Non-participation of youth at the workplace can be compared to Nepali politics
Published date; 2010-07-11
Leadership League, Perspective, The Himalayan Times
If you ask what the root problem of Nepali politics is, the answer will be, “failure of the older generations
and lesser participation and leadership of the youth.” Apparently, Nepali politics is the most fitting case to contrast youth participation and non-participation.
However, youths are not given the chance to participate meaningfully at the workplace too.We often fall short in underlining that the workplace is also an avenue where participation of young people can be fostered in meaningful ways.
Beginning with the family, we expect the younger generations to obey and comply with the rules set by the adults. When children grow up, they face the formidable task of abiding by the rules set at colleges and workplaces. Generally, the younger generation are often looked down upon in our society, and rarely allowed to participate in major decision making activities. Their participation is often deemed as a theoretical facet and incalculable.
Participation is actually rather a process than an output. Roger Hart’s “ladder of participation” can be deemed relevant to differentiate youth participation and nonparticipation. The ladder is divided into eight rungs which can be further divided into two, based on its participatory and non-participatory features.
The non-participatory components can be compared with youth in today’s political scenario. Manipulation, decoration and tokenism are the three non-participatory rungs according to the ladder of participation.
Youth are extensively mobilised just as a tool to realise a party’s directive.
Its distinctive feature thus qualifies youth participation in Nepali politics as non-participatory. From historical and contemporary evidence too, youths have contributed largely to Nepali politics. Historical changes resulted by mobilising students, labours and youths from various walks of lives. The 2006 April uprising (Janaandholan- II) also saw enormous involvement of youths. Nonetheless, their voices are ultimately unheard.
The parties with larger segments of youths are considered more institutionalised, disregarding the meaningful participation that it should have practiced. In workplaces too, youth participation has to be scrutinised to determine the persistence of non-participatory practices. Youths are the equal contributors to an organisation’s development.
Participatory practices within an organisation enhance ownership and productivity of youths. They are not just tools to obtain organisational goals.
Published date; 2010-07-11
Leadership League, Perspective, The Himalayan Times
If you ask what the root problem of Nepali politics is, the answer will be, “failure of the older generations
and lesser participation and leadership of the youth.” Apparently, Nepali politics is the most fitting case to contrast youth participation and non-participation.
However, youths are not given the chance to participate meaningfully at the workplace too.We often fall short in underlining that the workplace is also an avenue where participation of young people can be fostered in meaningful ways.
Beginning with the family, we expect the younger generations to obey and comply with the rules set by the adults. When children grow up, they face the formidable task of abiding by the rules set at colleges and workplaces. Generally, the younger generation are often looked down upon in our society, and rarely allowed to participate in major decision making activities. Their participation is often deemed as a theoretical facet and incalculable.
Participation is actually rather a process than an output. Roger Hart’s “ladder of participation” can be deemed relevant to differentiate youth participation and nonparticipation. The ladder is divided into eight rungs which can be further divided into two, based on its participatory and non-participatory features.
The non-participatory components can be compared with youth in today’s political scenario. Manipulation, decoration and tokenism are the three non-participatory rungs according to the ladder of participation.
Youth are extensively mobilised just as a tool to realise a party’s directive.
Its distinctive feature thus qualifies youth participation in Nepali politics as non-participatory. From historical and contemporary evidence too, youths have contributed largely to Nepali politics. Historical changes resulted by mobilising students, labours and youths from various walks of lives. The 2006 April uprising (Janaandholan- II) also saw enormous involvement of youths. Nonetheless, their voices are ultimately unheard.
The parties with larger segments of youths are considered more institutionalised, disregarding the meaningful participation that it should have practiced. In workplaces too, youth participation has to be scrutinised to determine the persistence of non-participatory practices. Youths are the equal contributors to an organisation’s development.
Participatory practices within an organisation enhance ownership and productivity of youths. They are not just tools to obtain organisational goals.
No comments:
Post a Comment