We can sit here all day, moaning and groaning about everything that is wrong with Nepal. But what are the solutions?
One place to start would be with <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/another-decade-to-get-it-right?preview_nonce=e8166bf726" target="_blank">electoral reform</a>. Just about every malaise in Nepali politics starts with flaws in the voting process. Despite <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/article/editorial/to-the-promised-land-after-election,4082" target="_blank">periodic elections</a> giving a candidate mandate, it rarely translates into <a href="http://archive.nepalitimes.com/article/editorial/performance-legitimacy,3505" target="_blank">performance legitimacy</a>. As a result, crooks get re-elected over and over again.
It has become fashionable these days to blame democracy for governance failure, corruption, and lack of accountability. Some like the current prime minister are batting for an executive presidency to streamline decision-making.&nbsp;
Since 1990, however, the malfunction has not been in the democratic system but in the elected office-holders who populate it.
In many parts of the world, the democratic process has been hijacked by populists who fan ultra-nationalism, religious intolerance and xenophobia to get elected and then proceed to dismantle the very institutions of democracy that got them elected in the first place.
The stench of decomposing democracy is now overpowering, even in a certain neighbouring country. Although in Nepal we need to remain vigilant to prevent the election of demagogues, our problem is different: politicians who have struggled, suffered and sacrificed their lives for the restoration of democracy are the very ones undermining it.&nbsp;
And since democracy by definition means adult franchise, we have to ensure that all citizens have a say in selecting the most honest and efficient managers to run their municipal, provincial or federal governments for a given period.
The electoral system in a democracy lays down the rules about how those candidates are chosen. If the rules are relevant and are followed, we get a representative government and the people can reward elected officials with a second term in office.
Nepalis have historically shown great enthusiasm at election time, with <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/lower-than-usual-turnout-in-nepal-polls" target="_blank">turnouts</a> usually exceeding 65% in most constituencies. The voting is relatively peaceful, free and fair. The 2015 Constitution made elected assemblies more inclusive in terms of gender and minorities.
However, there have always been serious concerns about election financing and the high cost of campaigning. Vote buying, cashing in on caste, ethnic or party vote banks end up narrowing the choice for voters. &nbsp;
A candidate who has to first pay the party boss for a ticket, then spend a fortune on wholesalers of bulk votes will (if elected) try to recoup that investment many times over.&nbsp;
This <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/the-business-of-politics-in-nepal" target="_blank">politics of patronage</a> means that campaign financing comes from business cronies who will demand their pound of flesh in licenses and contracts from the representative they helped elevate to office.&nbsp;
That is why we now have so many <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/bulldozing-democracy" target="_blank">businessmen who are MPs, &nbsp;mayors and ward chairs</a>. Captains of industry figured that instead of giving money to someone else, why not run for office themselves? &nbsp;This has made it more and more difficult to distinguish between businessmen and politicians, it has politicised crime and criminalised politics.&nbsp;
On Monday, Nepal’s Election Commission came out with a new integrated draft bill based on several laws that will now be debated in the current session of Parliament.&nbsp;
The bill contains some radical reforms which, if implemented, could change the electoral system for the better. The First Past the Post (FPTP) system is the <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/article/editorial/trickledown-corruption,4176" target="_blank">root of corruption</a>, and the bill would disallow those who have lost an election from contesting from another constituency.
The Proportional Representation (PR) system was supposed to promote inclusiveness, but has mostly promoted nepotism. The bill would bar serial MPs elected under the PR quota from contesting more than twice.
Since the FPTP system has not <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/article/headline/Pro-women,4081" target="_blank">ensured gender balance</a>, the bill binds parties to ensure that 33% of candidates for direct voting are women. The bill also seeks to add ‘None of the Above’ on the ballot paper, and if 50% of them are no votes, the election is null and void.
Perhaps the most welcome point in the bill is a provision that we have been <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/mirage-of-migrant-rights" target="_blank">hammering away</a> at in this space for years: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/news/we-are-treated-like-atms" target="_blank">absentee ballots</a>. Mailing and early polling would ensure that the 15% of Nepalis living abroad can <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/our-notes-count-but-our-votes-don-t" target="_blank">exercise their constitutional right to vote</a>.&nbsp;
Successive governments have blocked absentee ballots despite a Supreme Court ruling in 2018 because they fear diaspora votes will be anti-incumbent. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) notes that 151 of 216 countries allow nationals living abroad to vote.&nbsp;
What the Election Commission does not go far enough in its proposed bill is to make election financing more transparent because that is at the root of corruption in high places. We realise this is notoriously difficult to enforce, and even the United States has not been able to rein in campaign financing. But rules should at least be laid down.
There is rampant abuse of the PR system as a fig leaf for inclusion, why not scrap it altogether and instead require parties to field more women and minorities in the direct ballot.
In the final analysis, elections work if the political parties themselves have internal democracy, and the voters can make informed choices about candidates. Otherwise we will keep on having free and unfair elections that deliver the same tried, tested and failed candidates to office.
Parliament may do well to not just pass this bill, but also add into it additional reform measures about campaign financing.&nbsp;

