They give you what you are due. A hearing. Then they act. They act because they have empathy. They act because they put themselves in your shoes and then they let their cognition do the rest. If they act for you, your problem is solved and you can advance to other important things that you need to do to contribute to yourself and to society until you’re again faced with another interference to your advancement in which case, you will be due another hearing and which by all accounts, you shall be provided.
Sometimes they may act against you after the hearing. But that’s fine if you are convinced that what they did was right – by not acting for you. If you aren’t convinced, you expostulate, you reason. If they turn a deaf ear, you resort to a form of protest but not before pushing it to the edge with dialogue fueled with reason.
Ideally, I think this is how a normal course should meander amongst the policy-practitioners and policy-makers. They make their decisions regarding policy and we have to live it which is fine because that is how the modern world sees normalcy stamp its almost indelible mark on all things concerning the citizenry. I have no problem with this practice because when you do get to the bottom of it, it is us who lay the foundation by proposing who gets to have a say in making those policies because they are supposed to be representing us.
One would then expect to have at least a regular briefing of exactly what they talk about, in the least. In Nepal, having such expectations only makes us more of non-believers because when you look towards a-day-in-the-life-of us, you wish they would, if nothing else, at least be capable of steadily providing us with the most rudimentary necessities that would help us keep afloat in the ever raging rivers of sanity.
We deserve an explanation for this gross incapability in their part. Forget explanation, can we set deadlines? At least, give us a damn date! If it’s five years down the line that there will finally be 24 hour uninterrupted supply of electricity, tell us clearly and we will plan with due regard. Also, we will monitor progress against this deadline after we determine that five years indeed is a fair estimate.
Some of us will make decisions accordingly. Unlike them, we need reliable information and data supporting it to make decisions. Our decisions and consequences based on those decisions will measure us; these measurements will clearly tell how credible and accountable we are.
They don’t ever stop battling over the linearity of command in governance once the current one crumbles. The presently embarrassing share-war over rehabilitation packages illustrates how much of visionaries they are!
Here’s the thing though. Since they are not equipped with accountability, in fact, they are waxing overflowing complacence all over the map, it is easy to not have much room for an honest hearing. They are so full of apathy that they value our most underscored problems — namely, shortages of you-name-its — like a whale values a TV. Their indifference unfortunately is leaving barely any wiggle room for their cognizance. When there’s a glaring shortage of cognizance on them, they will not be able to digest dialogues fueled with reason. And that’s when we resort to a form of protest – a protest for us to be able to just live, with sanity – for we deserve not a stitch less.