is it time to go French? you know what i'm talking about, right? the guillotine?

don't ask me who's gonna bell the cat. all i am asking is - is it time now?

echoes ji

this is getting interesting. hehe. i don't agree with you on education being a pre-requisite for democracy. to the contrary, freedom and freedom alone guarantees education is not appropriated by a chosen few.

i'll be back after i read the wiki piece.

echoes-ji,

thanks for the links to the ideas of enlightenment and, while there i managed to take a peek at the Frend revolution as well. but i seriously had a problem trying to figure out why the reference was relevant to our discussion here.

perhaps, you were trying to point towards the ideas of enlightenment (professed by the educated) as the basis for the revolution? perhaps, you want me to see the discontent harbored by the educated as a proponent of the revolution.

but, let's face it, the peasant population circa 1789 in France had a definitive role in the ultimate sacrifices, although the process might have been started and egged on by the educated few. and the horrors, the horrors of the revolution was so revulsive that the "enlightened" few had to cry, cry hard for it to stop. hmmm.

ok, the main reason i draw a comparison to the French is because we are at a cross-roads. a cross-roads between feudalism and a republic, however imperfect.

"Voulez vous jouer avec moi ? Ce soir ..... "

Oui! Where ?

LOL

- " Take Ukraine, as example. Even though its highly skilled workforce (lotsa doctors, engineers, philosophers and scientists--99% literacy) initially ended up as street vendors ..."

my dear echoes ji- this is exactly my point. you see this as a trade off between short-term suffering and long-term gain (provided i agree with your claim that the ukrainian are doing great after "freedom").

but i don't see it that way. they way i see it, even though they had a "highly skilled workforce" they were not achieving. why? 'cause freedom was absent.

you see freedom as mere ends. but i see freedom as both ends AND means. freedom is a primary end and it is the principle means. in freedom's "constitutive" (with apologies to Sen) role it becomes a goal, but it is in it's "instrumental" (again, apologies to Sen) role that freedom makes the attainment of the goal possible. i view the latter as perhaps the more important one in our context.

chez vous ou chez moi?

what_more/no_more-jee (same person I suspect?),

"i don't agree with you on education being a pre-requisite for democracy."

I repeat: May not be a prerequisite, but if you want democracy to work, yes...

"but i seriously had a problem trying to figure out why the reference was relevant to our discussion here.

perhaps, you were trying to point towards the ideas of enlightenment (professed by the educated) as the basis for the revolution? perhaps, you want me to see the discontent harbored by the educated as a proponent of the revolution."

There you go. And b/c it's good to read wikipedia :-)

But it is important to understand that for an 18th century France, the education [in context] of alternative ideologies did play a major role. No doubt that it was the poor who did the fighting, but at least they genuinely knew what they were fighting for, and what other [and better] forms of governance were possible. This awareness is accepted (although not unchallenged) as a cause for the Revolution.

"ok, the main reason i draw a comparison to the French is because we are at a cross-roads. a cross-roads between feudalism and a republic, however imperfect."

Sure. Understood. All I am saying is that the people need to be educated.

"but i don't see it that way. they way i see it, even though they had a "highly skilled workforce" they were not achieving. why? 'cause freedom was absent. "

Of course, they were achieving. They contributed significantly to the USSR.
It was when Ukraine got the independence that it all of a sudden found its experts out of work.

But my argument is that even though Ukraine is just as new [in fact, newer] democracy as Nepal, theirs is a more effective and promising democracy because it has had a very educated public to help it build and strengthen its democratic institutions.

"you see freedom as mere ends. but i see freedom as both ends AND means. freedom is a primary end and it is the principle means. in freedom's "constitutive" (with apologies to Sen) role it becomes a goal, but it is in it's "instrumental" (again, apologies to Sen) role that freedom makes the attainment of the goal possible. i view the latter as perhaps the more important one in our context. "

There's no question that freedom is good and multi-faceted in terms of what it can attain. The question (and our disagreement), however, seems to be on whether freedom will automatically educate the people. Experience shows that that's not the case. Explicit and serious efforts need to be made. On the other hand, does the absence of freedom necessarily deny education? Turns out no. Even the worst regimes [if they desire] can produce extremely competitive population and world-class experts.