original

674x448

610x380

500x500

400x266

400x240

400x203

301x200

1250x600

1084x550

Free and unfair

Nepal’s cybersphere is rumbling with posts by politicians vying to go viral by being ultra-nationalist. &nbsp;
Thrust to electoral victory last year riding Facebook booster rockets, Kathmandu Mayor Balendra ‘Balen’ Shah is leading the charge. First, he posted a photo of his office with a pre-1816 map of Nepal to counter the Akhanda Bharat mural unveiled in India’s new Parliament building.
Then, he went ballistic on rumours (later proven to be untrue) that the Indian movie Adipurush claimed Sita was “a daughter of India”. He retaliated with an indefinite ban on all Bollywood movies in Kathmandu cinemas until the non-existent dialogue was removed not just in Nepal but by Indian censors as well. Sound familiar? The Maoist 40-point demand in 1996 also included a ban on Bollywood films. &nbsp;
When the Patan High Court issued an immediate interim order rescinding the movie ban, Balen fired off another salvo from his social media account saying no way was he going to follow the court’s order or, for that matter, the Constitution. Safeguarding the national interest and preserving Nepal’s sovereignty and culture was far more important, he said.&nbsp;
And he used a similar argument about hanging the Greater Nepal map in his office, despite constitutional experts calling the tit-for-tat anti-Constitutional, irresponsible and over-stepping his jurisdiction as mayor.&nbsp;
Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/news/rot-at-the-top">Rot at the top</a>, Shristi Karki
Ultra-nationalism in Nepal is not new, it is usually retaliatory India-bashing over some perceived affront. Madhuri Dixit once said that she found Nepal “just like India” and we got worked up about that. But it can also turn deadly, as shown by riots in 2000 over Bollywood actor Hritik Roshan purportedly slandering Nepal in an Indian tv interview.&nbsp;
Nepali politicians through the ages have resorted to nationalism to hide under-performance, to distract public attention from more pressing issues, or for electoral gain. All it does is expose insecurity, and only becomes serious when the flames are stoked by politicians.
To be sure, the Indians add fuel to the fire by taunting Nepalis, knowing fully well how sensitive historical memory here about past wrongs can be, and anything said or done in New Delhi tends to be magnified in Nepal – as with their claim to Kalapani-Lipu Lek. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Nationalism is the last resort of scoundrels, as someone said. Italian media tycoon and 3-time prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, who died last week, perfected the art of populist politics even before the age of the internet. Donald Trump copied the formula ditto by weaponising social media. Narendra Modi in India has demonstrated how to pulverise pluralism with populism.&nbsp;
Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/news/red-to-saffron">RED to SAFFRON</a>, Shristi Karki
The temptation to appeal to raw instinct, intolerance and hidden bigotry is so strong that even politicians who have fought long and hard for democracy succumb to it. After Balen Shah’s map went viral, the NC’s Gagan Thapa couldn’t resist putting in his own two cents.
Former BBC journalist Rabindra Mishra, who practiced objectivity for decades, has also gone off on a tangent. Rabi Lamichhane of the RSP is only held back by saner voices in his party.
Every politician is entitled to their personal conviction, ideology, and faith. It is when their exercise of freedom impinges on someone else’s right to choice that it becomes dangerous. In countries with entrenched discrimination, inequity and social injustice, populism can be turned into a political warhead. &nbsp;&nbsp;
Balen Shah promised a lot during his election campaign, and some cosmetic changes have been made to the streets. To be fair, it would be too much to expect one mayor in one term to solve Kathmandu’s multi-faceted crises decades in the making. Still, hanging maps on the wall and banning Bollywood films serve to distract public attention from failures.&nbsp;
Even the mayor’s proactive campaigns have been unjust and excessive: bulldozing squatter settlements without first offering alternatives and his Metropolitan Police upturning fruit and panipuri carts of street vendors. The poor and neediest became collateral damage.
Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/political-environment">Political environment</a>, Editorial
Any critics of these actions are mercilessly trolled by Balen’s supporters who are internet avatars of his street gendarmes – as we probably will be for posting this Editorial online.
The challenge for democracy worldwide now is to protect open societies from populist politics. In Nepal, the royal right is crafting a narrative of nostalgia about the glory days of monarchy. But it is not so simple. &nbsp;
Political changes in Nepal in 1950, 1990, and 2006 have all come about because of outrage over an existing system. But outrage alone does not guarantee a change in the character of the state.&nbsp;
Populists feed on this rage against the status quo, but they offer no solutions except hyper-nationalism. The silver lining is that Nepalis also rejected many serial politicians, and elected some capable technocrats who are now raising hell in Parliament.
Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/whose-country-is-it-anyway">Whose country is it anyway?</a>, Editorial

Nepal Populist Party (Balenist)

