(These two pieces were parts of a heated discussion on corruption in Nepal at 'Nepal Democracy' Google Group, which is, as some of you know, is a closed club of self-styled pro-democracy activists. So the discussion is not available publicly.)

Nepe's theory on corruption:

1. I think, corruption is a default state of any society. So looking for sources of corruption is absurd. (see ? I told you, I have strange theories !)

2. Corruption is something that gets manifested. It is not something that gets originated.

3. A discussion on corruption make sense only in the context of how to prevent it. In everything else, it is absurd.

4. Since corruption does not have a source (it is omnipresent), prevention of corruption is essentially defining/determining it and placing punitive measures.

5. Defining/determining corruption needs- this is second strange theory of mine- a 'point of beginning'. Of course it needs brain and will power too. However, they can do nothing if a 'point of beginning' is not available.

6. The above is where went wrong in Nepal. Any time during the earlier years after 1990 could/should have been a 'point of beginning'. That did not happen. A continuum of pre-1990 was maintained after 1990. This is where the problem lies and therefore where the answer lies as well.

7. A 'point of beginning' is basically a point of total freedom to define corruption.

8. Give Nepal a point of beginning. That's the only way. There is no other way to find cure to existing corruptions.

9. Do not worry about newer corruptions. Because it is pointless. The measure you place to cure the existing corruptions will take care of the newer corruptions.

10. So, the answer to Nepal's corruption is to have a point of total freedom to define corruptions, place punitive measures and let the land of the law become the monarch.

The rest will be taken care of by vibrant civil society and full democracy we expect to have in near future. If something still gets leaked--and leaked they will-- we will have to learn to live with that, re-defining them as acceptable corruptions, if needed.


*** *** *** *** *** ***

Nepe's roadmap to clean Nepal:

Corruption in Nepal is so extensive and rooted, some patch work is not going to take care of it. I think we need to think it in terms of a road map just like the one for democracy.

I do have a road map for taking care of corruption in Nepal. Once again the major part of it is really strange.

Without further ado, let me put down my road map to fight corruption in Nepal. It has three steps. I have already described the step one in some way.

STEP 1: A POINT OF BEGINNING

As I explained earlier, this is basically an understanding of total power (call it a full democracy, supremacy of the law, republic or whatever). An all powerful state forms an all powerful anti-graft body. CIAA is already there. So basically, making it all powerful and resourceful is what is needed.

STEP 2: RECONCILIATION PERIOD

Actually, I don't know what name to give to it. However, the idea is to give a very liberal opportunity to all defaulters (of all time, all type and all ranks) to voluntarily submit to CIAA what they have benefited. It is logistically a very complicated issue indeed. However, the idea is an opportunity for a voluntary reconciliation with hope that most of the defaulters will take this opportunity and very little will be left for CIAA to go after. Let's say, CIAA announces a 6 months period for this. Those who will submit during this period will not be taken further action against, except for checking authenticity of the claims if CIAA feels so.

STEP 3. NEW ERA OF ZERO TOLERANCE

This commences immediately after the Reconciliation period is over. Zero tolerance explains it all. Politically this period might look like a semi-authoritarian statehood (Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore !). I do not know how politically incorrect I might sound, but if a strict implementation of the rule of law is what that is, then so be it.

So, this is it. The roadmap to a clean Nepal. It is needless to say that this roadmap is only possible in a full democracy. Compromise, negotiated settlement, hyan-tyan have are no alley to this road.

_______________________

Shree5,

My point is simple.

The words "democracy" and "closed group" simply do NOT go together, except in
a wink-wink sort of ironical manner.

If irony was the intended effect, fine. Thik cha. One can be amused by that, and that's the end of it.

*****
Sure, you can have a closed group to discuss anything under the sun. That's fine. But once you call it "a closed group", then, puh-leez, don't insult your readers' intelligence by informing them further that, "oh, by the way, it's a group for pro-democracy kura-kani".

Tetti ho yaar.

