There is always political discussion everywhere. From newspapers and television news and interviews to podcasts on social media, political analysis is given priority. There is also no shortage of seminars, symposiums, interactions, and discussions with tea and snacks.

Political issues are the subject of discussion in meetings, assemblies, and ceremonies of political parties and sister organizations. Nepal and Nepalis are probably at the highest level in the world in political dialogue.

Despite such a lot of effort, there is no sense of radical improvement in our political problems. It seems that there is not even a certainty of direction. It takes a very long time to solve high-priority political problems or end the process. Politicians involved in the process and citizens watching it also get tired. Such incidents are regular. The government and Gen-G consensus are a recent example.

Not only that, it has been a long time since issues have been refined in our politics. It is difficult to find a fundamental difference between the nature of the country and political problems raised in the speeches I heard while standing in the schoolyard 25-30 years ago and the interviews I watch on TV or YouTube today. Problems have increased, the language has become a bit dry.

Even if we look only at the year 2046, we have spent the most energy on the issue of changing the political system. But even today, there is no general consensus on the roadmap for a system that will bring decisive reforms in the social and political system of this country. Even after making a model constitution in the world, we have all been reluctant to adopt it and implement it fully.

Three generations of Nepalis spent their lives searching for a suitable political system. Now, a large number of the fourth generation are again in a situation where they have to deal with the question of the same old system. Rebuilding a strong nation and state is a mandatory condition for any system to be institutionalized, but we do not have such a situation.

Not only that, but rather than drawing the latest conclusions from such political discussions, resolving or dismissing old issues, and having energetic discussions on completely new issues, they often complicate the problem further, further divide the citizens, and now political discussions themselves become the main source of 'anxiety'.

When we speak, we mention many Sanskrit verses. We become experts in the Rig Veda by saying ‘Ekam Sat Vipra Bahad Vadanti’ (Even though the truth is the same, intelligent people present it in different ways). We easily say ‘Vade Vaade Jayate Tattvabodhah’ (If we continue to discuss, we will reach the right conclusion). However, today we have become unwilling to listen to the voice and speech of others, no matter how much we discuss, we avoid the weeds, keep quiet but are unable to solve the basic problems or present them as they are, and are unable to convey hope to the common people. Why and how? The current Nepali society needs honest dialogue. 

In essence, many political discussions in Nepal have been held within three fixed walls. That narrow circle has made political discussions more narrow-minded than exit-oriented or Tattvabodhah-oriented. It has become common for the next discussion to start from the same starting point as the previous discussion.

Until we can break down such deadly walls, our political journey will remain status quo. When these walls are broken, new horizons will emerge in our politics and it will transform the dream of radical improvement in the country's situation into a possibility.

Wall One: Discussions that advocate only predetermined answers

In 2018, two professors of political science at Harvard University, Steven Lebesky and Daniel Ziblatt, wrote a book called 'How Democracies Die' about the democratic crisis that is emerging around the world. This book has also become popular worldwide.

According to them, the practice of sitting in discussions with predetermined answers weakens democracy and collapses it over time. Every political problem has a predetermined answer or solution and once the person with such a solution or answer is found, there is a constant test of characters in politics that believes that the common citizen can be pleased. Their conclusion is that such a process leads to extremist or authoritarian individuals dominating the leadership over time and democracy is destroyed because of them.

On the one hand, everyone in politics claims that they have the ability to please everyone, as mentioned above. Our politics is plagued by the populist narrative that the country is in this state because everyone has problems except me. Maximum energy is being spent to prove that only I am right, only my party or group is right, only the leader of my faction is right. 

On the other hand, ordinary citizens are also spending more and more time discussing which character is right or wrong. The biggest problem or sorrow of Nepali politics today is the same. We all feel that every political problem has a predetermined answer like in the law. When discussing political issues, we assess and analyze which player would have won the cup if we had sold him, just like in professional football. We, the political characters, are behind his predetermined answer.

