History has repeatedly handed us unique opportunities for change, but why have we failed to institutionalize them? It must be admitted with great sadness and deep self-criticism that our society and politics have been facing this dilemma for decades, but we have not yet been able to free ourselves from it. There is also a constant concern that Nepalis will be stigmatized as incapable of institutionalizing any political change.

Every change agent certainly wants to institutionalize the change they have led and make a name for themselves by bringing about a radical change in the living standards of citizens. We have seen such determination and ambition in the major leaders of every party that has entered parliament since 2048. However, the key question of what kind of discussions take place in society, what issues are given priority, or what kind of knowledge system creates a comfortable environment for institutionalizing a democratic governance system has always been ignored.

It is time for us to ask ourselves – have we paid enough attention to developing the knowledge system that will determine the basis, environment and relationship for institutionalizing politics after coming to multi-party democracy or democratic practice? Have our academic and research institutions produced enough knowledge in developing a model for rapid economic growth by institutionalizing a federal democratic republic? What are we studying and teaching today? Most countries in the world institutionalized democracy only after achieving economic development first. Is our knowledge system fully dedicated to building a (Nepali) model, which is considered rare even in the academic world, that achieves both objectives at once? And, is the state aware of all these questions?

When we have generally accepted the national objective of institutionalizing democracy and achieving economic development, is it not the minimum duty of a knowledge system that supports politics to find ways to achieve such a possibility? Certainly, the debate on the diversity of models that fulfill national interests is natural and inevitable.

In countries where such knowledge communities are built, it is natural that discussions on identifying and solving national problems gain intensity and significance. Now, let us turn to ourselves and ask ourselves. Do political questions get high priority in our classrooms, newspaper pages, television screens, radio mics, and public forums? Our long-lasting intense discussions conclude with more confidence, realizing that the Nepali model has been strengthened and made conclusion-oriented? In particular, what conclusions are we spending our intellectual power on?

It does not seem that all of us are ready to accept such questions easily. In particular, some worrying situations are ahead of us. The area where a lot of knowledge is produced in the state creates a national narrative. Certainly, the analysis of the decisive and neglected characters in knowledge production also sheds light on the distribution of power in that country. Therefore, it is a major task of politics to be aware of the state of knowledge production in the state. The state's self-reliance and leadership in the knowledge system are also basic features of modern state management.

This article will discuss four such knots, without which it is not possible to develop a supportive knowledge system for our politics - achieving the institutionalization of democracy and economic development at the same time. In the absence of supportive commentary and knowledge, politicians cannot produce the political results envisioned by that system.  

First of all, from the classroom to public debate, there seems to be a reluctance to use words like institution, institutional, institutionalization. In particular, it is not considered unusual in our society for a person who describes functionalism to be portrayed as right-wing or reactionary. People who discuss, read, and write only on such topics are a minority in our overall knowledge system. For a long time, our knowledge system has been focused on two principles. First, behaviorism, i.e. the view that the behavior and behavior of every political figure can be measured and analyzed scientifically. This method, which flourished in the 1950s and 60s, seems to have become more popular among us since the 1990s. Second, the popularity of many subgroups of the critical school is also unmatched. Such dominance has established the irony that the functionalist perspective has proven to be weak over time.

Since the first of the two popular perspectives in Nepali society is status quoist and the second is changeist, it is clear that the despair of Nepali society on issues such as institutions, institutionalization, or institutionalization is not a natural result. In fact, this is the scientific result of unbalanced academic debate. In a situation where the old society has collapsed and a new one has not been built, there does not seem to be much reason for us to be stingy about taking the central question of how to rebuild society by laying the foundation of methods and procedures to the center of the knowledge system. However, we have made many mistakes in this matter.

Second, we have a wealth of knowledge but do not have the same amount of knowledge communities. The total number of colleges (campuses) providing higher education across the country is 1,440. Countless journals, theses are written. Thoughts and articles are also written in newspapers. Seminars, meetings, and conferences have been held from local to international. But in such areas, including those related to policy-making, knowledge communities, where most academics are members, are virtually non-existent except in a few specific areas. It is doubtful whether national-level collaboration between members of knowledge communities from two or more areas can even be envisioned to reflect on their common issues. 

Let's look at two areas that are much discussed at the national level. AI and foreign affairs. There is no doubt that national awareness and close collaboration between the government and the knowledge system are necessary in both areas. Almost all universities in Nepal are conducting some kind of study and research on these issues. We are ourselves witnesses to the delay we are experiencing in building a common knowledge community of national-level academic worlds that will lead such issues related to the future of the country. 

In countries where such knowledge communities are formed, it is natural for discussions on identifying and solving national problems to gain momentum and significance. In particular, three indirect and specific results of such knowledge communities – the establishment of an authority to certify knowledge in the relevant field, the development of soft power through collaboration with similar organizations in other countries, and the creation of a common place to think about national problems – have helped politics. When such communities are formed, the relationship and collaboration of state bodies with the knowledge production system also becomes more intense. Innovation is also an essential condition in every field.

