Since we Nepalis have given up trying to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps from the septic tank that we have got ourselves into, it now falls upon the UN Specialist Envoy to extricate us from the goo, according to a political analyst who requested anonymity because he is, um, in actual fact, none other than yours truly. So, I took time off from my busy schedule to interview the visiting dignitary, who spoke frankly and gave clear and precise answers to my queries. Some excerpts: Q: Can you tell us something about the timing of your visit to Nepal?
A: Certainly. We arrived at 12:30 on Tuesday and are looking forward into the near to medium-term future so we can anticipate important and paradoxical trends, there are organisational, systemic, thematic and institutional issues, there is a transformative agenda in the context of economic globalisation of which Nepal cannot avoid being involved. The key to the future is therefore to maximise the strengths and minimise the weakness in all approaches to interdisciplinary holistic and collaborative strategies that build on potential risk scenarios.
Q: I see. Does that mean the United Nations is willing to be involved in mediation here?
A: Let me put it this way: yes, no and maybe. But whichever way, it will require a sectorwide stakeholder consultation at all levels and a strategy that will depend more on changing the structures of organisations and more importantly the institutions that embody them: especially the mainstreaming efforts and the basic organisational re-intermediarisation that are a necessary starting point. In other words, and I can't emphasise this enough, we need an enabling environment for empowerment from the bottom up.
Q: Is that a yes or a no?
A: Since you are asking me directly, let me answer you obliquely. Although it is vitally important to be cognizant of our global, national and sub-national contexts, we need to work under a consistent interdependent framework to institutionalise multilateral monitoring mechanisms without undermining the need for strong localised initiatives, unless of course they are buffeted by various global and regional exigencies.
Q: What on earth are you talking about?
A: Let me try to explain and put this in its proper context. What it demands is a radically-participatory consultative engagement, a sustainability paradigm so that we can problematise the creation of solidarities and identity expressions, consensus-building and the prospective vision of an alternative paradigm. We have to redefine the context in which the normative discourses and pluralisitic advocacy are agreed upon between systematic powers and structural shifts.
Q: Was that the message from the Secretary General to the prime minister? A: Yes, we made it very clear in no uncertain terms that the lowest common denominator is square root of x minus y squared. Concerted action is needed to make intergenerational linkages between fake universalism and a missionary drift towards a more elevated parochial truth and transmogrifying hegemonic values so that there can be a compelling rationale to adopt a rights-based approach on cross-cutting over-arching issues by one section of interlocutors without in any way obviating the need for legally enforceable obligations. It means accessing strong analytical and methodological tools in a timebound workplan of diversifcation and decentralisation.
Q: And what was the prime minister's response?
A: He said he didn't know what the hell we were talking about.
