This paper is presented in Tank Prasad Neupane study & research and Fearism Study Centre Dharan, Nepal on 2080/11/01 (February 14, 2024)
Paper Presenter:
Bedprasad Sapkota
Administrative Officer
Dharan Sub-Metropolitan City, Sunsari.
Fearism is profoundly ingrained in our society. It plays both a direct and indirect role in the creation, development, and transformation of the world. In Nepal, public governance has emphasized the importance of development, good administration, and effective service delivery. Good governance serves as the backbone of public administration. Within this context, fearism is a significant concern; it is not merely the cultivation of words but the foundation of every new idea.
Public governance can enhance its quality by maintaining principles of development governance, transparency, the right to information, accountability, reducing corruption, and upholding integrity—supported by fearism. Public governance encompasses policy making, effective implementation, social activities, and management. An effective governance system maximizes limited resources while ensuring access, recognition, and representation for all. By maintaining a diverse range of thoughts and capabilities, fear prevents public governance from becoming careless.
The Role of Fear in Governance
Fear shapes our thoughts and fosters integrity and transparency. According to fearism philosopher Desh Subba, a reduction in fear within governance can lead to negligence and a lack of accountability in enforcing laws and development policies nationwide. When fear is absent, those in authority may misuse power for personal gain, negatively impacting governance and societal structure, ultimately weakening its effectiveness.
In every community—regardless of caste, ethnicity, gender, or social group—social justice must be established to ensure that governance is not merely superficial but genuinely beneficial for the people. Fear plays a crucial role in making service delivery timely, accessible, straightforward, and efficient, thereby upholding transparency, accountability, the rule of law, and the right to information.
Official processes, including registration, dispatch, reporting, job assignments, decision-making, identity verification, correspondence, documentation, record maintenance, purchasing, and staff evaluation, must be conducted with a clear understanding of fear's influence on governance, development, and service delivery. Effective management of fear within public governance enables citizens to feel secure and encourages officials to act responsibly.
Fear is crucial for good administration. In its absence, governance can become arbitrary, opaque, corrupt, and authoritarian. For effective governance, an administration must acknowledge and manage these fears.
1. Political Fear:
In 1887, Woodrow Wilson's article "The Study of Public Administration" began to differentiate between politics and governance. In public governance, officials can be elected, appointed, or selected. Elected representatives make laws, which administrators implement; thus, political interests influence governance. The administration fears representatives, ensuring a balance of fear that allows public governance to function smoothly.
2. Legal Fear:
Legal governance serves as a guiding principle for administration, controlling unlawful affairs. Compliance with laws, policies, regulations, and statutes is essential. The enforcement of laws is monitored by bodies like the Office of the Auditor General and anti-corruption commissions, ensuring accountability. Legal fear acts as an invisible judge. Non-compliance can lead to authoritarian figures engaging in illegal activities. Thus, legal fear is fundamental to effective governance, ensuring adherence to legal frameworks.
3. Social Fear:
Humans are social beings, and our actions are influenced by societal expectations. Factors such as family, community, human rights issues, and social groups contribute to the social fear experienced by governance officials. Consequently, fear helps make public governance systematic, effective, and citizen-centric. The level of public governance is inherently tied to society. Fear can ensure that public governance is maintained. For example, limited mobile network and internet access can hinder effective online service delivery, emphasizing the need for governance to respond to societal demands.
4. Economic Fear:
Qualified officials manage financial resources in public governance. Ineffective financial management can lead to a lack of essential services. The fear of inadequate resources directly impacts governance quality. Financial constraints may prolong procedures, resulting in delayed salaries and service delivery, which can hinder effective governance. If illegal means are employed to acquire financial resources, it can lead to corruption and undermine legal frameworks. Non-compliance can cause financial mismanagement, jeopardizing governance integrity. Thus, economic fear contributes to effective governance.
5. Career Development Fear:
Officials in public governance possess specific skills and knowledge. Good job performance promotes career advancement, including transfers, promotions, training, and rewards. Ineffective financial management can affect essential services, influencing governance quality. Fear of failure motivates officials to maintain high standards, supporting effective governance through careful performance.
6. Ethical Fear:
The saying "Karm nai Dharma" (work is religion) reflects that good conduct leads to happiness, while bad conduct results in disappointment. Some may choose a self-destructive path in retirement. People strive to avoid wrongdoing based on ethical principles, seeking self-satisfaction through ethical means. Unethical behavior does not yield personal satisfaction. Ethical fear encourages individuals to refrain from wrongful activities, supporting effective governance.
