What has changed in the state of respect or trust for people holding social positions? Overall, what is the state of trust among ordinary citizens? Has the trust of stakeholders in the development or progress of the respective sector by those leading and surrounding them in every sector, including society, economy, and politics, increased?

Are we oriented towards building a modern state and society with a clear division of labor in the public sector and roles based on it, or is the unprofessional mindset of trying to do whatever job is encouraged? Overall, what changes have occurred in the state of trust or acceptance towards those in positions of power? Has it decreased or increased?

If it has increased, it can be explained as a society in which authority is institutionalized or institutionalized. It can be called an authoritative society. Here, not only does every person have rights based on law or values ​​and norms, but there is also a general acceptance that the exercise of those rights is inherent in them. If it is decreasing, we conclude that there is a crisis of authority. Current Nepali society seems to be going through an era of crisis of authority from many angles. However, this is not a problem that Nepal is facing alone. Such problems have emerged in many countries of the world, from international to national politics.

In the case of Nepal, it has become a very serious problem. Conversations in public transport are vivid examples of that. The long-standing saying ‘a country ruled by Pashupatinath’ is another frightening picture in Nepali society. From conversations between two or four people in public places to discussions in star hotels, we are eager to humiliate and take credit for someone or something. It has become our social character to show that every character has a problem except me. But characters are also products of society, and the broader discussion that society and the institutions and culture we have developed are decisive in bringing about changes in the character’s ability and behavior is portrayed as ‘nonsense’ here. In other words, there is a crisis of authority that makes it difficult to get rid of the debate on how to establish social authority.

Another very sad aspect is that such a crisis of authority has started appearing not only in formal social life, but also in every level, stratum and corner of society. We are in an era where we hear people talking to each other saying that they should be careful because there is a possibility of people taking turns even while standing in line to worship God in the temple. In other words, even the authority of people providing services in holy places is in crisis. Through this ongoing discussion, we will reach a frightening question – have we actually reached a point where we cannot even accept each other’s existence?

American political scientist Robert Putnam, who arrived in Italy in the 1970s, was stunned. Among the regional levels formed by the same constitution, northern Italy is extremely effective and accountable. In southern Italy, it is the opposite. To explain this difference, he began a long research and came to a groundbreaking conclusion – democracy is effective in places where the characteristics of social organization that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit, such as networks, recognition, and trust, are strong. In other words, for democracy to be effective, a certain social environment is necessary, and in this, an environment of trust between citizens is decisive. He defined it as social capital.

After him, countless studies and researchers have accepted the fact that a certain social environment is necessary for democracy to be effective or for economic development to be achieved, and have proven it through research. They also gave special priority to unity, trust, and acceptance of each other’s existence among citizens. This is a prerequisite for social authority.

It must be sadly acknowledged that Nepali society has remained inactive on this fundamental question since 2046 and the discussion on it has not even begun. We need a modern society and life. We need a strong and large state (taking full responsibility for the social welfare of citizens) that is no weaker than any other country in the world. We need quality citizens who are not only filled with the spirit of sacrifice and sacrifice, but also who can distinguish between their own and others' freedoms. We need a competitive but fair market. We need not only an automatic market system in demand and supply as envisioned by Adam Smith, but also a search for a government and civil society that can become a support for the suffering of the people that the market cannot do and cannot see. We need economic growth of more than ten percent every year. We want to see elected representatives do service, not politics. But to achieve all these results, we are hesitant to even enter the debate that the authority of people in leadership roles and trust in every sector of society is indispensable.

Why the debate on authority today?

The statement that people in leadership positions in every sector of society are not suitable for that position is dangerous for the entire state. It is not good to compare another continent in a bad context, but for easy understanding, the old 'Africanization' of Nepali society is taking place. Although at first glance it seems that this situation is only in Nepali politics, such problems are prevalent in every corner of the family and society. It seems that some are not ready to accept the existence of others. In other words, we are encouraging anarchy.

Many activities that violate the law or disrupt social harmony are regular. But many times, our public officials and society appear and are portrayed as innocent with groups that insist, make noise, and force. Some other ingredients are used in that again. The subject changes. And once again, the conclusion is drawn, 'This is how it is here, bro.' Let's ask with a cold mind for once - is there progress and development in such a society and country? We start the next journey by weakening the one who should handle the difficulties, and there is no one to handle it.

