E-Kantipur

I recently participated in the Round Table discussion entitled “Good Governance and Capacity Development”. A whole range of issues were discussed, including (but by no means limited to) transparency, accountability, corruption, capacity and cost efficiency.  Many of these concepts dovetail into one another, and their effect on governance is of course profound. I soon realised that

while the ‘development industry’ has dominated the social, political, economic and cultural realms of the developing world, many of its constituent countries have remained victim to all kinds of instability. This led me to muse that perhaps the invention of developmental terminology is less important than development itself.

Nevertheless, concepts invented by the development industry will continue to compel students of the field, who will in turn continue to contest prevailing notions, ideas and practices. After all, human civilisation has evolved through the contestation of ideas and ideologies that have emerged in different ages and contexts and on a variety of scales. Perhaps this article cannot add value to the range of concepts that emerged in the discussion, but it will attempt to make sense of one facet of the programme’s agenda: the deeply problematic issue of applying apparently universal concepts to deeply particularistic scenarios.

Though issues surrounding universalism and particularism have received considerable attention throughout the history of development discourse, they only rose to prominence in Nepal during the relatively recent state restructuring agenda. There was little disagreement on the value of the concept itself, but there was much debate about how a term like “state restructuring” would fit Nepal’s political and social landscape. Such debate indicates that the definition of “development” (as it is understood in Nepal) requires constant reconsideration, with terms invented at a global level treated with great caution unless they have relevance to the specificities of Nepal’s own development discourse.

However, the fact that the term “state restructuring” entered Nepali discourse simultaneously as a local demand and an international diplomatic approach means it’s somewhat difficult to classify it as either locally owned or imported. Unfortunately, it is this very difficulty that has clouded Nepali development discourse: allowing donors to inject the concepts and practices they see fit under the guise of “state restructuring”. On the other hand, there is a tendency among many urban civil and political organisations to either accept everything imposed by the international community without any rational debate, or question every ‘well-intentioned’ attempt with unnecessary doubts. 

Distilling the dilemma, EA Brett writes: “We apparently confront a difficult choice between accepting that modern capitalism...represent[s] the end of history or rejecting the project altogether and believing that we all wear not merely tinted, but tainted glasses if we take part in the prevailing development discourse.” But perhaps, rather than choosing between these two ideas, it is necessary to maintain a balance between Western models of thinking and the cultural ideas, customs, practices and structures of Nepal.  Again, this not only applies to state restructuring, but to all concepts—past and present—that are influenced by Western capitalist thought.

Capitalism has brought about two parallel worlds exerting pressure, pushing and pulling each other within Nepal. In the first, Western thinking and practices are already well represented in Nepali development discourse. In the second, there remains a variety of local cultures, structures and knowledge. It is often found that the prescriptions made by donors, ranging from Structural Adjustment Programmes to good governance, accountability, legitimacy, democratisation, peace building and Security Sector Reform receive a mixed reception when they clash with established local thought. This scenario suggests the need for more cooperative responses in addressing issues, which international and national stakeholders have largely ignored thus far.

The great divide between advocates of capitalism and neo-liberalism, and the advocates of indigenous knowledge seems to have surfaced because of different ideological perspectives on the concept of development itself. Neo-liberals stress that development is a political project that ‘benefits some’ at the ‘expense of others’. Such ideas directly collide with the popular opinion in Nepal that development should be all-encompassing. Such claims might well be regarded as Utopian and idealistic in a modern-day context, but popular religious and spiritual scriptures, for example the Vedas and Buddha’s teaching of Pancha Sheela do propose such options. 

This is not to suggest that the capitalist ideology is completely at odds with local realities. On the contrary, there is considerable overlap in the areas of democracy, freedom, and equal rights. Let us not forget that the influence of capitalism has helped to liberate many developing countries, and there is, therefore, no reason why capitalism would be unable to contribute towards Nepal’s development. Perhaps, though, Western thought must take indigenous knowledge into greater consideration prior to policy formulations, in order to avoid confrontation.

Rejecting traditional knowledge in the name of modernity (or vice-versa) is ill-advised: disguising our real ‘self’ is a betrayal of the traditions that have contributed to building our identities.  The influx of global ideas cannot be stopped, and so, without turning Nepal into a prison, the real challenge lies in bringing capitalist theories and practices closer to local realities: central to this must be the redefining of what “state restructuring” means and entails in our context. Perhaps the solution lies in establishing a workable balance between the universal and particular—devolving power to the lowest strata of society, being sensitive to the needs and concerns of people whose opinions are rarely heard, without injuring the freedom, opportunities and sensitivities of the rest.

Sameer studied NGO Management & Development at the London School of Economics

sharmasumit77@gmail.com

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.