I will also have my say and listen to others and draw another path in politics from the path between my right opinion and their right opinion. There is a drought of politicians who sit in discussions saying that Participating in meetings and discussions and giving your answers, leaving such meetings and taking an alternative path if you are not asked to do so, and leaving the previous beginnings behind is not a new phenomenon for our politics.

Such a long practice has developed a culture of keeping issues on hold rather than refining political issues and institutionalizing the country's politics and taking them to the next stage. Whenever there is a feeling of weakness in politics, a culture of bringing up old issues and stirring up controversy has developed.

Be it national politics or intra-party politics or the Toll Reform Committee or the School Management Committee, all new and old issues are on the table. In national politics, a situation has now arisen where all those issues have to be discussed at once. Now, it is not just a matter of indecision, but a feeling of suffocation.

Now it is time to tear down this wall. There are two essential conditions for that. First, there is no predetermined answer in democracy. It must be accepted that the answer or solution to every problem is determined by the context and situation. Second, even if all rules or ideals are not written in law, (democratic) rules or ideals that everyone in politics follows are indispensable for good politics.

For that, it is not a discussion with predetermined answers, but a discussion of persuasion and compromise to solve the problem. One must have the ability to convince the other side, otherwise, a compromise must be made. The political culture of portraying or interpreting such a compromise as a win or a loss must be said goodbye.

Wall Two: Discussion that begins with determining enemies and friends 

Today, the politics of hatred and fear sells the most in Nepal. Trying to use bait, bait, punishment, and discrimination to eliminate one's opponent from the game of politics has become a regular occurrence in our politics.

It is very sad to admit that insulting, scorning, threatening, encouraging discrimination and violence, and inciting them have become the basic tools used by people in every sector of politics and society to remain in power. On the other hand, there is no shortage of those who fear that if a certain character is not in power or authority, the sky will fall and try to deify a certain character.

Nepali politics is divided based on certain characters. There is a big problem of the guilty glasses that those who support that character are friends and those who question or oppose are enemies. The wrong practice of populism that ensures the support of a certain group by dividing not only those around power and authority, but also the common people is also widespread.

From political party leaders to common citizens, we build big walls between characters and characters, saying what is right for some and what is wrong for others. While presenting some as gods, we call others a broker. We are insulting each other in such a way that it no longer seems like there is anyone useful in our society and politics. This political culture is also one of the main reasons for the extreme despair in Nepali society. 

This is certainly not a problem only in Nepal. In 2020, American journalist Azura Klein wrote a book called ‘Why We Are Polarized’, arguing that there is a practice in America to manipulate political identities to excite citizens, garner support, and collect donations.

Like the rest of the world, politics of yours and mine is very popular in our country. Since 2046, Nepali politics has experienced repeated polarization. At one time, Nepali politics was polarized in the name of Congress-Communist, as parliamentarians and non-parliamentarians, as identityists, or others. Most polarizations were based on issues, ideals, and ideas. But the current polarization in Nepal is person-centered. When people are person-centered, there is naturally a division between your side and my side. Only by prohibiting the other side can one get a greater share of the vote.

In such a situation, some of the people participating in a meeting or discussion would become predetermined enemies and friends. A forced situation was created where one had to oppose whatever the side one did not like said and support whatever the side one liked said. Not only that, the long practice of such a culture has now made us accustomed to comparing the strengths and weaknesses of an issue when discussing politics, but to which group or faction the issue belongs.

This is also the reason why we cannot draw the latest conclusions about social and economic transformation, no matter how long we discuss it. In politics, which opposes and supports based on our personal or collective relationship with the person who raised the issue, it is difficult to collect everyone's opinions and opinions and to formulate the latest policy and collaborate. We are so divided that it is difficult to even imagine the creation of the institutions necessary for institutionalizing democratic politics here.