Kevin Casas-Zamora, PhD, is the Secretary General of <a href="https://www.idea.int/">International IDEA</a>, the Stockholm-based intergovernmental organisation supporting democracy worldwide. He used to be Costa Rica’s Second Vice President and Minister of National Planning and National Coordinator of the United Nations Development Program’s Human Development Report. Nepali Times caught up with Casas-Zamora during his visit to Kathmandu this week. Excerpts: Nepali Times: In your recent op-ed for The New York Times, you wrote about democracy in Latin America and anti-corruption populism. You noted that the collapse of party systems would lead to an emergence of outsiders who would accelerate the erosion of democracy. How similar is this scenario to other parts of the world, like Nepal? Casas-Zamora: It would be very presumptuous of me to start babbling about Nepali politics, but we are seeing a global trend towards the dissolution of the mechanisms that society had created to aggregate social preferences, social demands, like political parties. Latin America might be a particularly acute example, but it is certainly not unique. The World Values Survey covering 80 countries showed the people’s trust in political parties was in the single digits. This is particularly damaging, because one of the big problems that democracy has globally is that democratic communities are being torn apart. Polarisation is on the rise pretty much everywhere. Disinformation on social media is one of the key centrifugal forces. Inequality is another, and it weakens democratic communities. When political parties are weakened and party systems become fragmented, it becomes very difficult to govern, to build majorities, to implement any kind of agenda. In the end, what do you reap out of that is dissatisfaction. We are seeing a growing gap between growing social expectations, growing social demands and the inability of democratic institutions to respond to those demands. It is in that gap that monsters are growing. And it is in that gap that populism finds fertile ground. Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/multimedia/journalism-is-the-frontline-of-democracy">"Journalism is the frontline of democracy"</a> When IDEA was established in 1995, there was euphoria about democracy, the Soviet Union had just collapsed, and many thought it was the end of history. Things did not turn out that way. Is there a design defect in the democratic project itself that allows this algorithm-driven populism to gain foothold? It is an interesting question, and I don’t think so is the answer. The normative case for democracy continues to be very strong. It is the only system that treats people according to their human dignity and respects their agency. That’s not a small thing. But beyond the purely normative argument, there is a very practical one, which is that democracy resolves in an elegant way, something authoritarian systems have great problems resolving: the issue of succession. Democratic systems also have the ability to self-correct. This is really the essence. And this is where the real value of democracy in practice lies. The pandemic proved very telling in that respect. Three years ago a lot of people blamed the faulty performance of democracy and the messiness. And sure enough there were democracies that performed very poorly, others that did better. But there was this sense that well, democracies are not up to the task, when it comes to a very acute crisis. They’re not efficient enough to respond to the problem, whereas in China, they are very efficient and they do what needs to be done. Well it turns out the performance of democracies with regards to the pandemic is looking much better than it did three years ago. And the performance of China with regard to the pandemic is not looking nearly as good. That’s down to the ability of democracies to self-correct. If you live in a democracy, and you don’t like the policies that are being enacted in four or five years, you’re going to have a chance to throw the rascals out. You may or may not succeed, but you have that chance. Living under an authoritarian system is like playing the roulette. You might be very lucky, and end up with Lee Kuan Yew and you do great. But you might not be so lucky and end up with Idi Amin. Still, we need to rethink democracy for a new time. If you take the basic design of democratic institutions, the emergence of political parties about 100 years ago, it hasn’t changed much for the past two centuries. You have this dissonance between the speed and the scale of social change over the past century, and the relative lack of institutional innovation in democracy over the same period. It is time to rethink representative institutions. One concrete example could be citizens assemblies, selected randomly that are given the task and the information to study an important problem for society and then they are expected to make recommendations, which are then taken up by the political system. They've used it for abortion in Ireland, in France for environmental issues, and that is the kind of innovation that needs to happen. It’s a time for institutional innovation and for political reform. And if we do that, if we take those serious issues seriously, a democracy has a strong case to make for itself. Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/populism-vs-pluralism">Populism vs pluralism</a> How does IDEA’s membership model work? What if a democratic member country goes rogue and elects a despot? It’s an issue that we’re grappling with. Backsliding was not a thing back in 1995, the assumption was that the good times would last forever. That is perhaps the biggest mistake that was made: the notion that this was a linear process. Well, there’s no such a thing in human affairs as a linear process other than ageing. Even in the best of circumstances it is a case of two steps forward one step back, which may also be the case for Nepal. That’s the way most democratic transitions work. Where the performance of our own member states is less than adequate in terms of adherence to democratic values that we put in place, we establish a process of dialogue with the country in question. IDEA offers some support to the country. But ultimately, it’s up to the country to put that action plan in place. We are having that discussion at the moment and it’s a complicated one, because to be very honest, and this is something that I’ve seen at just about any intergovernmental organisation, member states are loath to pass judgment on other member states. But we have to face up to the fact that democratic practices can really break down in some of our member states in gradual ways, or in abrupt ways. Our statutes have a clause that allows for a country to be suspended. It has never been used but what we are trying to put in place a due process so that this doesn’t come out of nowhere, but then there are certain steps that are followed before we get there. And hopefully, we’ll never get there.  <figure><img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20230511120516_7f285d81d83e28712661031f739209b5f73d4e2a63620a50f68e0401fa68453d.jpg" data-media-id="editor_3" data-image-id="20230511120516_7f285d81d83e28712661031f739209b5f73d4e2a63620a50f68e0401fa68453d" data-rendition-name="original" width="1000" height="667" loading="lazy" alt="Kevin Casas-Zamora"></figure>  In many democratic Asian countries, there is disillusionment with poor governance and lack of delivery. We look enviously at China or Singapore and the Asian tiger economies. Even in Nepal there are many who say we have tried it for 30 years and democracy is not delivering. Evidence tends to show that in the long run, democracies perform better. Of course, you may say that in the long run, we’re all dead. Most authoritarian systems are not like China or Singapore, the average is much lower. But while you can accept the proposition that on average democracies do better than autocracies when it comes to economic performance and development, China and Singapore are a big distortion. At the same time, we have to admit that in vast swaths of the world the pressure for development forces governments to adopt certain practices of democracy that are less than liberal. There is a lot of lecturing going around. When I travel I sense an increasing impatience when Western countries talk about democracy. A lot of folks in places like India, South Africa, in parts of Latin America roll their eyes. And this has become very evident in the context of the war in Ukraine. The West is baffled that much of the rest of the world is not seeing the war in Ukraine as part of this huge struggle against authoritarianism. Well no: that’s not the way it’s perceived. So, a little more sensitivity to the pressures for development that countries find themselves under is called for. We owe it to ourselves to have a truly global conversation about what democracy means in different places. We might not be talking about the same thing. So a little more humility, and more sensitivity is called for. A truly global and respectful conversation about the meaning of democracy can agree on certain, common denominators as the core tenets of democracy. But beyond that, there’s a lot of flexibility. Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/news/asia-s-new-cold-war">Asia's new Cold War</a> Where does the media fit into this? The Erdogans, Orbáns, Dutertes, Bukeles of the world are united by a desire to weaken any kind of check on executive power. And that means weakening the independent judiciary, press freedom, the ability of civil society to self-organise and demand things, and to hold people in power to account. They are weakening autonomous electoral authorities. And this thing comes in different sequences in different places, but the result is always the same. Some governments start out going after the press before they go after the judiciary, some do it the other way round. But in the end, the result is the same. The press is one of the scapegoats. I remember when I was an active politician, you lived in fear of the press, and that is the way it should be. That is the single most important check on your power. There is a reason why wannabe-autocrats go after the press, or buy them off. The more sophisticated among them buy the media off, others go after journalists. According to our measurements, one of the aspects of democracy that is most acutely under siege is freedom of the press. Out of 18 Latin American countries over the past decade, press freedom has decreased in 15 of them. Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/the-death-of-democracy">The death of democracy</a>, Aditya Adhikari

