Okay,here’s a breakdown of the provided text,focusing on its core arguments,key examples,and overall message. I’ll organize it into sections for clarity.
I. Core Argument: The Need for Empathetic Leadership in nepal
The central thesis of this piece is that Nepalese political leaders consistently fail to connect with thier citizens on a human level,specifically through empathetic communication. The author argues that this lack of empathy erodes trust, fuels cynicism, and hinders effective governance. It’s not enough to simply do things; leaders must show they understand and care about the struggles of the people. This isn’t presented as a cultural preference, but as a fundamental necessity for building a functioning relationship between the governed and the goverment.
II. Contrasting Examples: Ardern vs. Nepalese Leaders
* Jacinda Ardern (New Zealand): Presented as a model of empathetic leadership. The author highlights:
* Her immediate and visible comfort to victims of the Christchurch Mosque shootings (embracing families,wearing a headscarf,calling them “our people”).
* Her direct, accessible communication during the COVID-19 pandemic (speaking from home, answering questions online, using plain language).
* Ardern understood that empathetic communication is the soul of politics, not just a superficial addition.
* Nepalese Leaders (specifically PM Karki): contrasted sharply with Ardern. The author criticizes:
* Formal, scripted addresses delivered from behind cameras.
* Failure to convincingly explain policy decisions (like delaying constitutional amendments).
* Lack of openness to considering choice solutions or citizen input.
* A tendency towards political gimmickry rather than genuine empathy.
* Reliance on pre-scripted statements and enforcement rather than genuine connection.
III.Recent Positive (but Insufficient) Steps
The author acknowledges some recent gestures from the new government that suggest a shift towards a warmer, more empathetic approach:
* PM karki’s hospital visits to comfort the injured.
* Finance Minister Khanal’s invitation for email input on governance.
* Khanal’s avoidance of VIP lounges.
* Education Minister Pun’s candid responses to questions.
However, thes are framed as exceptions to a broader pattern of disconnect. The author points out that past leaders’ empty promises (e.g.,”Nepal will be the next Singapore”) have bred cynicism. These small steps are a good start, but not enough to fundamentally change the dynamic.
IV. The Importance of Visibility and Presence
The author emphasizes that leadership isn’t about appearances in carefully crafted media spots. It’s about presence – a feeling that leaders are genuinely with the people, especially during tough times. The specific example of Maitighar Mandala (a public space in Kathmandu) is used to symbolize the need for leaders to be visibly present among their citizens, explaining policies in accessible language and acknowledging uncertainty.
V. The Analogy to Giuliani and 9/11
The author draws a parallel to Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of New York City during the 9/11 attacks. Giuliani, despite being imperfect, was seen as a reassuring and present figure who walked among the people in the aftermath of the tragedy. the author suggests that Nepal needs a similar leader – someone who can inspire confidence and provide reassurance during the current crises, given the fragile mental health of the population.
VI. Concluding Sentiment
The piece ends on a note of cautious hope. The author acknowledges recent negative actions and statements from leaders, but expresses a desire for change.The call is for both the current government and leaders of the old regime to rediscover the “lost art” of empathetic communication and rebuild trust.
In essence,the article is a plea for a more humanistic approach to politics in Nepal.It’s a critique of a system that prioritizes formality and control over genuine connection and understanding.
