Our Expectations of Leaders are Ideal; Politics is Real
A few days ago, shortly before Prime Minister Prachanda took his latest political step, I went to a friend's house for dinner at his invitation. During our conversation, he expressed deep resentment towards the current political infighting and misgovernance in the country, placing all the blame on the constitution and the leaders. My understanding of this matter differed slightly from his. While my friend vented his dissatisfaction toward leaders like Deuba, Oli, and Prachanda, I saw the flaw in the system rather than the individuals. To put it simply: my friend only saw the dirty water of the Bishnumati river within Kathmandu; I saw that the water was already polluted at its source in the Shivapuri hills.
However, it was my shortcoming that I couldn't clearly explain my view to him: "Our expectations of leaders are ideal, but politics is real." In the process of expanding upon that thought, I am sharing this short blog here. I say to my friend once again—our social expectations of leaders are based on the ideal, but the politics of power is practical (real). Politics is not about what we think ‘it should be’; it is about ‘what it is’ in reality. Politics is not what we imagine; it is what actually happens.
We, the working class, eat our meals, go to work, come home, sleep, and indulge in easy fantasies while blaming the leaders. But politicians are also this-worldly individuals, not divinely otherworldly beings. If morality cannot be guaranteed by the priests of Pashupatinath or the Lamas of Swayambhunath, why should we expect a higher standard of morality from Prachanda? Searching for morality in politics and expecting god-like behaviour from leaders is futile. No one enters power to put on a display of morality because human beings are selfish creatures who operate by calculating profit and loss. Or, in the words of the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832): “human is a hedonistic being, who always seeks to maximise his pleasure and minimise his pain.”
Therefore, politics and politicians always operate with their own interests and survival at the centre. This is normal. A leader is merely a character created by the circumstances (a role demanded by the story). The "story" is the current global political system (comprador capitalism?). Parliament is the theatre. The scriptwriters are a few imperialist-neocolonialist countries whose ideology controls the culture, economy, and politics of the world. Leaders are toys, or at best, just characters. A leader is an individual, and his thoughts, choices, decisions, and behaviours are based on social structure. In this sense, structuralism holds more sway here than rationalism. Therefore, how "intelligent" a leader (human) is is determined not just by himself, but by his social environment.
To put this in a language we can all understand:
- What leaders do? (Choice and ability) is not the big issue.
- Rather, why do leaders do what they do? (Social, economic, and political environment) is the big issue.
Point number one is within an individual's control. Point number two is beyond an individual's control. Therefore, in this sense, we should not blame the leader, but the environment (the system).
If we are to find a way out of Nepal's ongoing political instability, a directly elected executive arising from direct elections could be the second-to-last alternative solution. This can be sought within the parliamentary system. Otherwise, the Nepali people must finally reconsider the parliamentary system itself. That final alternative is a revolution and the establishment of a classless society.
#Ideal_Vs_Real Reflections