My further point is: If democracy means that much to anyone, then, why not subject ALL pro-democracy kura-kani to continuous public scrutiny? Sure, you'll attract trash when you do that; but you'll also get a lot of good feedback.

Attracting BOTH trash and good stuff is, alas, what debating/acting/reacting democratically is all about. It's just that, after a while, one hopes that the level
of trash falls off to a tolerable level.

That said, there is no such thing as sanitized-for-your-safety democracy anywhere.
Democracy is an inherently messy thing that requires even the wisest to at least acknowledge the voice of the idiot.

oohi
ashu

Arguing on the logistics is just arguing for the sake of arguments. Nobody, here, is talking about the case in hand; "cleansing nepal from corrupt minds" and getting rid of present "state of impunity". That's why they formed a closed group with some "norms" to follow.

irony here is just the word "democracy" in their google group, i guess. Ashuji, Please suggest a different name for the group. sensible one.

About the content of the theory; No comment. no tengo nada decir.

Ashu
I guess Nepe started this thread to discuss about the possible ways to curtail corruption in nepal . Corruption is is so deep rooted in Nepal that people accept is as a part of life style. Look into the face of neo elite in Nepal, they have no remorse for what they did. Even after being caught and convicted, they do not accept of wrong doing.

This severe lack of honesty among nepali people and politicians is dangerous.

Thanks Ashu for your eloquence, the thread took a turn the way you wanted.

I know in democracy everything is open, but I do not see any problem in people having a group to discuss an issue. May be that is how they brain storm in the first place so that when the final points are kept in the public domain, they are able to defend their theories./ or better able to appreciate the oppositiona point of view to incorporate.

they are not doing "mantrana" inside a palace and it aint gonna be an act tomorrow.

You were so siloent when Mr Ojha, chief justice of Nepal said,-whatever king says is the rule in hindu kingdom, but why so much tauko dukhai when some people in their kothe guff did not let u in.

First, a few quick points about Nepal Democracy Google group.

1. The group is not an INCLUSIVE organization. Those who do not oppose Feb 1 unambiguously have zero chance to enter into the group.

All the invited members are presumably pro-democracy activists and sympathizers.

2. Acceptance of a new member is CONSENSUS based, not MAJORITY based.

2. Posting etiquette is strictly observed. One user was recently expelled from the group (actually the user was expelled for the second time. He had been taken back after the earlier expulsion.)

3. Politics and particularly pro-democracy activism is the major topic of discussion. However, occasionally, non-political topics make appearances too.

4. Personally, I am for making at least selected discussions publicly available. May be someday that will happen. However, the understanding at the moment is that, materials related to any users can not be made public without his/her consent. What I posted above was on my self-consent :-)

There is, however, a sort of understood encouragement for everybody to write op-ed in public media. Op-ed pieces of the members get very enthusiastically discussed and complimented. Prof. Alok Bohora, Murari Raj Sharma, Dr. Shiva Gautam, Angaraj Timilsina, Dr. Ambika Adhikari, Dr. Pramod Aryal, Kanak Dixit, Dr. Madhu Ghimire are some of the members whose op-ed pieces make regular appearances at the discussion.

*** *** *** ***

Now, the original topic.

Aardvarak-jee,

This posting was actually inspired by your posting on the same subject.

http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/OpenThread.cfm?forum=2&ThreadID=27003

You have very good points and I generally agree with all of them. Choosing a corrupt over other is no answer to corruption, but bringing a system is. That, I think, was the central message of your piece. My interest in this thread was to talk about such system.

A full democracy, a big sweep and the rule of law were what I imagined to be three crude steps towards cleaner Nepal. I want to emphasize that this model does not require things like preaching to the corrupt ones for it's solution. An all-powerful anti-graft body and reasonably alert civil society is all what it needs. Even in overwhelming presence of corrupt politicians in power, it should work.

**** **** **** ****
Kalekrishna-jee,

>Nepeji, in addition I suggest tier system of corruption
>criterization and mandatory punishment for grave cases,
>lenient though on self revealing.

