There is another example from Surya Dhungel, a constitutional expert, whose recent write-up about what is likely to happen as the tenure of CA expires in May next year has triggered debates all over the political circles including at the CA. The question here too is: Was Dhungel arguing as an independent constitutional analyst or as an advisor to the president? Maybe, on a deeper level, this question is related to an individual’s association with an institution and how the individual’s professional association conditions his/her thoughts. My point here again is not to argue whether or not Dhungel is right. The point is how each of us individually is shaped in our thinking by our accidental association with one institution or the other in the society. According to this thesis, my friend at UNMIN would not have downgraded our politicians to that extent had he not been with that institution nor would have Dhungel written, arguably, in favor of the president had he not been the latter’s advisor.
Karl Marx wrote that a man’s (of course, he meant to include women too here) thinking is shaped by the condition of his stomach. Sigmund Freud modified it by saying a man’s thinking is conditioned not necessarily by the condition of the stomach but by the force below the stomach—he was referring to our sexual urges. Thinkers over ages have sought to explain what conditions our thoughts and there is no unanimity of thought on this. However, everyone agrees that our thoughts are not unconditional and absolute but are affected by the social conditions and professional organizations that we are tied to accidentally or by design or personal choice. Think about the various individuals who either think or are forced to think along the lines laid down by their political party bosses. Whether one becomes a Marxist or a Maoist or a democrat in life, for instance, could well be accidental, meaning that it was a set of certain circumstances that makes the individual choose one political creed at a certain young age. But from then on, barring some exceptions, those individuals find it their religion to look at the world and life from those specific pair of lens. Bureaucrats have their opinions about politicians, politicians about journalists, professors about bureaucrats and so on and so forth.
At the peak of political controversy (civilian supremacy) is now the institution of presidency in the country. While most political parties, including the Maoists, believe that the president is a gentleman, a democrat at heart, and does not have political (implying dictatorial) ambitions, some have problems with the institution the president heads. The president has a number of advisors who are also well-respected and generally accepted individual experts. However, one cannot perhaps be certain about the idea that these individuals continue to remain what they were before they were associated with the institution of the presidency. It perhaps speaks of the basic human characteristic. Who knows when people change their political creed influenced by their association with a certain institution?
A number of issues settled in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) are now subject to institutional interpretations. The institution of the army and political institutions like the Nepali Congress have different interpretations about the meaning of integration and rehabilitation of the Maoist ex-combatants as mentioned in the CPA. There are different interpretations about the Maoist declaration of the autonomous provinces. One common interesting fact about all these interpretations is that they are institutional and not individual. And the individuals who are supposed to be free from the chains of the institutionally-conditioned thinking patterns – members of the civil society – are not thinking at all.
Or, they are not thinking in public on matters that are beset by controversies due to a variety of institutional interpretations. It is as if those who think do belong to an institution or the other and the rest do not think at all. We live at a time when political thinking is primarily determined by people’s association with specific organizations or groups. This situation may have other adverse consequences on a political level but it is also shrinking the space for political free thinking and interpretation. This may be why the civil society at large has opted to maintain a pessimistic silence because in whatever way an independent individual interprets things, s/he is bound to be perceived to be close to one institution or the other.
Related story
No-one to guide
