The recent turmoil in Nepali cities is likely to have a lasting impact on politics and society. It also impacts the lives of Nepalese migrants and the work of foreign nationals involved in development assistance. The situation remains volatile, and no one knows yet what the consequences will be. The dust must settle first.
Where there is smoke, there is fire. The urban centres were full of smoke, the first two days, emanating from burning rubble and properties earmarked as contaminated because they were associated, by the more aggressive protesters, with the powerful and the rich, who, again in the eyes of the beholders, got to be so rich because of unlawful embezzlement and immoral self-enrichment.
The anger behind the anti-corruption sentiment was fuelled by the killing of over seventy protesters on the first day of the upheaval, when the crowd initially behaved relatively peacefully. Their restraint was met with a harsh response when the police started shooting. The effect was the opposite of what the authorities had hoped to achieve. That was the moment that unrest turned into resurrection.
Nepal has consistently demonstrated its resilience in the face of natural and social disasters. Overcoming this new hurdle of unprecedented street protest and random violence is feasible, despite all sorts of hazards, but that will take time. Meanwhile, everyone with a more-than-average interest in the country will have lots of questions regarding the short term.
A Provocative Move
The chain of events that brought us to where we are now apparently began with the government banning a range of social media, stripping Nepalis of the 24/7 communication tools they were accustomed to and appreciated for various reasons. They could promote their business, chat with family and friends, and freely exchange thoughts on the state of the land, avoiding the spell of sensitivity that seems to prevail in the public debate in Nepal and its traditional media.
Some argue that the dissatisfaction among the younger generation brewed below the surface much longer, surfacing occasionally, as it did with the ‘Enough is enough’ protests a few years ago.
The decision to simply block popular social media, without a credible justification, released a powerful wave of social protest, especially among the younger generations. It worked like the last drop in the bucket, causing it to overflow, or a rude eye-opener. People felt overruled, insulted, and oppressed. In hindsight, it was a provocative move, but no one in government seemed to see the danger of inadvertently releasing so much public resistance.
The Tip of the Iceberg
This turn of events occurred so quickly and had such a profound impact on public life that the traditional local media were unable to react immediately or chose to wait and lie low. Ironically, social media, although briefly banned, provided an avalanche of footage, flash reporting, and commentary, with international media following suit. Hence, the public in Nepal and abroad was confronted with a patchwork of media coverage, scratching the surface of what had occurred during the shocking days when history took a turn.
The stream of video posts, blogs and reels from all over the world was freely available, also to the public in Nepal. The content thus reaching the internet was as diverse as the sources distributing it: ABC Australia, the BBC, Christiane Amanpour (via Current Update), CNN News, DW News, Earth’s Fury, First Post, Himal Southasian, India Today, Kalam Weekly, Nepali Times, New Delhi Television, News Laundry, PBS Newshour, Republic World, SBS News, Secular Talk, SkyNews, The Financial Express, The Free Press Journal, The Kathmandu Post, The New York Times, The Times, The Times of India, and ‘wehatethecold’, a blog from a traveller who found himself in the eye of the storm by coincidence.
Scores of visual and verbal testimonies of what went on reached the internet, primarily focusing on the events in Kathmandu and Pokhara. Nepal went viral. There was live footage, shot amidst the turmoil of the street protest and the burning and pillaging that went on, and there were TV news desks in India, Australia, the United States, and England, with talking heads commenting on the riots, almost minute-by-minute.
After a few days, more in-depth explanations and analysis began to surface, not only abroad but also in Nepal, where the Nepali Times and Himal Southasian published solid articles.
The Space to Do What Needs to Be Done
All these journalistic efforts raise questions and try to find answers. The impact of the sudden outburst of dissatisfaction is so significant that it seems impossible right now to pinpoint precisely what went on, why things happened the way they did, and what steps could be taken to remedy the causes. But to ask the right question is a good beginning. And that is what the assorted media did in abundance.
Who is or who are Gen Z? That question is ubiquitous, as it became a household name overnight without knowledge about the people behind it. Is their name a container term for a string of smaller entities? How are they organised, and how do they communicate among themselves? Are there leaders? How is the decision-making organised?
Did other groups, with a different agenda, succeed in hijacking the protest, chasing less-constructive, or better: destructive, objectives? What was the idea behind burning down the Parliament, wiping out the very space where democracy finds its home? Why were the records destroyed that are needed for proper juridical processing of economic misbehaviour? Why were hundreds of convicts freed from jail? And, why set fire to the private houses of politicians who were elected in the first place? How could the law of the street replace proper justice?
How much support will the newly appointed Prime Minister, Sushila Karki, get from most of the population? Will the people give her the space to do what needs to be done in an atmosphere of calm? Can she ‘deliver’?
Will the leaders who were ousted remain silent? Probably not. The first impression, harboured by Prachanda, for example, is that the old boys want to come back with a vengeance.
What are the main demands of the population at large that need to be met under a new political leadership? Can we sum those up as restoring political morality, safeguarding accountability and creating a lot more employment opportunities in the country?
How deeply are Nepalis divided? Can a compromise sort out the underlying conflict, or not? Should Nepal accept a status quo, as an alternative to the democratic experiment, with two or three leading contenders for the power to run things single-handedly in an autocratic manner? Is real democracy feasible and future-proof?
Is it possible to keep the desire to change things ‘for the better’ persist in the long run, or will the public and the politicians fall back to business as usual?
It seems clear that the popular trust in politics, as a credible way to run the country, has evaporated and is replaced by a lack of confidence. Are there politicians with a clean sheet and a credible program, within the existing parties, or not, who can replace the ‘ancien regime’ and gain enough votes to take over from the current interim government in due time? Can Nepali politicians recreate a strong and morally sound majority in the centre of the political spectrum?
Questions galore, the answers will come later. What the media, in print or digital, can and should do is keep observing and unearthing what’s going on. Talk to the players on the pitch, listen to what they have to say, while separating sense from nonsense, and distinguishing constructive thinking from manipulation.
Barend Toet is the Editor in Chief of Nepal Connect.
