Perplexed and excited by complexity

This spring break gave me the opportunity I needed to finish reading the book on Complexity by Waldop. I had started reading it couple of years ago, but never got around to completing the last 10 percent. However, I started from the beginning and got more out of it as the things discussed are so fascinating--especially the emergent field of study about "emergent" properties on virtually every thing in life. As it turns out hard science and soft science share similar habavior at certain level as they are both a part of complex systems. But the powerful message I took from this book was the idea, not actually that new, that very simple rules can create complex systems. And slight difference in the initial phase can create enormous difference at the end. This means a little positive initiative regarding social policies taken today can make a vast difference a decade or two later. The book was an account of many scientists and researchers who thought original ideas and languished for decades and struggled to find acceptance in the mainstream. Of course, they eventually triumphed.

Their website states: The Santa Fe Institute is devoted to creating a new kind of scientific research community, one emphasizing multidisciplinary collaboration in pursuit of understanding the common themes that arise in natural, artificial, and social systems. This unique scientific enterprise attempts to uncover the mechanisms that underlie the deep simplicity present in our complex world.

I like that idea: Deep simplicity present in our complex world.

Research paper

I have a research paper for Communication Literature class for this semester. I am looking into the use of myths and symbols that permeate Nepalese society. As an only official Hindu kingdom in the world, Nepalese are deeply wired into Hindu world view or hierarchy, inequality, and accpetance of unjust privilege enjoyed by every member of the extended royal family. As argued by some communication scholars, the backstage information is manupulated by the royalty to create an aura of mystery regarding them, thus perpetuating their power and hold over the illiterate mass. Where else in the world can someone still be above the law?

Nepal's cultural context and democracy

We are all very aware about the situation in Nepal and the Feb 1 move by the king that reverted autocratic power back to the royalty and their loyalists. Mostly, we tend to blame the leaders and the Maoists for the political debacle. We find the cause for democratic disappointment in all kinds of things.

The question I ask is: Is Nepal actually ready for democracy?

Let me explain. We seem to assume that democracy is inherently good and that’s the path we should follow. So we adopted democracy in the 1990’s. But, have we considered and thought the implications through and through to see is democracy compatible with Nepalese cultural milieu?

Democracy does need some social conditions to flourish. If we have learned anything, initiation and consolidation of democracy are two separate things. It is easy to hold elections. But to have social attitudes and practices to sustain and consolidate a political system like democracy, which is the most complex form of government, it is essential that certain conditions be met. These conditions as shown by research have correlates in economic development, wealth distribution, education, and vibrancy of civic society for the most part.

What about culture?

The present culture of democracy was founded on values of modernism and renaissance. It assumes equality of individuals. Equality means empowering every individual in a society. However, in Nepal dominant Hindu cultures is utterly seeped in hierarchy where individuals are slotted in different holes—Casteism for an example. There is social recognition of hierarchy, instead of individual equality. Hierarchy between castes, gender, age, economic classes of master and servants continue to be dominant value. Young generations are not allowed to speak or challenge the traditional ideas. In the cultural context, the symbols, values and meanings in society are based mostly in religious texts and myths. Basically, Nepal is still a pre-modern society functioning under religious values.

Now, religious values are antithetical of modern values. So I see a contradiction between the cultural context of Nepal and assumptions underlying democratic system. Democracy failed in Nepal, for a large part, because the societal cultural values and beliefs are incompatible with expectations of democratic norms.

So to give democracy a chance, cultural context has to change rapidly. There has to be an extra effort to bring scientific and economic revolution. Modern values of science over religiosity; and meritocracy over ascription are two most important aspects that have to be assimilated.

Then we might have better luck to sustain democratic governance based in people power rather than legitimacy justified on account of divinity.

A humble hope for Nepal

Nepal has become a failed state. The people of Nepal were failed by its leaders. But Nepal was failed by both its leaders and the people. In the context of the "information age" and "freedom," Nepal has no other option than to adopt and adapt modern values. The foundation for Nepal's future lies in its people. This site will address news, analysis and issues dedicated to empowering Nepalese people. By empowering citizenry, we can empower Nepal. That is a humble hope.