Excellent point. My roadmap is very crude. You point is among thousand things that will require to refine it. Thank you for your input.

*** *** *** *** ***

Shree,

>मा को-को लाई भ्रष्टाचारी मान्नु हुन्छ ? ... ...
>... अनि तिनीहरुको लागि सजाँय वा तपाईँले भने
>जस्तो amnesty समेत के के जाति प्रक्रियामा
>को को कहाँ कहाँ पर्छन?

यसलाई यसरी राख्छु म । अदालतले भ्रष्ट प्रमाणित नगरेसम्म म कसैलाई पनि भ्रष्ट मान्दिन । अर्थात् भ्रष्टाचारको परिभाषा (कानून), अनुसन्धान र ठहर गर्ने काम राज्यको प्रणालीको हो । बरु त्यस्तो प्रणालीको व्यवस्था नगर्ने वा व्यवधान खडा गर्नेहरु नै हुन् भ्रष्टाचारी त्यतिन्जेलको लागि ।

कानूनको हकमा, केही प्रचलित र केही आवश्यकता अनुसारको नयाँ कानून दुवैलाई लिनु पर्छ ।

जहाँसम्म amnesty को कुरा छ, मेरो अवधारणा amnesty नभएर बरु 'एक वृहद तर उदार कार्यवाही' हो । माथि Kalekrishna-jee भन्नुभएको "lenient though on self revealing" को सिद्धान्त निहित छ भनौं न यसमा ।

प्रक्रियालाई यसरी व्याख्या गरौं-

१. कानूनको समानताको घोषणा (यो राजनैतिक प्रकृया भएकोले छुट्टै बहस आवश्यक होला । यसमा गणतन्त्रका कुरा आउँछन् जो)

२. ६ महिना लामो "स्वेच्छिक सफाई" अवधीको व्यवस्था [ यस अवधीमा गैरकानूनी साधन-श्रोतबाट लाभ गरेका सबैले (सार्वजनिक पदाधिकारी देखि निजी व्यवसायी सम्म, सबले) सो लाभ बराबरको पूर्ण वा आंशिक (भनौं ५१%) रकम स्वेच्छाले अ.दु.नि.आ. मा गोपनियताका साथ बुझाउने वा pledge गर्नेछन् । (मौद्रिक मुल्यांकन गर्न नसकिने लाभलाई त्यसको कानूनी सजायद्वारा मुल्यांकन गर्नुपर्छ)

(झुठो दावीलाई नियन्त्रण/न्यूनिकरण गर्ने प्रणाली बारे छुट्टै बहस बेस होला)

स्वेच्छिक सफाई प्रस्तोतालाई थप कार्यवाही हुनेछैन ।

३. कानूनी राज ("स्वेच्छिक सफाई" अवधी पश्चात को यो प्रणाली त स्वव्याख्यित भईहाल्यो)

अहिलेलाई यत्ति ।
__

So let's unpack this.

Let me make this clear: Because I have no desire to be a member of the group (simply because, with travel, work, writing, Sajha and all that, hey, where's the time, really?),
I do find thr group's existence in the form that Nepe describes PERVERSELY
fascinating.

Maybe I have been way too influenced by the no-holds-barred give-and-take of the Socratic tradition at the Martin Chautari in Kathmandu, but let me try to put this all in
a democratic perspective as I see it.

Nepe writes:
"1. The group is not an INCLUSIVE organization. Those who do not oppose Feb 1 unambiguously have zero chance to enter into the group."

Well, so much for the group's democratic pretensions!

As a democrat, one would rather debate endlessly with those who disagree with one's views and try to learn from them or persuade them of one's views than AVOID/DISMISS them altogether.

That's because in a functional democracy, NOTHING gets done when opponents are avoided or attacked because it is the opponents who add juice to the whole idea of democratic debates and culture. Anyone who avoids people of different political persusasions is simply deluding himself about his democratic credentials.


*****
"All the invited members are presumably pro-democracy activists and sympathizers."

No.

