The Watermelon Paradox: Why Nepal Needs Systems, Not Saviours
"Why is the watermelon sweet?" — As children, we all shared this natural curiosity. When I asked my father, he gave a simple answer: "While you are asleep at night, God comes and pours sugar into it." When I asked why I fell ill, my mother would say God was unhappy with us. These answers satisfied our curiosity. Back then, it felt as though no one in the world was more knowledgeable than our parents.
It was only later in life that I realised my parents didn't actually know the technical answers; their responses were merely a form of consolation.
Today’s Nepali politics is largely stuck in that same childhood psychology. Governance is guided by complex historical, philosophical, economic, social, and institutional processes. Political thought, from Plato and Aristotle through to Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, and onto Marx, Weber, Rawls, and Keynes, represents nearly 2,500 years of intellectual struggle. These theories are not universal solutions, but they are essential tools for understanding problems.
Yet, we remain stuck at the level of asking, "Why is the watermelon sweet?" We prefer easy answers over understanding structural problems. When individuals from backgrounds in civil service, law, journalism, or technical fields enter politics, they present an image of "expertise," and the public mistakes this for a total solution. Thus, the country appears to be run by emotional relief rather than logic, policy, or institutional design. And we are content with this.
The country is currently led by an experienced jurist. The Ministry of Science is in the hands of a scientist. The Ministry of Communication is held by a journalist. Physical Infrastructure is managed by a former bureaucrat and engineer. Home Affairs is led by a former police officer. We believe this is the ultimate scientific, philosophical, and democratic way to run a nation. In truth, the country is being driven by sentiment, not by logic, science, philosophy, or ethics.
This situation is a product of collective psychology. When long-term solutions seem too difficult, temporary "warmth" feels pleasant. This is why we have begun presenting honest, fearless, and popular personalities as alternatives to the entire political system.
Another irony is that our Gen Z youth—who should be studying, earning, romancing, travelling the world, and trying to understand the globe—are instead wandering about, obsessing over how to run the country. It is as if Nepal belongs only to Gen Z, as if they alone brought it from history to the present, and as if the burden of governance rests solely on their shoulders.
The Buddha taught us how to control greed, anger, and emotion. Confucius spoke on establishing a moral and just society. Western philosophers demonstrated how states should be managed. Marx exposed why some are rich and others poor in society. Instead of studying these foundations, Gen Z youth are busy touring the country. Rather than understanding how circumstances turn people greedy or corrupt, they travel surrounded by YouTubers.
Adam Smith taught us how to be self-reliant and entrepreneurial in The Wealth of Nations. David Ricardo and J.S. Mill laid the groundwork for liberalism. Gen Z seems indifferent to how neoliberalists like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman later tarnished capitalism, leading to its current disrepute. To understand cultural equality, one must look to Antonio Gramsci; for equality of opportunity and distribution, one must read John Rawls; to understand how economic distribution drives the economy, one must look to Keynes. Instead, Gen Z is busy trying to clean the river downstream while ignoring the filth at the source.
They do not look to Neo-Marxism to understand why traditional Marxism has failed. They do not read Why Nations Fail. They do not recognise the likes of Ambedkar or Ahuti to understand why South Asian nations lag behind. They fail to see the patriarchy nurtured by religion that keeps women oppressed. They have no desire to know how technology and consumerism are making youth themselves hedonistic, lazy, and uncreative. They show no interest in Neo-colonialism or why Nepalis, who have been migrants since the Mughal era and Lahures since the British era, are still forced to head abroad to sustain the nation. They are indifferent to why the water is dirty at Bagdwar, yet they insist on cleaning the Bagmati further down.
Therefore, while the likes of Rabi Lamichhane, Harka Sampang, Balen, Ramesh Kharel, and Kulman Ghising are honest, patriotic, fearless, and hardworking—and likely stainless—Nepalis, handing the country over to them is no trivial matter. Experts can be excellent employees and administrators, but that does not automatically make them statesmen. A state is run by its system, and it is guided by statesmen.
If the system itself were not the decisive factor, why did the economic crises of 1930 and 2008 occur? Why couldn't Nobel Prize-winning economists prevent them? Why hasn't crime stopped despite the world having the best police and courts? The answer is clear: it is the system, not the individual, that is decisive.
Politics is not a matter of myth, magic, or hero-worship. In the absence of logic and experience, a state cannot function on emotion alone. Governance lies in power, institutional structure, policy, and long-term vision. Until we place the system at the centre rather than the individual, the cycle of searching for a "new hero" will continue, and the problems will remain the same.
#NotHeroesButSystems #SystemOverSaviour #BuildInstitutions #EndHeroWorship #PoliticsBeyondPersonalities #KhusiLimbu