It's bedtime, and I stubbornly force myself to bang out a couple hundred words.
Yeah so, what exactly is the source of sovereignty for a modern state? A crude definition of a modern state would be to identify it through its sole and absolute monopolization of power, as organized by Westphalian terms, but in a scenario where Westphalian norms have come under intense scrutiny by historians and political scientists, and identified them as a source of the rigidity of the interpretation of sovereignty in post-colonial states at a time when the colonizing states themselves have come to accept a more broad and nuanced understanding, absolute sovereignty has started being seen as a bane for true devolution of power.
That could be taken to imply that Nepal has hardly ever had sovereignty vested in the people, specially after 2006-- sovereignty has been clasped by the weaponed and the monied elite then, the dadas of Kathmandu who control the state of affairs under the patronage of the true political dadas and dijjus.
What I am trying to get at is, see, this is not going to work for Nepal, and as pakistan's history shows, dictators are rarely benevolent, and you certain;y don't want a second Zulfikar. Are we then forever stuck within the fucking grossly incompetent, corrupt, and evil leaders?
I shall discuss in this paper that we are not. In fact, Nepal's incompetent politicians are a direct result of their relative lack of experience in the political arena. However, that is in no way a defense of their corrupt and incompetent, and frequently malevolent actions, but a hope towards a future where leaders have gotten more responsible.
In that context, another interesting factor that will be discussed in detailed in the paper is the education of Nepal, which I posit is directly related to the politically-obsessed and charged environment of the country. While it is conventional understanding that un-employment and under-employment leads to greater political activism that hinders the normal functioning of even a usually-democratic society, my analysis of the available empirical data suggests that high levels of unemployment have not necessarily correlated with greater political activism, and as a corollary, a high employment rate does not always imply a proportional decrease in disruptive political action. Rather than the employment situation, I have reasons to conclude that it is the unempowering education system that makes people take an active (often too much, one can argue) in the political system.
As I see it, and explain in detail in the paper, the Nepali education system does not have strong support for empowering the students in terms of giving them positions of responsibilities, and getting them involved in other positions regarding constant involvement. Thus, where the centers of education fail, centers of politics take over, and provide a platform for the Nepali youth to be empowered and hold positions of responsibilities. In that, I have posited, the Nepali youth does not necessarily see educational and professional achievements as a way to be upwardly mobile but it does see political involvement thusly, and thus the greater involvement in politics.
Thus, it would seem that the preservation of the current educational system would be good for the political parties, and it would let the political dynasties and the mafia continue forever. However, if the country were to get actual able business, social, citizen, and political leadership, the educational system must be designed to empower the youth from a young age. That could involve their compulsory involvement in social service works, their involvement in some kind of hierarchial structure, encouragement to organize different events (perhaps on behalf of the school?) on their own, and the general imparting of leadership skills.
A naive reading of the theory might interpret it as arguing in strong favor of leadership education. While that would certainly be a part of the reform, the greater importance is given to allowing students to explore their education, explore their society on their own, and not necessarily take up 'leadership' positions. I believe by giving a leeway in education, the impinging of the civil society by political elements can be curtailed.
In addition, the paper also argues for the creation of some kind of accountability hierarchy for the aid and non-profit industry in Nepal. My research has shown that the diversion of resources caused by the aid industry is perhaps just about the net benefit it causes, barring the health sector, ......