These days, anyone can stamp "pro-democracy" label on his forehead in and out of Nepal. That is why, the Maoists -- gasp, choke -- are for democracy, or so they say. The King -- gasp, choke -- is also for democracy, or so he says. Of course, the parties have long been for democracy too. With all these democrats around with their own self-serving definition of democracy, no wonder the public in Nepal is quite confused as to just who to believe to get on with the business of living.

Democracy has become a much ABUSED word, and it holds ZERO meaning in Nepal.

What it requires now is a relentlessly laser-focussed conceptual clarity all the way through even when it upsets some of our cherished beliefs and cult-like comfort.

*****
2. Acceptance of a new member is CONSENSUS based, not MAJORITY based.

And democracy is majority-based, with -- as a legal matter -- the protection of
minorioty views.

The process of consensus, let's be clear, has this in-built incentive to promote those who are like us while pushing out those who may disagree with us or make us uncomfortable with their views.

*****
"2. Posting etiquette is strictly observed. One user was recently expelled from the group (actually the user was expelled for the second time. He had been taken back after the earlier expulsion.)"

With words like "expulsion" attached to a "pro-democracy" FREE Google group, the group's consensus-based governance sounds like something that the Maoist Politburo would envy!!

********************

"3. Politics and particularly pro-democracy activism is the major topic of discussion. However, occasionally, non-political topics make appearances too."

Fine.

*******************
"4. Personally, I am for making at least selected discussions publicly available. May be someday that will happen. However, the understanding at the moment is that, materials related to any users can not be made public without his/her consent. What I posted above was on my self-consent :-)"

No, make everything PUBLICLY available.
Why be scared of public scrutiny?
Why avoid public scrutiny?

If you make mistakes, it will be corrected openly and quickly.
If not, you add something to the debate.
I see a win-win proposition here.

I fail to see how transparency and openness, with a dose of toilerance for disagreeable views, FAIL the cause of further democracy in and around Nepal.

And so, let every Ram, Madan and GhanaShyam take part in discussions, and let them add their thoughts.

That's because, look, democracy comes with a lot of risk anywhere anytime. It upsets the notions of secrecy, of exclusivity, of expert opinions . . . notions that are popular with perennially ineffectual and impotent Nepali intellectual elites. Democracy, to parapharse Churchill, is NOT the best system, but it's better than all of its alternatives. Why pretend otherwise?

And democracy is best practiced OPENLY and in full PUBLIC views.

******

"There is, however, a sort of understood encouragement for everybody to write op-ed in public media. Op-ed pieces of the members get very enthusiastically discussed and complimented. Prof. Alok Bohora, Murari Raj Sharma, Dr. Shiva Gautam, Angaraj Timilsina, Dr. Ambika Adhikari, Dr. Pramod Aryal, Kanak Dixit, Dr. Madhu Ghimire are some of the members whose op-ed pieces make regular appearances at the discussion."


Of course, in a consensus-based cult-like situation like this, op-ed pieces of the members will get "very enthusiastically discussed and complimented."

Why not?

Because everyone is similar to one another, and everyone thinks alike and because of the nature of the group, there is very little DIBERSITY and RANGE of views, to begin with. What else would anyone expect from such a group?

Again, I admit that maybe I have been way too influenced by the no-holds-barred give-and-take of the Socratic tradition at the Martin Chautari in Kathmandu to have little patience for secrecy and exclusitivity when it comes to discussing PUBLIC matters.


oohi
"not at all afraid of transparency, openness, fully khulla public debates on ALL matters related to Nepali democracy and Nepal's future everywhere"
ashu

:)

Kuro bujdai jada Democratic Republic of North Korea bhane jastai raicha gatthe....