“Democracy gives you a chance to throw rascals out”

<figure><img width="2000" height="1335" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221114131140/637237e19c7e80680e0c7355jpeg.jpg" alt=""/><figcaption>All Photos: CIJ Nepal</figcaption></figure>Translated excerpts of the panel Unmasking Populism marking the 25th anniversary of the Centre for Investigative Journalism NepalModerator Sewa Bhattarai:There are many terms in Nepali for ‘populism’, but in essence they capture the negative connotation of public figures taking a shortcut to popularity. Populism is considered to be damaging to democracy around the world, and in Nepal as well. In the panel today, we will look into how populism impacts on pluralism and how to unmask it.CK Lal, Columnist, Kantipur and Kathmandu PostThis is almost a philosophical proposition. Populism is nothing new, it goes back to Greco-Roman times and the dawn of what we know today as democracy. We can look at populism in two ways: the first as a tendency, and the second as a method.When populism was limited to individual behaviour it was not so damaging to society. It is when populism becomes a method that it becomes an ‘ism’ and unleashes a slew of other problems. <img width="640" height="444" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221114131140/637237e49c7e80680e0c7356jpeg.jpg" alt="">Populism also has several dimensions. It can be used as a means for domination by one group in society to use self-appropriated  divine right against rivals. Populism can be fanned by one group of an elite against another to mobilise the masses by portraying it as being made up of crooks who exploit them to get to power.  Populism appears as demagoguery in politics, and in economics it manifests itself in nepotism. Populism can also be used as a strategy to aid and abet a political group in garnering public support to compete against rivals.Culturally, populism can exhort the public with tales of historical glory to establish the narrative that things have deteriorated because of  outsiders who corrupt society.The reason populism has become the preferred method for dominance by political groups in different parts of the world today is because all the others ‘isms’ and ideologies have been discredited one way or another.Communism bit the dust in 1989, there was hope that at least Fabian socialism and the welfare state would replace it but that did not happen. Capitalism failed to deliver because of its excesses.The inability of these ideologies to work in the public interest for equity and justice increased  disillusionment in society, and clever politicians exploited populist ideology to use it as a strategy to channel public support. Cultural entrepreneurs used populism to promote religious, literary or linguistic agendas. Also, there is the difficulty that while unmasking one sort of populism we replace it with another.All these factors have led to the spread of populism around the globe. What makes it dangerous is that there does not seem to be any way to stop this trend because social networks now magnify populist ideologies so effectively. Without media gatekeepers, these networks add fuel to the fire with instant outrage and emotion.Populism can also be positive. At one point in history, America had progressive populism with leaders who drove socio-economic reform. A Nepali leader calling for the abolition of untouchability would also be called a populist.Arvind Kejriwal of the AAP in Delhi is a welfare populist when he tries to raise the quality of education or medical care to make it more equitable.Radical populism can take on an ultra-reformist agenda like, for example, the call to abolish Nepal’s army because we do not really have an enemy to fight.The problem is with negative populism. Demagogic populism  tries to drive home the majoritarian agenda. In Nepal, that would be fear mongering over giving citizenship to the husbands of Nepali women because that would mean we will be inundated with Indians, and this would lead to the country’s ‘Fijification’ or ‘Sikkimisation’.Then there is charismatic populism, exemplified by Kathmandu’s Mayor Balen. There is no ideology attached, it is not ultra-reformist, or radical. It is just his personality that is driving a public service agenda through a partyless candidacy. Narendra Modi or Donald Trump could also be described as charismatic populists.To overcome populism with pluralism, political parties have to believe and compete in the marketplace of ideas. For this, the institutions of democracy have to be strengthened to counter negative populism. Leaders should have the statesmanship to speak up for minorities even if they are from a majority community.If a Nepali from the mountains supports representation and justice for the Madhesi people, it will be more effective than a Madhesi person saying the same thing.Yubaraj Ghimire, Deshsansar.comWhen mainstream political parties cannot deliver to the electorate and offer solutions, the public is naturally disenchanted. Our democracies are all about how to use the election system to drum up public support from voters so as to get to power. They use slogans to propel their agenda, and they know the limits of how much they can promise so that citizens will believe them, even though they may not be able to implement those promises for economic or other reasons. <img