So my point again is, sure freedom is great we should strive for it, but education should independently get its own priority, and we shouldn't be making it contingent upon a particular system of governance. Educated people are useful regardless, and when there's enough people educated, it works as a powerful and prepared (for the aftermath--unlike what happened to Nepal since 1990) force that will fight for democracy (if missing) and make it work.

I hate it when my posting gets lengthy.

Good day!

Echos,
Thanks for the response.
But i 'm still not convienced that We need degrees before democracy.
We are illiterate but we are not dumb. we have made many big decisions in the history. My only concern- i wish we could have made informed decision. You took my "influencial voice" in a wrong sense. That voice is not mine nor is yours, who have the innate instinct of ruling and dominating people. The voice is the one that gives the different perspectives and a complete picture. Even a partial picture from different sources would be a better influential voice.

I feel independent media can be the best candidate for the voice and without democracy, how could that be possible.

What high school education does? Even the policy is flaw less, this education just casts the mind either in your mould or mine which always wants to ignore the complete picture.

So information, "Influential Voice" is what we need. We are able to see the things if we have access to do so. Without democracy, we are blocking the views. With the High school Education in such scenario, we are just creating a bunch of loyal, obedient and little more skilled servant for future.

And finally, No republic, just freedom is what we tried after 1990 and you see where we are now. Let's try a new thing. what do we have to lose more?

let's continue this back-and-forth in good spirit as we have been doing. hehe

" May not be a prerequisite, but if you want democracy to work, yes..."
- Democracy CAN work without a wholesale educated mass. Democracy does not work in the presence of asymmetries in power. This power can derive from a lot of different things, but one important component IS education. Without the guarantees of equal access to education and educational attainment, efforts to promote education just distorts the power structure of the society - creating an asymmetrical power structure deriving from none other than education - which works in favor of non-democracy and non-freedom. (Again, my freedom leads to freedom hypothesis - without freedom, education does not guarantee the achievement of freedom.)

I will give you the example of India. Now, I know most of our impression of India is shaped by the observation of our immediate neighbors - Bihar, UP and the like - which are arguably the most under-developed places in India. However, if we are willing to look beyond these states, we see a vibrant country that has done well under democracy. Sure, the economic progress did not come until the last decade of the twentieth century. The democratic polity, and policies motivated by national pride, was able to produce a huge number of engineers and doctors, and many of them wasted their lives driving taxis etc. to make a living until the 1990s. In this scenario, the economic achievement of India was impinged not by the lack of an educated mass, but by the lack of freedom to associate with people from outside India. Once the restrictive, inward-looking economic policies were reversed in the late 1980s, i.e. freedom (and indeed, this is a dimension of freedom) was restored, economic progress was not only imaginable but also tangible.

" But my argument is that even though Ukraine is just as new [in fact, newer] democracy as Nepal, theirs is a more effective and promising democracy because it has had a very educated public to help it build and strengthen its democratic institutions."

- The "failure" of democracy in Nepal vis-a-vis Ukraine can be/may be explained by many in many different ways. The interpretation I present is again because of un-freedoms. Sure, we had freedom in paper. But the power-asymmetries remained, didn't it? I mean, what greater proof of that than the Feb 1 coup? This asymmetry impinges on freedom, and that was what we didn't see working.
Although, I have to say, I don't totally agree with your characterization of Nepal post-1990. A lot of things did work, and were working, were it not for the power hungry "educated" elite who took it upon themselves to override the status quo with their (distorted?) vision of what should be. That "educated" elite is the Maoist leadership, as well as the Narayanhiti-dwellers and to some extent some other politicos.
The "Paper-Freedom" we had was always foreshadowed by "reactionary" forces from the left, the right and the center. In the end, it was our inability to translate the paper-freedom into real freedom that landed us in trouble.

