When 'success' in a society is a matter of doubt and 'failure' is a matter of sympathy, then neither policy nor leadership can be sustained.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
Every year in Nepal, a development plan is formulated, good governance is announced. Overall, dozens of policies are formulated, but the results of the policies seem disappointing.
This situation is usually understood as institutional weakness, political instability, lack of resources or inefficiency in implementation. However, there is a reality hidden at a deeper level, which is not much discussed in public discussions. That is, our social mentality. Instead of praising those who achieve and struggle, they are condemned, questioned and targeted.
In a country like Nepal, the failure of the government is not only the result of systemic or structural weaknesses. It is also deeply intertwined with our thinking, tendencies and perspectives. When ‘success’ is a matter of doubt in society and ‘failure’ is a matter of sympathy, then neither policy nor leadership is formed.
There is a silent but serious trend in our society – a person who creates, moves forward through struggle, is not praised, but only suspected. Before his hard work, the ‘source of income’ and the ‘secret of success’ are sought. The first question related to success – how was it possible? Isn’t this a fraud? Didn’t he come by using power? Or is this black money?
A skeptical approach weakens not only individuals but also institutions. And, the generation that works hard in general becomes victimized by such activities. When the government brings any positive policy, society makes the successful ones the villains by accusing them of having 'special access' and the remaining interested youth are afraid to try. Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity, they choose the exit route and are often ready to emigrate.
In such a situation, no matter how competent the government makes a policy, it becomes a victim of social rejection when it reaches the implementation stage. Because in a society where achievement is not respected and cheap criticism is popular rather than creativity, the basis of the policy is weak. For any policy to be successful, three levels must be crossed - the honesty of the policy maker, the efficiency of the implementation mechanism and the support of the society. In Nepal, most of the debates focus on the first two aspects. However, the role of the third party, i.e. civil society, is often overlooked. However, this third party is the decisive force that determines whether a policy will be successful or not.
The problem is that our society evaluates based on results rather than efforts. And, if that result is positive, instead of accepting it, a way is found to oppose it. Those who work are doubted and those who do nothing are viewed with sympathy. Such a trend has institutionalized a ‘complaining’ attitude, not a ‘working’ culture. It is natural to doubt leadership, but weaving a story of conspiracy behind every success is dangerous. It spreads despair in society, kills energy, and discourages those who dare.
The repeated failures of political leadership in Nepal are not only due to their incompetence, but also to some extent the attitude of the people. When we give importance to ‘discussing’ rather than ‘working’, then those in power only seek to ‘be seen’ instead of working. Real development is possible only when those who try are encouraged, creativity is respected, and success is accepted as inspiration. We talk about ‘policy reform’, but now a debate on ‘thinking reform’ is also necessary.