width="2000" height="1335" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221114131140/637237e79c7e80680e0c7357jpeg.jpg" alt="">When I was working as a journalist in India, for example, Prime Minister Morarji Desai was asked by his Janata Party to travel to the south to canvas for elections. He met farmers, who had a list of demands. He told them that even if he came to power, he would not be able to fulfil them. This was a rare example of a politician who was not tempted by populist rhetoric, and had the courage to tell it like it is. But he was an exception.When Morarji was not in government, he opposed India’s annexation of Sikkim. But after he became prime minister he had to go along with it. So, populism is a tool of power. Even if they cannot fool all the people all the time, populists will keep trying.Populism also manifests itself at election time when political parties are not rational in their character and articulation, when they can raise such issues and get away with it.  The reason the media is not as effective as it can be to counter this  is that owners of media have other business interests which they try to protect, and to bring down rivals through their content.Populism is fostered when the basic tenets of the Constitution were passed without much debate in Parliament, elected representatives just signed off on it without accountability. This is detrimental to pluralism, encourages populism and further discredits credibility of the leadership, and by extension society’s own collective credibility.Rajendra Dahal, SikhsyakIt is quite natural for politicians to follow a populist agenda. They will argue that it is not possible to win in elections by telling people the unvarnished truth. They have to spout populist slogans, promise populist programs.What is more, we in the media, academics and others have taken this as a normal state of things. This acceptance of populism is one of the biggest challenges of our democracy. And the reason it is a problem is that the press has decided to ignore populism, and does not see it as a problem. So, when politicians, elected representatives and even the judiciary choose a populist path, journalists begin to take that as a given, and not look at the trend critically. <img width="1941" height="1263" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221114131140/637237ea9c7e80680e0c7358jpeg.jpg" alt="">Our reality today in the media is that journalists are not able to see through the fog to gauge what is really happening in the country. There are good papers and magazines, they are designed and printed well, but when I asked one journalist how about going deeper into the real state of the country. The answer was: “No way, we can report on that.”The challenge for the media is to develop a deeper understanding of the processes of populism that are at work. And this is happening at a time when the entire state mechanism seems to be intent on blunting the influence of the media with easy public money. This commercialises the media, eroding its public service role.The instant gratification that comes with populism hypnotises society. Populism now has Nepali society and our political mechanism in its grip. It also is proof of just how weak and unpopular Nepal’s leaders have become that they have to resort to these tricks. They have such low confidence in themselves and are so afraid of the public reaction that they cannot even face voters by themselves, they go in groups. The rise of Balen and the independents has really spooked them.Mohana Ansari, Human Rights defenderLooking at the world today, we see the rise of Modi in India, Erdogan in Turkey, Trump in America, Bolsanaro in Brazil, Duterte and now Marcos in the Philippines. Compared to all of these countries, Nepal can be considered one of the more progressive ones. Yet what touches the people of Nepal is religion. And I have a deep personal connection to that since the religious strife I witnessed as a child in Nepalganj, and even lately.Our political parties, be they Congress, UML or Maoists, may sound very progressive, but the drafting of the 2015 Constitution showed that they were not able to adequately address the concerns of the minorities, and we thought that some of the aspirations would be filled in as we went along. However, what we find is that the majoritarian narrative is still dominant, and the media tends to black out content that challenges the status quo or the voices of the minorities. On the citizenship debate, for example, we still discriminate between male and female Nepalis. <img width="735" height="1152" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221114131140/637237ed9c7e80680e0c7359jpeg.jpg" alt="">Nepal still has a long list of challenges, but I think we are now equipped to address them. During the Constitution drafting process, there was a populist belief that federalism would divide the country. But I was always deeply convinced that it would actually unite Nepal.Across the world populism and politics can obstruct the pursuit of human rights and rule of law. For example, with a rise in heinous crimes there is a populist push, even in media headlines, for capital punishment even though that is against the Constitution. Imagine if someone is falsely accused based on a phone complaint of rape, what kind of situation would we be in? Imagine the kind of message that would send to the world that Nepal is a violent country.