"But i 'm still not convienced that We need degrees before democracy."

Those are your words, not mine. I refuse to have to defend the words you put into my mouth. What I said is clear and available for anyone to read.

"We are illiterate but we are not dumb. we have made many big decisions in the history. My only concern- i wish we could have made informed decision."

Hence education.

"You took my "influencial voice" in a wrong sense. That voice is not mine nor is yours, who have the innate instinct of ruling and dominating people. The voice is the one that gives the different perspectives and a complete picture. Even a partial picture from different sources would be a better influential voice."

Sorry, I just didn't get it. Either too nonsense or too abstract. Or poorly expressed (in which case, please restate).

"What high school education does? Even the policy is flaw less, this education just casts the mind either in your mould or mine which always wants to ignore the complete picture."

I disagree. It's only the educated individuals can who effectively pursue "the complete picture", and won't settle for anything less.

"With the High school Education in such scenario, we are just creating a bunch of loyal, obedient and little more skilled servant for future."

That's so ridiculous. Just think what kind of settings/scenario existed when you got your high school education. Or are you just one of the "bunch of loyal, obedient and little more skilled servant for future"?

Do you realize how crucial the role was of the students during the 1990 Jana Andolan? (Or even now, for that matter)

"And finally, No republic, just freedom is what we tried after 1990 and you see where we are now. Let's try a new thing. what do we have to lose more?"

Sure. Lets go for it. The only thing I'm afraid of is that people like you, who think only one-dimensional, will end up occupying the powerful posts again and not give enough emphasis on educating the poor and disfranchised.

Thanks!

Sounds like we agree on everything except:

"education does not guarantee the achievement of freedom"

I truly believe it does. May take while, but it eventually does.

"I will give you the example of India. Now, I know most of our impression of India is shaped by the observation of our immediate neighbors - Bihar, UP and the like - which are arguably the most under-developed places in India. However, if we are willing to look beyond these states, we see a vibrant country that has done well under democracy."

Care to think why Andhra Pradesh is different from Bihar? I don't know about you, but I find my answer in education.

"The democratic polity, and policies motivated by national pride, was able to produce a huge number of engineers and doctors, and many of them wasted their lives driving taxis etc. to make a living until the 1990s."

I'm not going to argue on this (although I really could) because I don't think that's important.

"In this scenario, the economic achievement of India was impinged not by the lack of an educated mass, but by the lack of freedom to associate with people from outside India."

But now think if this (even though now you're talking "globalization"--as far as I know India got its freedom in the 40s) would have been possible if India didn't already have those engineers, doctors? You think that their preparedness didn't play an important role in attracting foreign money?

If you ask me (and I know I'm not alone on this), I will say that the cheap and educated workforce of South India was the primary attraction to the foreign investors. The free market policy that was adopted was second. I know you think the other way around...and that's where we disagree. (Maybe we need an arbitrator :-)).

But there are many democracies (just think in East Europe, Latin America, even Africa) that have economic policies even more open than that of India.

Why didn't Microsoft build its R&D campuses in Argentina or Romania or South Africa? Or even more appropriate, why didn't it build its facilities in Bihar? Don't Bangalore and Patna share the same free/open market policy? Why is foreign investment in India so concentrated in the South?

Again, I find my answers in the educated workforce.

"The interpretation I present is again because of un-freedoms. Sure, we had freedom in paper. But the power-asymmetries remained, didn't it"?

They did. And will remain that way until a fair majority of Nepalis are educated. So I guess now we'll have to define "freedom". But looks to me that your definition already assumes an educated mass [as implied by the need for a symmetrical balance of power], making this entire conversation pointless. :-)


"A lot of things did work, and were working, were it not for the power hungry "educated" elite who took it upon themselves to override the status quo with their (distorted?) vision of what should be. That "educated" elite is the Maoist leadership, as well as the Narayanhiti-dwellers and to some extent some other politicos."

