Who will question the claim that they are working towards building an ideal politics, a prosperous economy and a civilized society? Who will have the moral strength left in today's Nepali society to question the intentions of the person involved in it? If all the powers to formulate laws, have them implemented and determine whether they are just or not are concentrated in one place, who will stop them? If in doubt, the self-confidence required to question the claims and intentions lies with a conscious citizen. But that one citizen cannot stop the power of the all-powerful state. For that, a civil society is needed. A civil society is rooted in morality. The misfortune of today's Nepal is that there is no such civil society. That is why the struggle of a lone citizen and his family is going on here.

Many countries have achieved prosperity through economic development. World history has proven that this is not a supernatural feat. Only achievements achieved in a methodical manner with the direct participation of the common citizen, through discussion, are sustainable. This is an established fact. The truth is that societies are built on a long historical background. If they start destroying without studying the underlying reality, even the destroyer himself does not know where it will end. That is why there is always a need for balance and study in politics, economy, and society. For that, public institutions are needed. In today's Nepal, there are no such public institutions that are not tainted by party politics.

Many countries have often failed after falling into such a vacuum. Therefore, it becomes the responsibility of the state itself to ensure that the country does not fall into such a vacuum and fail. For that, the state provides a place to speak. It tries to listen. It plays a leading role in building public institutions. It respects the citizens. In our context, those whom the citizens have brought to leadership have only been taking advantage of the vacuum. Against that background, the Gen-G rebellion took place and now the country is moving forward in a new environment. Citizens are ready to accept that it is not time to question the claims and intentions of the current government. But there is a fear that the vacuum will be deepened and misused.

The task of moving the country on the path of development is not a slogan, but a continuation of the institutional journey. When citizens who question are not considered enemies, the state accepts that its power comes from the people and the culture of violating the law in the name of public interest ends. The message given by the country's economic status report released by the government last week is that the country has made significant progress in the last decade. In that sense, sustainable development is also happening. In a few months, the country will be on the path to becoming a developing country after leaving the list of least developed countries. The government's ambiguity is visible in what we are trying to do in this regard. If the idea is that the same characters will be purified after being 'vaccinated', then it will not take the country anywhere in the long run.

Here, we are not trying to debate whether there has been progress or not. We are looking for clarity on what is the meaning of progress. Roads have been built in the country, technology has spread, the size of the market has increased, and access to services has expanded somewhat. But we should look at these achievements with the question of what level the citizen's daily experience, his relationship with the state, trust in justice, hope for the future, and faith in opportunities are. The story of development is seen from the outside. The story of prosperity is felt from the inside. If the outside view is bright but the inner feeling is dim, then the basic issue is missing somewhere. That is institutional character. Nepali society is not looking for economic progress that can be achieved by compromising on the fundamental rights and entitlements of citizens.

Institutional character is the rule of law, respect for process, and a culture of responsibility. The belief that the state has not only rights but also responsibilities is institutional character. Citizens have built the state by giving their share of taxes, labor, and trust. Therefore, the state should provide service, security, and justice. But when institutions begin to revolve around individual desires, relationships become stronger than rules, and the reasons for public decisions become unclear, the state begins to appear more like a ‘power’ than a partner to citizens. Society is strengthened by communicating with the state, asking questions, and showing the direction of reform. When the space for communication shrinks, society becomes polarized. Some remain silent, others become angry. Both silence and anger are fatal to democracy. Democracy requires rational activism.

To understand why rational activism has declined, we must look at today's social psychology. The priority of many families is now not public debate, but private defense. Job uncertainty, rising costs of education and health, inflation, urban rent, difficulties in agricultural production and the hassle of having to deal with the state have pushed citizens to say 'first the village, then the country'. This is not just the selfishness of citizens. It is a natural reaction after the system fails. When people do not get protection from the system, they are limited to their own circle. This limitation reduces the energy for collective improvement. Public interest in policymaking decreases and the field is cleared for groups that capture public resources.

This vacuum is not just a lack of institutions. It is a lack of trust. The lack of trust has a direct impact on the economy. The engine of the economy is not just money and projects. It is trust, stability and regulation. Entrepreneurs want to believe that when they invest, farmers want to believe that they will not be robbed tomorrow. Workers need to have the hope that they will get jobs when they learn skills, and students need to have the belief that their qualifications will open up opportunities when they study. If these trusts are not there, plans can be made in the country, but transformation does not occur. Without transformation, prosperity is imported. Goods are bought, buildings are erected, consumption increases. Creation and production do not increase. When production does not increase, employment does not increase, migration does not stop when employment does not increase, and when migration is not stopped, there is 'permanent instability' in society.

Considering migration as an economic event is only half the truth. Migration is actually a social and institutional signal. It is a signal that people have started to link the security of their future not with the state, but with external opportunities. Such a signal poses two challenges to the state at once. On the one hand, the continuity of labor force and skill development within the country weakens. On the other hand, dependence on income from outside increases. Therefore, when the state tells the story of ‘development’, a common question that citizens ask is – does this development give my children a reason and environment to live here? If the answer is unclear, then the achievement is incomplete.

To understand this incompleteness, the relationship between the state and society must be redefined. Society is not the enemy of the state. It is the social conscience that shows the state the right direction and guides it on the path. The state must stop viewing civil society with suspicion. Civil society should also not limit its identity to mere opposition. The job of civil society is to help improve governance. By asking for information, seeking transparency in the process, raising the voice of the victim, and publicly recognizing good work. When the state practices ‘listening’, the state becomes stronger. Because it can correct mistakes in time. A state that does not listen, even though it appears tough from the outside, is weak from the inside. Because mistakes accumulate and become crises.