म चै त्‍यो हाम्‍ले हाम्रो के जाति चौतारिमा येस्‍तो गर्‍थेम तिमेरु के को डेमोकरेट भन्‍ने तर्‌क र नेपेको हामि लुकिलुकि येस्‍तो गर्‍छम हामि येस्‍ता डेमोकरेट भन्‍ने दुबै तर्‍क देखेर म सुईकेको हु या ठुलाबडा हरु बहुलाका हुन बुझ्‍न सकिराछैन

अहिले देशै बहुलाको छ, पिरे।

>Nepe's theory on corruption:
>1. I think, corruption is a default state of any society.
>So looking for sources of corruption is
>absurd. (see ? I told you, I have strange theories !)

Two quick notes-- because the statement is a "I think.." stuff, it is more of an opinion rather than a theory. Secondly, this is a synopsis from a closed door discussion, with all context and motives concealed, carries potential to be a replica of Hitler's Arayn research theory.

Would Nepe let all us know the rationale behind hiding these discussion from the 'world'? To me, these secret groups resemble to the Scions of Prairie of Dan Brown's DaVinci Code, and carry a little significance to real-world. Though it might bring a havoc in Hollywood.

I humbly opine, any group of handpicked people only constitute a "Some more equal ones" of George Orwell's Animal Farm characters. Namaste.

The king is the most corrupt man in Nepal. Every time he sticks, his nose into anything, it causes crisis. When he fisrt launched a coup in the early part of this decade, the war saw a massive increasein deaths and kills, then last year he tookover, and he saw torture and killings boom, and he sold his soul to the Tienamen square dictatorship. Now he has refused the option of talks with the Maoists, which only an utter incomptetant could do,. tHis king the richest man in Nepal, is a dighrace, and must be ousted. he is corrupt and useless.

one gets tired of the endless 'im democraticer than thou' attitudes
who gives a shit if the organization is closed?
maybe it is even necessary
this thread may even be an example of why
people diverging from the issue to serve their own personal dislikes

there was a purpose to this thread, to discuss the corruption in nepal

o wait

perhaps THIS TOO IS AN EXAMPLE OF CORRUTION

the hijacking of public energy into private vendettas

Dhara127:
kuro bujdai jada Democratic Republic of North Korea bhane jastai raicha gatthe....


pire:
म चै त्‍यो हाम्‍ले हाम्रो के जाति चौतारिमा येस्‍तो गर्‍थेम तिमेरु के को डेमोकरेट भन्‍ने तर्‌क र नेपेको हामि लुकिलुकि येस्‍तो गर्‍छम हामि येस्‍ता डेमोकरेट भन्‍ने दुबै तर्‍क देखेर म सुईकेको हु या ठुलाबडा हरु बहुलाका हुन बुझ्‍न सकिराछैन




म चाँहि,

R Baral,

Yes, Opus Dei indeed.

In Kathmandu, refreshingly, I see a lot of forums -- Martin Chautari, Yala Maya Kendra, activist Basanta Ranjitkar's pro-democracy discussion forums, etc -- attended by both PhD specialists as well as by interested rank beginners.

Such open forums are to be encouraged all the more all over.

****
Chef,
What weed are you smoking, yaar, in between shifts?

There are no personal vendettas here, just a relentlessly -- hopefully -- clear position on the notion of democracy as discussed and practiced by ANY self-selected group of like-minded elites in any form is pretty much akin to Tulsi Giri's cabinet, however repugnant that might sound to some people.

This is a FUNDAMENTAL difference of opinion here that needs to recorded at the risk
of offending some people whose idea of democracy is some sanitized-by-force discussions.

Unfortunately or fortunately, democracy IS for the riff-raff, for the hoi-polloi, for the huddled masses and for the unwashed folks. Let's be clear about that.

In any society, that society's elites do NOT need democracy as such; oftenh, they see democracy as an inconvenience to be done away with, though they need its polish to pass themselves off as democrats.

But it's those who say all the outrageous things and drive us nuts . . . the mavericks, the eccentrics, the outliers who break NO law yet wield no political power as such. . . it's them who really need democracy and its protections to say what they want with NO
fear of retaliation of any kind through someone's arbitrary use of power.

On a larger note, is this NOT what people are fighting for in Nepal?
If so, how difficult is it to practice it in small scale in some discussion forum, where the barriers to entry are created by the self-selected members themselves?