Wall Three: Accusations and counter-accusations of the nominal 'Right' and 'Left'

The concept of Right and Left in politics is believed to have originated with the meeting of the 'National Convention' held after the French Revolution in 1789. The members of the Assembly were divided into gradual reforms and immediate complete changes. The supporters of gradual reforms sat to the right of the Speaker, while those who wanted immediate radical changes sat to the left. From here, progressives began to be called ‘left’ and conservatives or gradual reformers ‘right’.

According to the famous political scientist Francis Fukuyama, the concept of economic policy was the decisive basis for the classification of ‘right’ and ‘left’ in the twentieth century. Those on the ‘left’ advocated for more equality, social security, the presence of the state in every sphere of society, as well as an active role in services and economic redistribution. Those on the ‘right’ stood in favor of more economic freedom, markets, and capitalism. According to him, the ‘right’ and ‘left’ based on yesterday’s economic policy have almost disappeared due to the rise of leaders who prioritize identity around the world in the 21st century.

Long before Fukuyama, in 1996, British Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm published an article in the ‘New Left Review’ concluding that progressive thinkers were mistaken in entering the issue of identity. According to him, the 'left' is not only advocating for the issues of a limited group, but is also getting confused with the issue of identity when discussing global issues. Their question of social diversity will overshadow the issue of class over time. Overall, the political issue of progressives will be weakened.

Thus, theoretically, the relevance of yesterday's debate between 'right' and 'left' is being questioned today. On top of that, we have our own unique situation. If we take the National Democracy Party and its diverse groups as an exception, no major political party or group in our country seems to have openly declared themselves 'right'. Even the political parties or groups that call themselves 'right' do not seem to have widely advocated for individual freedom. They also often have mixed views about the role of the market and the state.

नाममा कम्युनिस्ट रहेका दलका नेताहरूले पनि भाषणमा वर्ग र वर्ग संघर्ष जस्ता शब्दहरूको प्रयोगलाई घटाउँदै लगेर आर्थिक वृद्धि, अर्को चरणको आर्थिक सुधार जस्ता बीसौं शताब्दीका दक्षिणपन्थी, रुढिवादी वा क्रमिक सुधारवादीहरूको भाषालाई बढाउँदै लगेको देखिन्छ । उदारवाद, त्यसमध्ये पनि बहुलसंस्कृतिवादले उच्च प्राथमिकता दिने सशक्तीकरणको मुद्दा धेरै उठान गरेको देखिन्छ ।

सैद्धान्तिक बहस र अभ्यासको यस्तो अन्योलको अवस्थाका बाबजुद हामी कसैलाई राइट वा लेफ्टको दाग लगाउन भने सधैं उद्यत हुन्छौं । ‘मलाई त उहाँ किन–किन ‘लेफ्ट’ जस्तो लाग्छ’, ‘होइन न ऊ त पूरै ‘राइट’ हो नि’– हाम्रा राजनीतिक संवादहरूमा यस्ता वाक्यहरू प्रशस्तै सुनिन्छन् । गहिराइमा गएर हेर्‍यो भने त्यस्तो तर्कभित्र खासै ठोस आधार हुँदैनन् । त्यसैले आज नेपालमा आफैंले स्वःघोषणा गरेका ‘राइट’ र ‘लेफ्ट’ हरू कम र अर्काले न्वारन गरिदिएका ‘राइट’ र ‘लेफ्ट’ हरू धेरै छन्/छौं ।

यसले हाम्रा राजनीतिक छलफलहरूमा कपोलकल्पित, अस्पष्ट, अन्योलपूर्ण पर्खालहरू निर्माण गरेको छ । राजनीति सजिलोमा हुँदा यसलाई पूर्णरूपमा अवमूल्यन गर्ने र अप्ठ्यारोमा पर्दा अर्को पक्षलाई विचारविहीन दल वा समूह भनेर ठूलो पर्खाल लगाउने रणनीति धेरै नै प्रचलित भएको छ । 