Populism vs pluralism

<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108181144/636a95ad9c7e80680e05dc1fjpeg.jpg" alt="" width="629" height="420"/><figcaption>Photo: ERICK KABENDERA/IPS</figcaption></figure>Using armies of online fans, trolls and, automated ‘bots’, the world’s authoritarians and populists are increasingly using the web to drown out opponents and swing public opinion and elections their way, a new study says.<a href="https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2018">The Freedom on the Net report</a>, compiled annually by Freedom House, a US government-funded research group, confirms the fears of many online activists and paints a bleak portrait of how the internet is straining democracies.The 32-page document, released earlier in November and titled <a href="https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2018">The Crisis of Social Media</a>, found that more than half of the world’s 3.8 billion web users live in countries that censor the internet and use pro-government trolls to manipulate the online realm.Freedom House President Mike Abramowitz warned of online propaganda and disinformation spreading ahead of elections in 24 countries. The group assesses web freedom in 65 countries that host 87 percent of the world’s webusers.“Governments are finding that on social media, propaganda works better than censorship,” Abramowitz said in a statement. “Authoritarians and populists around the globe are exploiting both human nature and computer algorithms to conquer the ballot box, running roughshod over rules designed to ensure free and fair elections.”Researchers found that officials had worked with celebrity yes-men, business titans and semi-autonomous “online mobs” to spread clickbait, conspiracy theories and misleading memes from “marginal echo chambers to the political mainstream”.The report spotlights Brazil, where Jair Bolsonaro’s presidential election win in October 2018 was preceded by misleading news, anti-gay rumours and doctored images being spread by the right-winger’s fans via YouTube and WhatsApp, researchers said.In Egypt, the government of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi blocked some 34,000 websites to stifle debates about whether el-Sisi should be allowed to hold power until the end of 2030 ahead of an April referendum, the report said.Hundreds of thousands of online trolls spread fake news to swing voters behind two main parties in April-May elections in India this year, it added. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘NaMo’ app was reportedly relaying users’ data to a private analytics firm.The world’s two biggest economies — the United States and China — come in for special scrutiny. In the US, much like in the 2016 presidential election that brought Donald Trump to power, online trolls spread “disinformation” during the November 2018 mid-term vote and during the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.Meanwhile, US immigration officials are increasingly demanding access to the mobile phones and laptops of visitors and snooping on immigrants’ social media feeds, operating with “little oversight or transparency”, the report says.China remains the “world’s worst abuser of internet freedom” — a title it has held for four consecutive years, and where a phalanx of online commentators known as the 50 Cent Army pushes government messages online.Beijing clamped down harder on web users ahead of the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre on 15 April and got tighter still in the face of ongoing anti-government protests in Hong Kong, the report says.Adrian Shahbaz, the group’s research director for technology and democracy, warned that even governments of smaller economies can now afford large-scale “advanced social media surveillance programs”.Last month, Facebook sued NSO Group, an Israeli surveillance firm, for using the WhatsApp messaging service to hack the phones of some 1,400 dissidents, journalists, diplomats, officials and others for their clients, understood to be governments and spy agencies.“Once reserved for the world’s most powerful intelligence agencies, big-data spying tools are making their way around the world,” said Shahbaz. “Even in countries with considerable safeguards for fundamental freedoms, there are already reports of abuse.”Researchers noted that officials in 47 countries, armed with such sophisticated web-snooping tools, had arrested web users between June 2018 and May 2019 for posting political, social or religious messages online.“The future of internet freedom rests on our ability to fix social media,” said Shahbaz.“Since these are mainly American platforms, the US must be a leader in promoting transparency and accountability in the digital age. This is the only way to stop the internet from becoming a Trojan horse for tyranny and oppression.” (IPS)

