My good friend (let’s call him Joe) and I were having a good discussion one day. The discussion was based on the causal relationship between development and a stable government. Does a stable government pave the way for good development? Or do you need the support of a strong economy and effective infrastructure to have a stable government?

We have learned that one of the biggest causes of the Maoist insurgency was the economic disparity of the people. Without development, people are going to remain restless. Not many people are going to care about good governance when their stomachs are growling; and, without the support of the people, good governance is moot. Also, we have learned that there is a severe lack of communication between the people at the grassroots level and the central government. Much has to do with the deficiency of infrastructure. Not only are roads needed to facilitate the movement of the government officials to the rural regions, better quality of life in these regions are needed to attract these government officials to stay. Apparently, none of them want to go to the marginalized regions of the country, creating a vast void of political communication in these regions. Wow. I mean, I completely understand their feeling but really? I want to say “suck it up” but I feel I am not eligible to make such comments, as I was one of the many who roared a victorious cry when our “hipster” bus rolled into Annapurna Hotel in Kathmandu.

Then again, we have also got the sense that in order for these multi-billion rupee development projects to occur, there needs to be governmental support. Not only that, stability is likely to allow foreign investors to flood in the country with the much-needed money.

So what comes first: development or a stable government? My friend and I came to the lazy conclusion that they need to come together. There is no set starting point in a circle. One or the other needs to just step up, and hopefully, the other will follow.