Our society and the entire state should now take a brutal look at the issues that have started to raise questions about the people in important positions in the state and society. Democracy can never be effective in a country where there is no modern social environment where people in every social responsibility and profession can freely practice their profession and responsibilities. There is no possibility of economic development. In a society that has lost trust, no matter how good a leader is elected, no matter how good a policy is brought, no matter how hard we try to implement it, it is difficult to achieve the expected effect.

For a long time, we discussed the issue of empowering people. We protested. We wrote a new constitution. We restructured the state. We transferred power from top to bottom. But we failed to create an environment for the acceptance of the people or institutions that have acquired new power. This has led to two bad results. First, publicly questioning the capabilities of people in positions has become our daily routine. We live in a strange country where leaders publicly question employees and employees publicly question leaders. Such practices in every body have created a crisis of authority in the entire society. It has led to a situation where it is difficult to know who to trust and live by.

Second, the crisis of authority has increased the desire of those in power for power. The narrative that everyone is bad has developed a social and political culture of abusing power rather than remaining in office by doing good deeds. Questions about this have ceased to arise. This has encouraged and institutionalized the abuse of power at every level and level in every corner of society. The more power is misused, the more a crisis has arisen in the authority of those in power, and our society and politics have been plunged into a dark tunnel.

A society where authority is lost and power is abused is a sad society. Our country is waiting for a new campaign to establish authority in every sector of society to alleviate our suffering. The insistence that authority is established through physical power only leads to another accident. Power without authority gives rise to dictatorship over time. Of course, the final destination of our society and politics is not dictatorship. There is no future for authoritarian rule in Nepal, which has a diverse and unique political history. Whatever needs to be done, needs to be done in democracy, through democratic methods. Therefore, to institutionalize democracy and erase the Nepali mirage of economic prosperity, a debate on lost authority is inevitable.

Causes and the way forward

Of course, ‘politics first’, that is, political reasons, are the main ones behind every social cause. The obsession with abuse of power prevalent in our politics has made society unnatural. Especially at every level, instead of making decisions through democratic methods, a terrible culture is prevalent that makes many people in social and political positions innocent due to the authoritarian character of having to ask higher bodies and having to face a lot of hassles while making independent decisions. But by limiting our debate here alone, a clear picture cannot be seen.

In particular, the crisis in the authority of knowledge should be considered the main reason for this. On the one hand, our society seems to be wavering towards the truth that knowledge is the one that will change the world. Doubtful expressions about the basic truth that we should read, learn, and the experiences of other countries and societies are also useful to us are popular. This is not only very sad, but it is also the main reason for the extremism prevalent in society. Our society is not ready to accept the fact that the statement that any knowledge and country's experience is unnecessary is another extremist ideology in itself.

More complex than the above two reasons and the main reason for their origin is the lack of expertise. Where are we, where did we have to go, where were we going? How did we reach different destinations? The lack of 'authoritative experts' who can explain every area of ​​society, economy, and politics, and whose explanations are accepted by society, is the main reason for our situation today. I have said in many places, jokingly, that the experts who analyze when an earthquake occurs here and when the head of state of a neighboring country comes, are the same.

Among them, there is the dangerous delusion of experts who believe that society, economy, and politics can be analyzed without theory or thought. Suppose we have to build a hundred-story building. If we call an engineer and tell him to build it in his own way, without looking at any old maps, without using any technology, what kind of building will it be? How reliable will it be? If he says that this building was built without using any previous experience, who will come to rent it?

And does it also mean that while building a building, one has to read everything, use prior knowledge and technology, but when building politics, economy and society, prior knowledge, theory and experience are not required? If that were not necessary, then all the studies conducted by professors in all the major universities of the world are 'nonsense'? Aren't we questioning the development of human civilization with similar arguments? This big and important question has arisen before Kathmandu.

In fact, the main cause of the problems in our society and politics is the result of the lack of principle-based discussion about identifying the problem and ways to improve it. The deviation in the system of knowledge production (their own interpretation of theory and method) has made the discussion and debate about right and wrong in society directionless. When we do not have a theoretical basis for what is right and wrong, new right and wrong ideas emerge every day. The one who can shout loudly, that one is proven to be right, has led to the tragic era of extremism and the era of the crisis of social authority has emerged.