Online trolls, bots & snoopers imperil democracy

<figure><img width="1500" height="1038" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108141116/636a56b79c7e80680e05479ejpeg.jpg" alt=""/><figcaption>Source: SHARECAST INITIATIVE NEPAL</figcaption></figure>There was a time until recently when we wrote editorials in this space about how the <a href="http://archive.nepalitimes.com/news.php?id=4271#.XXDRyy4zbIU" target="_blank" rel="noopener">global digital divide was mirrored within Nepal.</a> Just like the haves and have-nots, we said Nepal had the ‘knows’ and ‘know-nots’, because access to the internet here was so skewed.How fast things have changed. <a href="http://archive.nepalitimes.com/news.php?id=19399#.XXDSVC4zbIV" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Till 2012</a>, we were reporting that there were 1.4 million Nepalis on <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/facebook-nation/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> Facebook</a>. Today the figure is nearing 8.5 million. The number of Twitter users is much lower, but it has a following among the intelligentsia, media and political influencers, which magnifies its impact. In April, Nepali Times printed the results of a <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/how-nepals-media-landscape-is-being-transformed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sharecast Initiative survey</a> that showed:<ul><li>96% of Nepali households own a mobile</li><li>90% of individuals own a mobile</li><li>Half the mobile users had smartphones</li><li>18% used laptops, desktops or tablets at home</li><li>Among the 35% who used the internet, 98% said they use mobile phones to get online</li><li>75% used mobile data to access the internet.</li></ul>Read also:<a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/?p=32527&amp;preview=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener">So, you want to quit Facebook?,</a> Reeti KC<a style="background-color: #ffffff; font-size: 15px; letter-spacing: 0.01em;" href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/?p=32537&amp;preview_nonce=96e6eb44eb&amp;preview=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nepal’s new digital landscape,</a> Sonia AwaleAs our review of the survey in this edition (page 15) shows, the shift of eyeballs to digital media is going to have a profound impact on the way Nepalis communicate with each other, the way Nepal is governed and how  Nepali society functions.While the legacy press is still strong and influential, and people do not fully trust information on the Net, the window for print is narrowing. As elsewhere, it is inevitable that the online editions of the mainstream press, digital news portals and YouTube channels are going to be the main sources of news. Print media will have to re-invent its revenue model, or perish. Internet viewing patterns in Nepal and other parts of the region show increasing dominance of entertainment content. Facebook and social media addiction is becoming a problem, reducing the attention span of readers, exposing them to click bait, fake news and rumours.   As the recent case involving Rabi Lamichhane — as well as protests against heritage destruction, violence against women and corruption — shows, social media content is now driving mainstream media content, setting the agenda for coverage and priority accorded to events, personalities and issues.Not all of this is improper, damaging or dangerous. The internet has democratised information flow, levelled the playing field, and in many cases turned citizens into actors and content providers themselves. The cybersphere has become the new Nepali public sphere, chautari and our own global village, where the medium is the message.Read also: <a style="background-color: #ffffff; font-size: 15px; letter-spacing: 0.01em;" href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/?p=32425&amp;preview=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Digital Detox,</a> Nepali Times<a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/nepalis-are-drifting-to-digital-media/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nepalis are drifting to digital media</a>, Madhu Acharya and Bhumiraj ChapagainPeople like <a style="font-size: 16px; background-color: #ffffff; letter-spacing: 0.01em;" href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/the-cost-of-light/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kulman Ghising</a> of the Nepal Electricity Authority, <a style="font-size: 16px; background-color: #ffffff; letter-spacing: 0.01em;" href="http://archive.nepalitimes.com/news.php?id=18574#.XXDSoS4zbIV" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Vijay Lama</a> of Nepal Airlines, and <a style="font-size: 16px; background-color: #ffffff; letter-spacing: 0.01em;" href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/nepals-far-sighted-eye-care/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sanduk Ruit</a> of <a style="font-size: 16px; background-color: #ffffff; letter-spacing: 0.01em;" href="https://tilganga.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tilganga</a> have been propelled to national stardom through social media magnification. They are seen by the public at large as direct antitheses of greedy and corrupt politicians.No wonder, then, that the greedy and corrupt feel threatened by these personalities. In the battle between populism and popularity, these new heroes expose the hopeless inadequacies of political figures because of their integrity and selfless devotion to public welfare. When they become a political threat, we have seen backlash from the rulers.The Nepali Net is affecting politics because the young middle-class is now wired. Half of Nepal’s population is under 21, and this networked youth bulge will have huge political implications in the next general election in 2022.Where the new voters get their information, how they get it and what kind of information it is, will determine who rules Nepal and how. If the information is correct and credible, exposes wrongdoing, is fair to all concerned, and lets voters make up their own minds, the <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/nepalis-are-drifting-to-digital-media/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Media</a> will strengthen Nepal’s fragile democracy.But if in the next three years, fake news goes viral, bot armies are deployed, false social media accounts target individuals to destroy their credibility, and troll factories are created to widen and exploit religion, sectarian, caste and ethnic fault lines, then Nepal is headed for disaster.For now, social media is a free-for-all. It is still dominated by the personal, but is increasingly being used as a political platform by citizens to air their views. It is in this dynamic, interactive and instantaneous public cybersphere that opinions are increasingly being made and spread.The Internet is a double-edged sword: it can mobilise pro-democracy protests and be a marketplace of ideas, but it can also radicalise society with algorithm-driven echo chambers, hate speech and corrosive dialogue.As with all media there are the good, the bad and the ugly. At a time when the mainstream press is co-opted, coerced or bought off by political brokers, social media still holds out the hope of keeping the democratic space open.Fortunately most Nepalis, wired or otherwise, value peace and harmony. This silent majority must be silent no more, and speak out on the social web to drown out the fake and phoney.Read also:<a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/how-nepals-media-landscape-is-being-transformed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nepal's changing media landscape</a>, Sharecast Initiative<a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/new-news/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New news</a>, Editorial <h2>10 years ago this week</h2> This excerpt from the <a href="http://archive.nepalitimes.com/news.php?id=16274#.XXD94y4zaUk">front page story</a> in <a href="http://archive.nepalitimes.com/issue/467">Nepali Times #467</a> of 4-12 September 2019 shows that however much things change in Nepal, they stay the same:'There is no other way to write the new Constitution, protect the peace process and reduce foreign interference than for the political leadership to work together. Yet they can’t bring themselves to do it.Individually, they all give speeches saying there is no alternative to consensus politics. But their actions say just the opposite. Even when antagonistic parties get together, like the NC and the Maoists, it is for selfish and partisan reasons. <img width="400" height="610" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108141116/636a56bb9c7e80680e05479fjpeg.jpg" alt=""> Threatening “to capture state power through a people’s rebellion” and a bloodbath will not take the process forward. Openly moving around with guns, refusing to rehabilitate those rejected in the cantonments, continuing to obstruct Parliament, will not help.'