Only an educated population can counter this phenomenon. Nothing else can. Educated leaders aren't enough. You need educated people, as well.

Another long posting. Sorry. But why arent' more people taking part? Is it too trivial a topic we're discussing or what?

View/Share this post only

Sounds like we agree on everything except:

"education does not guarantee the achievement of freedom"

I truly believe it does. May take while, but it eventually does.

"I will give you the example of India. Now, I know most of our impression of India is shaped by the observation of our immediate neighbors - Bihar, UP and the like - which are arguably the most under-developed places in India. However, if we are willing to look beyond these states, we see a vibrant country that has done well under democracy."

Care to think why Andhra Pradesh is different from Bihar? I don't know about you, but I find my answer in education.

"The democratic polity, and policies motivated by national pride, was able to produce a huge number of engineers and doctors, and many of them wasted their lives driving taxis etc. to make a living until the 1990s."

I'm not going to argue on this (although I really could) because I don't think that's important.

"In this scenario, the economic achievement of India was impinged not by the lack of an educated mass, but by the lack of freedom to associate with people from outside India."

But now think if this (even though now you're talking "globalization"--as far as I know India got its freedom in the 40s) would have been possible if India didn't already have those engineers, doctors? You think that their preparedness didn't play an important role in attracting foreign money?

If you ask me (and I know I'm not alone on this), I will say that the cheap and educated workforce of South India was the primary attraction to the foreign investors. The free market policy that was adopted was second. I know you think the other way around...and that's where we disagree. (Maybe we need an arbitrator :-)).

But there are many democracies (just think in East Europe, Latin America, even Africa) that have economic policies even more open than that of India.

Why didn't Microsoft build its R&D campuses in Argentina or Romania or South Africa? Or even more appropriate, why didn't it build its facilities in Bihar? Don't Bangalore and Patna share the same free/open market policy? Why is foreign investment in India so concentrated in the South?

Again, I find my answers in the educated workforce.

"The interpretation I present is again because of un-freedoms. Sure, we had freedom in paper. But the power-asymmetries remained, didn't it?"

They did. And will remain that way until a fair majority of Nepalis are educated. So I guess now we'll have to define "freedom". But looks to me that your definition already assumes an educated mass [as implied by the need for a symmetrical balance of power], making this entire conversation pointless. :-)


"A lot of things did work, and were working, were it not for the power hungry "educated" elite who took it upon themselves to override the status quo with their (distorted?) vision of what should be. That "educated" elite is the Maoist leadership, as well as the Narayanhiti-dwellers and to some extent some other politicos."

Only an educated population can counter this phenomenon. Nothing else can. Educated leaders aren't enough. You need educated people, as well.

Another long posting. Sorry. But why arent' more people taking part? Is it too trivial a topic we're discussing or what?

"The question (and our disagreement), however, seems to be on whether freedom will automatically educate the people."

- That freedom is multi-faceted, we both agree. I do not believe freedom will automatically educated people. Freedom plays an "instrumental" role in the achievement of goals - which for me is a very general sense of well-being. That and an environment conducive to progress.

As I see it education, educational attainment and the ability to achieve educational achievements are all dimensions of freedom. Critical here is not just the quatitative measurable (what is the education level) but also the question of access (how easy is it for people to gain education, should they so desire).

Freedom will not/does not automatically educate people. Freedom makes sure that access to education exists, that people can acquire education if they so choose. Of course, from a policy perspective, this expansion of access is itself multifaceted. On the one hand it involves the development of physical infrastructure. On the other hand, it also involves the dissemination of information on the benefits of education. etc. etc.

" Care to think why Andhra Pradesh is different from Bihar? I don't know about you, but I find my answer in education."

- Yes, it is in education. I agree. But that is going to the first degree. If the first order cause is education, one has to ask why is there such a disparity between the educational levels in the two regions. I think that is where freedom comes in.

