With And Without The Super-Egoist Nepali Constitution

Different nations have different intensities of punishment, meaning that the difference in sensitivity to punishment between two populations demarcates national boundaries between those populations in the first place. Nepal is the name of a territory with a certain intensity of punishment and a certain level of harshness of the police-prison “punishment system” that is different from that of other nations. The Nepali constitution makes Nepal uniquely Nepal by subjecting some people to a certain level of punishment, or to a different "way of punishing" that still falls within a globally-relevant "intensity of punishment" scale. 

When the constitution is being written, one area of scrutiny for its writers is to see whether Nepal police is competent enough to actually enforce the tenets in the constitution document. At this stage, the police has to actively demonstrate its potential. So as long as the constitution is being drafted, Nepal could be called a “low-intensity police state” as the police works to try to convince the constitution writers that it will be effective in applying the completed constitution.

After the constitution is complete, Nepal police plays a role in making the constitution the most authoritative document within the nation. The police has to discipline the nation's subjects towards acting “by the book” or “by the document.” Of course the things that cause displeasure and discontent are to be enforced, but more importantly, people also have to be trained and disciplined to take and enjoy the benefits that are produced by the constitution. People do not "naturally" work towards increasing their pleasure or satisfaction, rather they need a constitution to lead them. Freedom isn't realized “naturally” by the people, but has to be given to them through the text of the constitution. Like Zizek's formulation of the superego as demanding enjoyment through a command: “Enjoy!” we will have the Nepali constitution demanding people to “Be Free!” 

But even without a constitution, Nepal functions smoothly with the same authorities in place and the status-quo in check. This constitution-less but smooth running Nepal shows that people behave as if some kind of law is already in place even when it isn't. People do not challenge authority using their “freedom” even when there is an opportunity to do so, as if they already know that there is no such “freedom” outside the constitution's enforced freedom, or as if people cannot articulate a freedom in the absence of a constitution. There is no need/use for a strong and disciplining Lacanian “Law/Name of the Father” because people have today begun behaving as if there is a law, pretending there is a law, without there being need for an actual, written law and an authoritative individual as its producer. Nepal shows that we are in a kind of “post-political” moment with the constitution as outdated: we have moved to a phase where we can self-discipline and function without a constitution.