THE MESSAGE IS THE MEDIUM

<img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221107171152/636937b89c7e80680e03fe57jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="1476"/>MADRID – Sadly, 2018 will not be remembered as a year of political and diplomatic success. Though the international order had already begun to erode in 2017, the global political environment became downright chaotic, combustible, and hostile this year. That is no coincidence, as these are perhaps the three adjectives that best describe the United States under President Donald Trump.Since January 2018, when the Trump administration announced tariffs on imported solar panels and washing machines, the year has been marked by an escalating “trade war,” waged primarily – but not exclusively – by the US against China. The ongoing tariff disputes have seriously <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/19/the-trade-war-has-claimed-its-first-victim/">undermined</a> the World Trade Organization and deepened mutual distrust in Sino-American relations.For its part, China this year <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/world/asia/china-xi-jinping-term-limit-explainer.html">eliminated</a> presidential term limits, raising fears that President Xi Jinping’s so-called <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/18/i-mastered-xi-jinping-thought-and-i-have-the-certificate-to-prove-it/">new era</a> will end the period of collective leadership ushered in by Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, which were themselves a corrective to Mao’s cult of personality. This move could also herald a further deviation from Deng’s trademark foreign-policy restraint.Similarly, Russian President Vladimir Putin was reelected in March, to no one’s surprise. Under Putin, Russia has been re-emerging as a geopolitical force. And yet, its economy is essentially stagnant, owing in part to its excessive dependence on hydrocarbons. In the absence of growth, Putin has relied on foreign policy to shore up his domestic popularity.For example, Putin’s campaign press secretary welcomed the British government’s response to the nerve-agent attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal, because it may have <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/kremlin-thanks-britain-for-putin-s-landslide-victory-a3793546.html">mobilized</a> Putin’s supporters in the run-up to the presidential election. And the Kremlin’s recent decision to blockade Ukrainian ports in the Sea of Azov may also have been <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/11/26/is-there-link-between-putins-approval-rating-aggressive-russian-foreign-policy/?utm_term=.7f850b68f13d">designed</a> to boost Putin’s domestic approval rating, among other goals. The danger now is that both the US and Russia will cease to implement the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, posing a new and acute <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/12/13/will-europe-try-to-save-the-inf-treaty/">threat to Europe</a> in particular.Meanwhile, the Middle East has continued to serve as a battlefield for some of the world’s most violent conflicts. Though the Islamic State (ISIS) has continued to <a href="https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/22-months-of-war-condensed-in-a-1-minute-video">lose ground</a>, it is far from defeated – contrary to what Trump <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1075528854402256896">has claimed</a> – and the death toll in Syria’s civil war continues to climb. Likewise, the humanitarian calamity in Yemen has deepened, though negotiations that ran aground in 2016 have at least resumed and made <a href="https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/gulf-and-arabian-peninsula/yemen/making-yemens-hodeida-deal-stick">some progress</a>. In Afghanistan, what is widely regarded as the longest-running war in US history continues, and <a href="https://thenewsrep.com/109943/is-afghanistan-a-lost-cause-taliban-control-more-territory-since-2001/">it is estimated</a> that the Taliban now controls more territory than at any time since their government was overthrown in 2001.Despite some recent developments in the aforementioned conflicts, the underpinnings of the Trump administration’s general strategy in the Middle East remained intact in 2018. The US has reaffirmed its <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/06/18/donald-trumps-new-world-order">support</a> for the axis of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, which it regards as a bulwark against Iran. In May, the Trump administration moved the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. That same month, it abandoned the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and announced an abusive re-imposition of extraterritorial sanctions, which reflects the increasing <a href="https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-secondary-sanctions-eu-iran-by-mark-leonard-2018-10">weaponization of the US dollar</a>.Moreover, by siding with the Saudi government over his own intelligence agencies in the <a href="https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/confronting-saudi-policies-free-speech-yemen-syria-by-leon-willems-2018-12">murder</a> of journalist <a href="https://www.project-syndicate.org/columnist/jamal-khashoggi">Jamal Khashoggi</a> in October, Trump has made clear that opposing Iran and purchasing US arms is one of the quickest ways to his heart. The result of his broad approach to the Middle East has been to empower military hardliners throughout the region. In fact, Israel and Iran this year engaged in their first-ever <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/11/iran-israel-little-incentive-hurry-down-path-war">direct military encounter</a>.Trump has also contributed, in one way or another, to the advance of populism around the world in 2018. In Latin America, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) and Brazilian President-elect Jair Bolsonaro have shown that “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/03/what-is-populism-trump-farage-orban-bolsonaro">populism</a>” can encompass diverse ideologies. While both claim to speak for “the people” against “the elites,” the leftist AMLO was elected partly as a <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/01/mexico-election-trump-populist-lopez-obrador-664243">rebuke</a> to Trump, whereas Bolsonaro embraces a Trump-like brand of right-wing nationalism, and enjoys the <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/01/mexico-election-trump-populist-lopez-obrador-664243">support</a> of many Brazilian elites.The Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, often regarded as one of the Kremlin’s main ideologues, <a href="https://www.politicaexterior.com/actualidad/trump-paso-hacia-objetivo-insuficiente/">argues</a> that “populism should unite right-wing values with socialism, social justice, and anti-capitalism.” This “integral populism,” he believes, is perfectly illustrated by Italy’s current governing coalition, which comprises the anti-establishment Five Star Movement and the nationalist League party.In October, Italy’s government instigated a conflict with the European Union (which has fortunately <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/19/italy-avoids-eu-sanctions-after-reaching-2019-budget-agreement">subsided</a>) by proposing a budget that defied EU fiscal rules. Italy’s leaders justified their policies in the name of an outdated interpretation of “<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/10/eu-rejected-italy-budget-populists/573742/">sovereignty</a>,” one similar to that of the United Kingdom’s Brexiteers, whose haphazardness has left the UK’s future shrouded in uncertainty.There were a few positive developments in 2018. Certainly, the easing of tensions between the US and North Korea, and the even deeper rapprochement between North and South Korea, should be welcomed. Much credit belongs to South Korean President <a href="https://www.project-syndicate.org/columnist/moon-jae-in">Moon Jae-in</a>, who used the occasion of the Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang to reach out to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Trump’s subsequent turn toward diplomacy – which led to his historic summit with Kim – should also be applauded, though his administration has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/north-korea-rejects-denuclearization-unless-us-nuclear-threat-is-eliminated/2018/12/20/fcf642a2-0438-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html?utm_term=.c0a8c770d20f">yet to achieve</a> anything more than symbolic progress toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.The result of the US midterm elections was also good news. Democratic control of the House of Representatives means that, from January 2019, there will be more checks on Trump’s policies. And there have been welcome developments in the Republican-controlled Senate, where a recent resolution condemning Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for the murder of Khashoggi, and another to end US support for the Saudi campaign in Yemen, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/politics/yemen-saudi-war-pompeo-mattis.html?module=inline">passed</a> with bipartisan support.In Europe, the prospects for 2019 will depend primarily on three factors: Brexit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron’s push for <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/826a4986-f7ac-11e8-af46-2022a0b02a6c">EU reform</a>, and the European Parliament election in May. In each case, one hopes that the supporters of democracy, the rule of law, European integration, and multilateralism will prevail.Those who oppose these principles have had a rather good year. But they would be mistaken to think that those who uphold them have lost the will – and the ability – to cultivate a spirit of cooperation and harmony.     © Project SyndicateJavier Solana was EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, Secretary-General of NATO, and Foreign Minister of Spain.