हो, १८ औं शताब्दीमा फ्रान्समा प्रयोगमा आएदेखि आजसम्म ‘राइट’ र ‘लेफ्ट’ राजनीतिक विचारको वर्गीकरणको एउटा प्रमुख आधार हो । यसको औचित्य आज पनि कम भएको छैन । तर दुवैतर्फ आएका मूल्य र मान्यताका परिष्करण, त्यसमा पनि पहिचानको मुद्दालाई हेर्ने नजरमा आएका परिवर्तनहरूलाई समाहित गरेर वर्गीकरण र विश्लेषण आवश्यक छ । त्यसमा पनि राजनीतिमा रहेका हरेक दल, समूह र व्यक्तिले आफ्नो विचार आफैं घोषणा गर्ने र त्यसैमा टेकेर नीतिगत वकालत र राजनीतिक प्रतिस्पर्धा गर्ने संस्कार लोकतन्त्रलाई संस्थागत गर्न अपरिहार्य हुन्छ ।

अन्त्यमा,

सामाजिक सञ्जालको लोकप्रियताले यस्ता पर्खालहरूलाई थप बाक्लो, अग्लो बनाएका छन् । एकतर्फ नागरिकलाई विभाजित गरेर केही प्रतिशत मत वा समर्थनलाई सुनिश्चित गरेर त्यसका आधारमा राजनीति गर्ने संस्कार विकास भएको छ । त्यसका लागि सामाजिक सञ्जाललाई भरपूर दुरुपयोग गर्ने गरेको देखिन्छ । नागरिक वा आफ्ना समर्थकहरूलाई उत्तेजित पार्न अतिवादी अभिव्यक्तिले अकल्पनीय प्राथमिकता पाउने गरेको छ ।

यसले नै नेपालमा घृणा र तिरस्कारको राजनीतिलाई मलजल गरेको छ । जब कोही यस्तो राजनीतिको सिकार हुन्छ, उसका समर्थकहरू पनि आफ्नो नेता वा समूहलाई त्यस्तो ठाउँमा पुर्‍याउनेहरूका विरुद्ध सोही विधिबाट प्रतिवादमा उत्रिने गरेको पाइन्छ । यसरी एकले अर्कालाई नंग्याउने राजनीतिको खेलमा तर्क, संवाद, सहकार्य, सम्झौता, नवीनता, मुद्दाको परिष्करण, ‘वादे वादे जायते तत्वबोधः’ को परिकल्पना गर्न सकिन्छ ? 

अर्कोतर्फ एकै खाले समाचार पढ्ने र सुन्ने बानीका कारण नागरिकमा पनि निश्चित पात्रप्रतिको अस्वीकारोक्ति धेरै वृद्धि भएको छ । आफूलाई मन नपर्ने पात्रको विचारलाई बुझ्न प्रयत्न गर्नु त कता हो कता, उसको आवाजसम्म सुन्न नचाहने नागरिकहरूको संख्या दिनानुदिन वृद्धि हुँदै गएको छ । सामाजिक सञ्जाल र त्यसभित्रको आफूले एक पटक पढेको वा हेरेको समाचार जस्तै सामग्रीलाई प्राथमिकताका साथ निरन्तर प्रदान गर्ने क्षमता वा ‘अल्गोरिदम’ को ‘मेकानिजम’ ले हामी झन्–झन् एकै खाले समाचार सुन्ने र पढ्ने गर्दछौं । यसले पनि कसैको भक्त र कसैको कट्टर विरोधी बनाउने काम गरिरहेको छ ।

अनि हामी प्रयोग गर्छौःं त्यो चोर ∕ यी डाँकाहरू ∕ त्यो विचार ∕ त्यस्तो सोझो मान्छेले राजनीति गर्न सक्छ ∕ यसरी पात्रको बारेमा पूर्वनिर्धारित धारणामा आधारित भएर हामी विभाजित मात्रै छैनौं, छियाछिया भएका छौं । विभक्त छौं । कोही कसैसँग लामो संवाद गर्न नै तयार छैनौं ।