In Nepal, a “mobocracy” led to the government’s overthrow, largely through Gen Z mobilization. This isn’t an isolated case. Similar events have happened in places like Bangladesh and during the Arab Spring. Here are a few reflections on these protests.
A Different History
Protests start with hope. Crowds believe change is near. They think entrenched powers can be dismantled. However, most movements fail to create real change. Power often shifts from one corrupt group to another. Are the Arab world or Syria better off since their revolutions?
On a recent EconTalk podcast, Mike Munger cited Douglass C. North, a Nobel laureate. He argued that societies need a different history for real change. Institutions—like laws and traditions—come from long histories. This leads to path dependence: once societies head in a direction, they often repeat it, even with new leaders. Revolutions that only change rulers usually fail because old institutions and incentives stay. True change needs a shift in historical and institutional foundations, allowing new possibilities to emerge.
The Vocal Minority and the Silent Majority
In many protests, a vocal minority takes charge while a silent majority endures. In Nepal, around 200,000 to 300,000 people protested, mainly in Kathmandu. With a population of about 30 million, that’s only 0.7% to 1%—visible but small compared to the silent majority. In the 2022 elections, 61% of eligible voters participated, far outnumbering protesters.
This trend is also seen on social media. Studies show the loudest voices online come from a small, active group, not reflecting the wider public opinion.
On Media Reporting
Media often fails to capture the true pulse of the people. It glamorizes revolutions, portraying protesters as heroes. This pattern is common in protest coverage. I’m skeptical of this view, especially with how foreign media reports on protests in India, often distorting events.
Most protests arise from the human desire for change, but they rarely ask if that change is better than the status quo. Psychology calls this the grass is greener effect, where alternatives seem better just because they are different. There’s also status quo bias, where the present is judged harshly without fully assessing alternatives. True transformation needs more than energy in the streets. It requires patience and an understanding that fast change often leads to disappointment. Psychology describes this as present bias—the tendency to overvalue immediate outcomes while undervaluing long-term consequences. Careful reflection is vital to ensure that the new path leads to real progress, not just a quick reshuffle of old patterns. Alas, a mobocracy cannot engage in this critical thinking.
Abhirama's Blog 