After all, a society that cannot tolerate its weak and its extreme characters who
break no law can NEVER be a democratic one.

oohi
ashu

LCDN,

Thanks for making succinct points.

Like everything else, a closed group has certain disadvantages and certain advantages. So it's a matter of what meets your needs best.

ND came first as an email network of people who organized pro-democracy rally in DC last May (15 May 2005). Prior to that there were various irregular email networks in existence. So the history of ND does precede DC rally in some way.

Anyway, having evolved from irregular email networks to a permanent discussion group, tt is working both as a network and a discussion group.

So Ashu's suggestion that it should be inclusive, open and public in everything does not make full sense.

Thank you also for reminding the original purpose of the thread and for your sharp satire.

*** *** *** *** ***

Rishi Baral-jee,

I am surprised with the extent of your paranoia. As a participant of pro-democracy rally in DC, you must have been in a better position to understand the working of ND group. If you are serious about improving ND group, may I propose to invite you in the group ?

You are also going to have a chance to see all discussions and determine by yourself whether the group is becoming a "replica of Hitler's Arayn research" or not.

*** *** *** *** ***

Ashu,

You have some good points. However, you are making your own assumptions about ND group.

I think I have explained enough in my replies above to LCDN-jee and rBral-jee for anyone to understand why those who support of fail to oppose Feb 1 can not make it to ND group.

ND group has a limited purpose for now. And it seems that most of it's members are satisfied with the purpose, the organization and it's working style.

Things inside it have been evolving and I am sure criticism like yours will help it evolve in something better and stronger. Thanks for your comments.

Nepe

चोर को खुट्टा काट

1. I think, corruption is a default state of any society. So looking for sources of corruption is absurd. (see ? I told you, I have strange theories !)

original sin?
man is inherently evil?
before the light there comes darkenss?
pragmatism, ki pessimism?

by your logic,
society -> corruption
hence, not corruption -> not society ?

LCDN,

Interestingly, this particular term has been the one most scrutinized so far.

By 'default', I meant the universal potentiality.

Here is what I had replied to one of the members of ND group regarding the question you have repeated here.

....-jee,

I am not sure if default is the best way to describe it, however
potentiality was what was meant by it. Everybody is potentially
corrupt. And the reason, as you explained, is simple- it is related to
man's survival and pleasure.

In absence of penalty, everybody will be corrupt.

Of course there is inherent self-penalty, for example, sense of guilt.
However, in a real world, it is primarily the fear of external penalty,
that prevents a man from being corrupt.

So the discussion on corruption is primarily about the penalty.

And when we say penalty, the idea of defining it (legislation), the
idea of investigation (finding out where it is happening, not where the
potential source is), idea of justice, all are included in it.

However, my major point regarding Nepal's failure to take care of (why
am I even using this word ? who is really after taking care of it ?)
corruption is what I termed 'lack of a point of beginning' or lack of a
point of total power and freedom. This is the root cause of our failure
regarding corruption. And as I said elsewhere, I am bewildered with our
expert's failure to recognize this point.(This refers to my criticism of Prof. Bohora's following article in one of earlier discussions:
- http://www.peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=105 )

Corruption in Nepal is so extensive and rooted, some patch work is not
going to take care of it. I think we need to think it in terms of a
road map just like the one for democracy.


This continues with my 'roadmap' in the original posting above.

____

There should be no attempt to curb corruption.

I will tell you the nepalese society will collapse if corruption is controlled.



The ELECTION (whether democratic or autocratic) is the first and root cause of election.

There is no further need of discussion unless Nepal wants to hold elections on the limited money provided by the government.

Nepe

YOu cracked me up when you talk about abolishing corruption in Nepal. It will be like fishing in ocean to clean up the fishes.

Stop making road maps and let it take a natural course.

Read
The ELECTION (whether democratic or autocratic) is the first and root cause of corruption.

Instead of
The ELECTION (whether democratic or autocratic) is the first and root cause of election.