Third, our universities are reluctant to teach and research about democracy. With a few exceptions, the principles of democracy are not taught as a separate subject anywhere. We do not accept that every young person who enters university with the dream of becoming a teacher, doctor, engineer, or businessman should read about democracy, have a minimum knowledge of the philosophers or theorists who envisioned democracy. We are going through the irony of not taking the initiative to pay enough attention to teaching and research about it.

Existentialist German thinker Karl Jaspers said in his famous book ‘The Idea of ​​the University’ – ‘The university creates the most desirable consciousness of that era, which is necessary for that society and nation.’ Let us reflect, let us ask questions. Democracy or democracy was an enemy system for the Panchayat system. It was natural that it was not studied, taught, and researched in universities. Why could we not give priority to extensive study, teaching, and research on democracy in universities when we came to democracy through a multi-party system? As Jaspers said, sufficient efforts were made to build the consciousness of the era? If institutionalizing a democratic system solves all our economic, social, and political problems, why are we stingy with it?

Our knowledge system should focus on the question of under what conditions politics and political systems become institutionalized. Not only status quo and change-oriented thinking, but also the functionalist approach that gives high priority to institutions and institutionalization should be given sufficient space. Fourth, the above practices have, over time, given rise to the era of pragmatism in Nepali society and politics. The process of determining objectives according to the needs of society and implementing ideals based on that in practice is called pragmatism. From the classroom to academic conferences, from small to large meetings and conferences, there is a competition to prove that one is the most accomplished experimentalist. Moreover, it is considered normal to ridicule theories or philosophies.

But we never asked the question - after all are experimentalists, what is the basis for measuring whose experimentalism is high? Are we not giving high priority to inconclusive discussions? Of course, if experimentalist conclusions can be drawn from the above-mentioned knowledge community-centered group discussions with the participation of all stakeholders, it will be easier to solve short-term problems. But it is not in anyone's interest to keep society and politics in a state of directionlessness for a long time in the name of experimentalism by being stingy even in group discussions. Today's Nepali politics has fallen into the pit of experimentalism. The collective conscience of all of us is needed to get out of this.

The fact that the roots of experimental thinking lie in utilitarianism, which was most popular in Britain in the 19th century, cannot be ignored. In fact, the same utilitarianism was developed by American universities in the 20th century as a problem-solving approach, i.e. experimentalism. Utilitarians consider ‘the greatest happiness of the majority of people’ to be the main objective of politics. In our country too, the phrase ‘despite limited resources and means’ is the most and most frighteningly popular. If we look deeper, it will not be difficult to conclude that the experimental thinking prevalent in our Nepal is largely a continuation of British utilitarianism.

The path ahead

The path seen by this article is clear. The first and most important issue is the current state of the knowledge system and the production of philosophy, theory and ideas necessary for the state. For that, the mobilization of universities, other educational and research institutions is also a major basis for assessing the capacity of politics. Since 2048, our politics has not been very successful in this matter. Course correction is also an integral part of the new politics. Of course, for that, increasing state support from resource mobilization, capacity development to autonomy is indispensable.

Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Korea's Park Jung-hee are often discussed as successful figures in economic development in Nepal. But sadly, we do not talk at all about the intimate relationship between Lee Kuan Yew and the National University of Singapore, which he proudly spoke about until the end of his life, and why and how Park Jung-hee established, strengthened, and used the Korea Development Research Institute (KDI) in 1970 with the aim of making Korea a model of development.

Second, our knowledge system should focus on the question of under what conditions politics and political systems become institutionalized. Not only status quo and transformational thinking, but also a functionalist approach that prioritizes institutions and institutionalization should be given sufficient space. A national campaign to develop functionalist awareness, from individuals at the leadership level to ordinary citizens, is indispensable. यस्तो अवस्थामा मात्रै बाराक ओबामाले भनेको जस्तो ‘हो, हामी पनि गर्न सक्छौं’ भन्ने राष्ट्रिय भावना पैदा हुन्छ । जनताको आत्मविश्वास राष्ट्रिय विकासको पहिलो अनिवार्य सर्त होइन र ? यो विषयमा नेपाली समाज उदार हुनै पर्छ । त्यसका लागि हाम्रो ज्ञान प्रणालीमा ठूलो शल्यक्रिया आवश्यक छ । राज्यले लोकतन्त्रलाई संस्थागत गर्दै आर्थिक विकास गर्ने नेपाली मोडलको अध्ययन, अध्यापन र अनुसन्धान गर्ने समर्पित संस्था र कार्यक्रमहरू विकास गरी लागू गर्नुपर्छ ।