice. More appropriately, a choice was made in our name a decade and a half ago. We may not have liked a few things here or there, but we didn’t resist enough to make a difference when it would have mattered. We never want to believe that our leaders always surreptitiously set out to raid and ruin the country. That they end up doing so after each political change perhaps says more about what happens at that high perch.
Around us, we see that internal chaos and chicanery in themselves have not always stood in the way of progress. Our geostrategic position may be a bit more precarious in these increasingly perilous times, but Nepal is not the only country battling foreign intrusion and machination.
Revisiting our expectations while rallying for accountability could be an opportunity for much-needed collective reawakening.
