Mubarak & our politicians

The ouster of Hosni Mubarak will leave a power vacuum, a gentleman retorted. This is what happens when a ruler drags his will over the people for thirty years and keeps a civilized country under emergency. The gentleman’s fear is neither valid nor democratic: It means one does not see efficient men and women and intelligent politicians in Egypt except in the personality of Mubarak. Furthermore, by blaming the West, there are many non-Western natives from Asia to Africa who want to assault on the tradition of democracy to justify their regressive concepts at home. This is a very popular mode of West-bashing. I was giving answer to my generous readers, especially to those who try to be critical but ignore the ideals of democracy, aspirations of the people, and revolting zeal against oppression.

Egyptian case is not very similar to ours, but the leadership between the two countries can be compared in terms with studying similarity. Mubarak is an old man and our leaders are not very far behind if not by age, at least by their rules. Our politicians have been ruling us for a long time, in patches, by constant sharing among one another.

There is a similarity with Mubarak and Nepali leaders of the present times. The old Egyptian never saw that the times are changing, and similarly Nepali leadership is blind to the changes around. Mubarak is a good person, many believe, so are many Nepali politicians of the present times (I may be doubtful though). But being good is not enough. Goodness does not automatically make you intelligent. Like Mubarak many Nepali politicians are outdated in mind and body though they may be simple and good.

Mubarak ruled more than a leader deserves to rule unless he or she is a dictator. He is not a dictator by reputation but reputation is gained, Shakespeare writes, without deserving. Our leaders are not dictators. They are good powerful people who can bring changes by democratic strategies and rebellion. That is all they can do which they performed very meticulously. The political problem with Nepal is that those hardworking leaders who toppled an old regime do not know what to do further. Neither they have knowledge of how to deal with two of the powerful neighbors, nor comprehend the nuances and complexities of contemporary trends of developmental ideas. They neither know nor have alternatives for globalization and capitalistic economic strategies. They do not want to read what China is doing and how India is functioning. Learning from them is much more important than creating false sense of nationalism.

A general gratification among some Nepalis who think about the country from the perspectives of the political parties is that Nepali politicians showed India that they can make their own prime minister. Such claims are regressive for multiple reasons. First, a selection of the prime minister of a country cannot be based on flippant reasons of showing your neighbor what you can do and what you cannot. Nepali nationalism is regressively defined by mediocre, uneducated, and irresponsible claims. The prime focus of modern leadership is to strengthen a country economically. Cheap emotionalism does not feed countrymen (this is how the old Panchayat regime lived by and kept the country poverty ridden). Second, if we can make leaders by our own decisions, the credibility of the decisions should be planning and executing ideas of progress.

There is a similarity with Mubarak and Nepali leaders of the present times. The old Egyptian never saw that the times are changing, and similarly Nepali leadership is blind to the changes around. Like Mubarak many Nepali politicians are outdated in mind and body though they may be simple and good.

Nationalism has gone into the hands of incompetent leadership. I am not a nationalist if I am a sensible Nepali. I do not abide by the fallacious connectedness of being a Nepali as being a nationalist. I will take this argument to some other occasion, but for now I just propose that nationalism is pathologically conceived by contemporary political ideology.

The other similarity of our leaders with Mubarak is the tendency of underrating time. The Egyptian took too much time and ruled the country. Nepali leaders of democratic times have taken twenty years not to set the country into a stable democratic course (I am referring to the time of the first Janaandolan). A rational sense of time shapes immediacy in mind and body, in thought and action, in implementation of the plans and programs.

Hence the leaders have made time a transitional occupation of buying time to resolve petty party differences. On the other frontiers, South Asia is moving forward with tremendous pace and velocity. Challenging India is a fool’s profession and identifying China with communist ideals is misunderstanding communism. Making derogatory remarks on Bihar is helplessness and calling Bangladesh a poor country is going to be a history soon (the signs of economic changes are already evident there).

Thus Mubarak is far more intelligent because he finally understood the demands of the changing time. Should our powerful leaders leave and retire? They cannot and they will not and therefore nothing comes to our mind as an immediate solution. Think hard, suggested Jahnavi-appa who is visiting me in Pokhara. But Pokhara is not a good place to think about the ills: It is too beautiful here to think about the ills of political Kathmandu.

orungupto@gmail.com