" If you ask me (and I know I'm not alone on this), I will say that the cheap and educated workforce of South India was the primary attraction to the foreign investors. The free market policy that was adopted was second. I know you think the other way around...and that's where we disagree. (Maybe we need an arbitrator :-))."

- You are right in that money followed the cheap and educated workforce. And you are right that is why we don't see call centers in Bihar. But Argentina is a different story, let's leave it out.
Ok, you see education as first. My point is that without an environment of freedom education does not naturally enable people to achieve progress. Don't take this to mean that I imply the converse, i.e. the achievement of progress is guaranteed in an environment of freedom.

Freedom allows people the ability to choose, to choose to make their lives better. Education is a natural course, in that sense, where freedom exists.

Education, again, does not guarantee freedom. I don't think anecdotal evidence is appropriate here as we can each find examples that will "prove" our point. But, let's just look at Nepali history. For 30 years, education was promoted, albeit in very strange ways, during the Panchayat system. I don't think we made much progress in the freedom side. Even the system we brought into place after Panchayat did not bring freedom. Why? Because the political barriers to freedom had not been surmounted.

Now, your education first hypothesis causes the following potential problem, although I get the sense that you would not want your thoughts to be interpreted that way. It would say, let's leave the status quo - let the King rule with is army and the Maobaadi with their army - and focus on education. When a critical mass of people have become educated, we will see people revolt for freedom. Before I destroy this argument, I will take a step back and assume that you, too, think this is a farcical argument.

Second, education first tends to say democracy DOES NOT work without education. This I can never agree to.

The first need to free people -" Emancipate yourself from mental slavery" in Bob Marley's words - and only then wholesale progress can be imagined. Only then will education play a role in achieving wholesale progress.

I think at this point, it is imperative that we define "education" and "freedom". You go first, I'll happily follow. hehehehe.

haha... that's ok.

i don't want to change/redefine the parameters just to extend this debate...

i think i have made my point, and so have you, and we both understand each other... so lets just leave it at that... anything more will be just for the sake of arguing and i know we both have no time for that...

if the readers care to read, we've given them ample info already thru our arguments... i hope you agree...

sorry about the late response... good day!

good day to you, too sir.

i really enjoyed this!

At times, Echoes ji made statements that could easily be [mis]interpretated to mean education first, freedom second. I think that's what led this discussion to go on the way it went.

However, the following line, where Echoes ji has clearly emphasized independent importance of education, essentially should put an end to that kind of mis-iterpretation.

"So my point again is, sure freedom is great we should strive for it, but education should independently get its own priority, and we shouldn't be making it contingent upon a particular system of governance."

- http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/openthread.cfm?forum=2&ThreadID=26003&show=all#192520

कि कुरो अझै धरमर धरमर छ ?

Echos,

If education before democracy is not your word then i am completely wrong to understand your point. Can i say that you are just skeptic about the future of free nepal because of illiteracy?

I don't agree that illiteracy would ruin the country.But, without freedom, education and the opportunity to make informed decisions are doomed. Without freedom we are blocking the flow of information, we are hiding a side of the coin. Instead of just making them able to search for the complete picture, why don't we just give an access to that.

>>>
The only thing I'm afraid of is that people like you, who think only one-dimensional, will end up occupying the powerful posts again and not give enough emphasis on educating the poor and disfranchised.
>>>>

That's the situation right now and people are more educated now than they were in 1990 . My conservative education was not complete and I always think of myself as the better blood, better class. I always condescend poor and uneducated people. And now they want to kick my butt.
And they won't spare you too if you say "well guys, you are not educated enough so you are not prepared for the complete freedom. It would be a nariwal in your hand. Someday you all will be educated - out of nowhere - and that would be the time you can benefit from democracy".

forgive my rant

Democracy is a term defined by the educated. So it would be fallacious to assume that democracy can exist without education.

The uneducated want democracy from what they've heard from the educated. But to know what real democracy is and to be able to help upkeep a democracy, people need to be educated.