Societal ethics and Lamichhane logics

In his memoir, one of the former Chief Secretaries has written about moral dilemma of holding public positions. If I recall it properly, the phrase runs like this: “During panchayat days, there were ample opportunities to steal, some people were stealing. I too could have stolen without getting caught. But I did not do it. Refraining from stealing does not make one great; simply because one is not supposed to do that. To gain social recognition, one has to contribute something positive.”

The crux of the matter lies here. Nepali society is engulfed in a kind of ethical morass. By the way, the real meaning of ethics is so much close to Nepali phrase thik-bethik (right and what) that I suppose no other language has such pronunciation proximity. In a society the simple act of refunding a bribe money could be a factor for exonerating one from the crime. If convicted in the court,  a simple act of admitting the crime makes one legally entitled to have a bonus – a 20 percent discount in penalty. There remains little point in talking about social ethics and morality in such a situation.

US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart speaks about rights conveying two-fold meaning. Ethics is all about knowing the difference between what you have a right to do (legal entitlement) and what is right to do (morally correct action).

The Rabi Lamichhane debacle has opened up several ethical questions for public debate and discussion. This could be like opening Pandora’s Box. I will list three here.

First, Lamichhane along with his new found mentor KP Sharma Oli has argued that procedural slip in the acquisition of citizenships and passports has not harmed anybody whatsoever in particular, therefore, the error of commission or omission should not entail harsh punishment. Lamichhane lost his parliamentary membership, ministerial portfolio and his party status in one go. Even Lamichhane could be seen complaining about the court verdict saying it has turned him into a “stateless” person.

Lamichhane supporters claim the verdict served injustice to Lamichhane without serving justice to anybody. They even claim that the verdict may have established “rule of law” but it failed to deliver justice. A medical doctor may admit “operation to be successful with a dead patient”. But with a maligned operation (bad process) one cannot have a surviving patient (good results). This is a question of ends vs. means, process vs. outcomes.   

However, the issue we are talking about is not that of Tom, Dick or Harry. It is about a public figure, a Deputy Prime Minister of Nepal, who is publicly accountable for his actions and words. Therefore, this “do no harm” policy has little relevance to the context we are speaking about.

The second moral argument Lamichhane has churned out is that he has been specifically targeted for when there are many similar cases pending at the court. Definitely, justice hurried is justice buried, but justice delayed is justice denied. The argument that if others are stealing, I too have a right to steal holds no water. This is totally against the ethical values that I quoted at start of this writing.

There could be many, probably, hundreds of thousands of Nepali people, holding dual citizenships and passports. Given the size and scale of Nepali diaspora, it is very much true. The verdict on citizenship may exert negative impacts on the economy in terms of capital flights, reduction in remittances and foreign direct investment. I suppose these have little meaning when it comes to public scrutiny on matters like holding “dual citizenships” or “dual passports” by a public person. Has anyone ever read carefully how Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori evaded his extradition from Japan simply because he happened to hold Japanese citizenship? 

Lamichhane supporters posit that his insistence to have re-appointment in the Home Ministry has no conflict of interest whatsoever with the investigation process taking place within the ministry.

The third ethical issue that has been opened up for public debate and discussion is Conflict of Interest. It is good that Nepali policymakers are realizing a need to enact a separate law on the subject matter. Lamichhane supporters posit that his insistence to have re-appointment in the Home Ministry has no conflict of interest whatsoever with the investigation process taking place within the ministry.

However, they failed to note that conflict of interest applies for both apparent and real conflict of interest. We trust promises made by Lamichhane that he will not interfere with the investigation process. The question is not with his integrity and honesty. It is with the appearance of conflict of interest. The issue here is not just of delivering good justice, the delivered justice must be seen good, look good by the public.

Published on 8 February 2023