It is necessary to revive public institutions to strengthen the culture of listening and questioning. Institutions must become citizen-oriented. This does not mean that institutions are not related to political decisions. This means that rules, evidence and processes should be decisive in the scope of the institution. Justice must be ensured by the courts. Services in the administration must be transparent. Regulations must be strict and everyone must be equal. To earn the respect of citizens, the state must treat everyone equally. When the state treats unequally, citizens turn to ‘how to survive’. Therefore, the first task of reform is to reconnect the organs of the state with the citizens. Through process, through service and through accountability.

The economy also connects here. The country is now entering a new phase. The path of development, the field of international competition and the reality of decreasing external concessions are not enough in such a situation. ‘What are we trying to become’ needs clarity. Should we become a production-based economy or continue the cycle of consumption? Is it the solution to connect youth skills with opportunities within the country or foreign employment? Should we embrace a new path by making the tax system and public spending transparent or should we continue to operate in the old framework by adding burdens to the limited formal sector? These are the basic questions that determine the direction.

Without the political honesty and administrative discipline required to determine the direction, ‘prosperity’ becomes a slogan. Prosperity is not just about beautiful cities and increasing business here. It is about increasing agricultural production in villages, increasing competition in the market, stability in employment, increasing the value of skills, and reducing inequality. The foundation of this is the education system. For this, it is necessary to link the certificate-centered education system with the labor market and enterprises. In this way, there is frustration among the youth due to the lack of identification between education and employment. Therefore, education reform should also be considered a part of institutional reform. Education linked to skills, character and civic awareness. Without civic awareness, civil society does not stand on a moral basis. Without civil society, the power of the state is not balanced.

Another aspect of balance is economic ethics. Economic ethics means accepting the responsibility to obey the rules along with the right to earn money. But the responsibility to obey the rules is strong only when citizens consider the rules to be fair. If the rules are considered strict on the weak and flexible on the strong, the motivation to obey the rules is weak. Then the tendency to evade taxes, increase informal transactions and use public property for private gain becomes normal. In the past, the normalization of this issue not only eroded the economy, but also the moral basis of society. And because of this eroding, the 'moral strength to question' of society has weakened to this day. When the moral strength to question is weak, there is no one to talk about the possible mistakes that the state can make today.

A confident state is not afraid of questions. It considers questions as a sign of direction. The foundation of a state that considers questions as a threat is weak. It considers the absence of questions as an achievement. But the absence of questions is not an achievement. It is a warning. Because the absence of questions does not solve the problem. Rather, it increases the problem internally. The problem that has grown internally will one day explode. In the form of an economic crisis, as a social conflict or as a political explosion. Therefore, it is in the interest of both the state and society not to suppress questions, but to develop the ability to transform them into institutional dialogue.

The importance of dialogue is even greater in a diverse society like Nepal. Diversity is our strength. If justice and opportunity are not equal, diversity can turn into division. Therefore, a civilized society is a society of civilized debate. Where different opinions are not enemies, but are understood as a warning. Criticism is not an insult, but a tool for improvement. A society where disagreements are polite has a system that is based on long-term policies. Because society participates in the process of policy formation.

In such a situation, the sentence ‘we are making progress’ is not enough. Clarity of ‘what we are trying to become’ is needed. Should we create a production-based economy or continue the cycle of consumption? Is it better to connect youth skills with opportunities within the country or is foreign employment the solution? Should we embrace a new path by making the tax system and public spending transparent or should we continue to operate in the old framework by adding burdens to the limited formal sector? The question raised at the beginning – Where does the moral strength to question claims and intentions come from? That strength does not come from any ‘great’ person. That strength comes from the structure of society. Moral strength is automatically created in a society with an active civil society, responsible journalism, honest public institutions, independent courts, process-oriented administration, and democratic political parties. Therefore, our debate should not be limited to the good and bad of individuals. We must engage in the work of building a system. Individuals change, but the system determines the pace of the country. If the system becomes strong, it becomes difficult for the wrong character to survive. If the system remains weak, even the good character becomes helpless.

Moving the country on the path of development is not a slogan, but a continuation of an institutional journey. When citizens who question are not considered enemies, the state accepts that its power comes from the people, and the culture of violating the law in the name of public interest ends. Then development becomes not just 'visible' but 'felt'. Only then can the dream of ideal politics, a prosperous economy, and a civilized society become a possibility.

Here, the debate on the 'ideal state' is necessary. Because although the concept of an ideal state is attractive, it does not take into account the limits of practical politics and human nature. Two famous ideal-society ideas in history are worth remembering: Callipolis described in Plato's 'Republic' and Thomas More's Utopia. More warned that building an ideal society may not be possible or, even if possible, its cost may be unbearable.

The centerpiece of Plato's ideal is the definition of justice. More's Utopia is a satire on 16th-century Britain. It is an attack on the unjust penal system, income inequality, and the greed of the ruling class. Plato's Callipolis argues that trying to keep human nature 'in one shape' suppresses individual freedom and diversity and that the definition of 'right' is too concentrated in the hands of the ruler. Just as in Callipolis, if the method for development is violated in our country, the same system eventually becomes the same. When the method is violated, neither equality nor freedom survives. For example, after the fall of the Jacobins, Napoleon's dictatorship arose in the name of bringing stability to France. The 'pure' dream of a utopian republic, without institutional maturity, rules, and power limits, fell into a cycle of repression and backlash.