7. Fear of Punishment and Penalty:
Actions and behaviors within an office are subject to consequences. Every official is aware of the repercussions of their actions. Fear manifests in various forms throughout governance. Routine processes—such as presenting identification, adhering to dress codes, submitting leave applications, and following procurement procedures—must be executed correctly. Any misconduct may lead to fines and penalties. Without fear of punishment, governance effectiveness and system integrity may decline.
8. Environmental Fear:
Our activities are evolving towards modernization and postmodernism. Service delivery has become more efficient and systematic, with innovations like "building less, paperless, one-touch service" enabling faster and streamlined processes. If these advancements are not contextually adjusted, governance may become ineffective. Public governance must ensure social justice and equality, adapting to prevailing conditions. An unfavorable environment can negatively impact capacity and reliability, hindering effective governance.
Fearism has a pervasive global influence, felt in both physical and non-physical realms. Human behavior, creation, and actions are shaped by fear. Public governance involves collaboration between government and citizens, facilitated by this fear. Luther Gulick's management theory, influenced by John Major’s concept of public governance from the 1990s, along with the World Bank's frameworks, highlights fear as a significant factor in human behavior.
Complaints about public governance being tardy, bureaucratic, and traditional indicate a need for agility, responsiveness, and effectiveness. Governance based on the rule of law, high discipline standards, and efficient administration is essential for democratic governance. Effective governance relies on mechanisms designed for this purpose; fear is often unseen but its presence is inevitable. Fear significantly impacts public governance activities—it is a Philosophy of Fearism.
In managing public governance effectively, involving everyone is crucial. Thus, fearism influences public governance by providing creative and responsive solutions that help maintain effective governance.
In governance, the three branches—executive, judiciary, and legislative—are responsible for ensuring transparency and accountability through their functions and processes. Citizen engagement, empowerment, and inclusive simplification must address disparities between the rich and the poor. Public governance must prioritize social justice, inclusivity, and non-discrimination to create an effective and equitable governance environment.
Globally, we are witnessing permanent solutions to development as a result of future fears, leading to expectations of long-term peace, good governance, development, and progress. Born in the soil of Dharan, Nepal, fearism founder Desh Subba is drawing the world’s attention. His profound philosophy serves as a milestone for implementing fear-based governance (govern-fearism) aimed at making public governance more transparent, efficient, reliable, and citizen-centric.
It is an English translation version.
Comments
Sapkota announces in this paper that Subba's philosophy of fearism is a "profound philosophy" and it verifies reality of organizations and governance and it institutes the protocol that fear should be a motivator for human action (i.e., in organizing and governance). I am glad to see this government agent (Sapkota) thinking so critically and outlining 8 different kinds of fear to consider. That said, I feel this is a quite reductionistic pragmatist argumentation [1] of what Subba's philosophy of fearism is. Sapkota takes one part of it to make a case for what he believes in, that is, that fear should be a motivator for societies. But little do we see Sapkota address what Subba and I have always addressed in 'Fear' Studies and philosophy of fearism as part of that advance of thought on fear (and 'fear'). In particular, when Sapkota says "govern-fearism" [2] and "fear-based governance" as positive goals--these are misleading and incorrect interpretations [3]. Albeit, I understand there has been an English translation of the original presentation by Sapkota. There may be loose interpretation without technical precision, in keeping with the teachings of Subba and myself on philosophy of fearism. My main complaint, however, is that Sapkota misses the point of evolution of fear throughout the core philosophy of Subba (and myself) and he makes no effort to distinguish "fearlessness" as higher evolving forms of fear management systems (and even a "Fearless Age" which Subba argues for). We need to have careful discussion on this topic of fear management and organizational and governance lenses that come in and interpret a philosophy like fearism for their own narrower pragmatic agendas.
End Note
1. For the problem of potential 'weaponizing fear' for pragmatic functionalism in all kinds of situations, go to my critique: https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/weaponizing-fear-ethical...
2. I think more precisely in English, this should read "governing-fearism"
3. It is essential that the translators of any publication be named and acknowledged, otherwise as researchers we have no idea who interpreted into English, in this case and that makes the knowledge shared dubious and unqualifiable with no one being fully responsible for the printed text.