Irresponsible decision

Over the years, successive  governments have been criticised for not supplying adequate food to remote districts, especially during times of crisis. Now, instead of trying to overcome the shortcomings on the supply front, the government has decided to close down foreign grants assisted food depots, particularly in inaccessible districts. This no doubt has put the state of food supply in complete uncertainty. With food shortage hitting Jumla district hard, the situation is likely to become even worse than it is now.

Strangely enough, driven by donor agencies, the government has decided to close down Nepal Food Corporation run food depots in inaccessible districts without even announcing a reliable option. These unfortunate districts include  Jumla, Mugu, Bajhang, Darchula, Solukhumbu, Manang, Bhojpur, Khotang and Sankhuwasabha which are linked only by air. How could the government suddenly come up with such a decision without even giving a thought to the socio-economic and topographic realities in these districts? It could have at least mulled over the consequences of such a decision. What should have been especially considered is that many of these districts suffer from severe food shortage every year. As a result, these districts solely depend on the government supplied food. How a responsible government could take such a decision, that too during severe winter, is a question that baffles any thinking person.

Millions of people living in these districts are still unaware of the decision even though they have already noticed the shortage of food.  Jumla, which has already been hit hard is likely to experience worse conditions since chances of new harvest are very remote and also because the stock meant for a year did not last more than four months. What is saddening is that the government did not even bother to inform the local people prior to the arbitrary decision to close down the food depots. The government has so far taken no concrete measures to cope with the food deficiency that looms large not only in Jumla but also in other districts.

 The government should not have taken such an irresponsible decision if it had, at all, intended to serve the poor and remote districts. Whether donors withdraw food assistance to these districts or not, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the people in affected districts are provided food security at least during the hard times. Now, it must find a way to ensure regular supply of food even if it entails additional expenses.

Crisis in good governance

-By Ganesh Prasad Pandeya & Lekha Raj Bhandari

The concept of good governance continues to dominate the development discourse in many countries. Virtually, good governance means accountability, transparency, predictability, legitimacy, people’s participation, rule of law, local self-government and guarantee of services in respects of the manner in which a government works. These elements of good governance can be expected and envisaged only in a democratic system of government. Being responsible to the people’s need, good governance, collaborating between the public and private sectors, plays a very important role in service delivery systems.

Basically good governance is a prominent and leading part of economic development. The key link between these two subject matters lies in government competence to respond and to provide opportunities. The latest experiences of developed and developing countries also show that we can do everything in today’s economy. We can invest in education, health, communication, technology, hydropower and then ensure development in these sectors individually. But if we do not have a good governance system and if we do not fight against corruption, all the effort is endangered and short-lived. Primarily good governance seeks social and political consensus for reform, outlines the essentials of it with well-trained and highly committed civil servants. Furthermore, the economic and socio-political landscape for better performance is also required for a good governance.

Though we are very progressive in thinking of a good governance, there are a lot of things that need to be improved. Most of the policies and programmes have failed because of a lack of realistic and holistic approach to planning, humanistic thinking in nature and effective implementing strategies in practice. Because the policymakers are informed, concerned, honest about what they see as the problems-- violence, corruption, how to respond to needs in a fair and equitable manner. Sometimes, they also run away from issues and show apathy towards efficiency and accountability factors in their performance.

No one is held accountable for non-performance or mismanagement. Transparency is lacking in procurement, recruitment and awarding contracts, appointments, hiring, firing or even selling public enterprises. This situation has not changed a bit even after the restoration of parliamentary democracy.

Democracy seems to have been over politicized. The media are weak and extremely biased because of their affiliation to one or other political party. The judiciary also has come under the question mark regarding the impartiality of its verdicts. There are also commentators who allege that justice is polluted by under-the-table syndrome.

The accumulating development failure and the decline in resource available to carry out even routine development tasks make it no surprise that the failure is beginning to manifest itself in governance. The perspective of development has been seen to be counterproductive. The existing development framework is not geared towards including core governance areas as part and parcel of development. The bureaucracy and polity have never been in the development debate. Development administration has shied away from the people’s aspiration, showing a perfect example of failure in the governance.

Despite many development efforts, we remain in one of the world’s poorest countries. Ineffective and increasingly unstable governments have hampered our fight against poverty and corruption. We have seen eight governments since 1990. Misallocation of resources, delays in project implementation, difficulties in obtaining approval for private investment, de-motivated and low paid civil servants are contributing more towards the problem. Eventually, potentiality in raising revenues, generating hydropower and water resources, increasing tourism and receiving donor aid have been ignored.

As a result, having these political anomalies and mal-administrations, the basic elements of good governance are severely compromised. Public resources are grossly misused. Rampant corruption continues unabated, people’s participation in governance is also very limited.

There is a loss of faith in legislature, executive and judicial process, there is no accountability and fear of law. There is much more corruption even in the higher and responsible position of the government.

These constraints to development can be overcome to a large extent on the political strengths of a government and its degree of efforts to work better. This can be done by transferring its task to the civil society and right sizing the bureaucracy. Since the social value system has changed, nobody wants to be governed. They want individualism and federalism. People prefer enabling a government, not performing in the government. The government is also losing its power because of global impact on policy and local pressure and the desire of self-governance. Clientele satisfaction and cost effectiveness are deemed major parameters of a better governance.

Probably, the most single largest factor improving a governance system is bringing resources closer to the beneficiaries or civil societies. Development experiences also prove that partnership between civil society and the government is a recognized key to development.

Involvement of civil society in all phases of the plan preparation and design of projects, implementation, impact evaluation and sharing benefits improves the quality of effectiveness and sustainability in development activities. Administrative machinery can help in the process by ensuring an ideal for good governance providing commitment, accountability, transparency and neutrality. In the same way, politicians can help by reframing their mindset or political will power.

They unanimously agree

-By Rajoo

After a decade of confrontations and mutual recriminations, political parties have come to a point of understanding. At least over one issue, they all agree. This is a good sign of learning how to practice imported democracy. We were so anxious because it seemed parties and leaders knew nothing but to fight like Tom and Jerry. We, at the same time, believed that the new political system would be ransacked soon because the parties could never compromise and fighting endlessly with each other was sure to lead the country to an abyss. Now, it’s time to celebrate for the bad days are now gone.

For the first time in Nepal’s democratic history, all political parties and leaders unanimously agreed that lapse of security at the Tribhuwan International Airport was the main reason for the airplane hijack three weeks ago. Thanks to Indian media, which is as democratic as the country itself, we got a chance to retrospect and to condemn the national standard. The experts who were sleeping Kumbhakarna’s sleep for decades suddenly woke up and asserted that the airport security system was hopeless. Suspending airport staff was a way through which Nepal had to satisfy neighbours. They said well when they concluded that some terrorists had entered the plane after sunbathing for seven hours at the Airport beach. We wonder how quickly some jump to conclusions when we hunt for the humblest word to apologise for being a part of the hijacking plan.

It was nothing but our Prime Minister’s loyalty to his roots that made him hurriedly admit that Nepal was to be blamed for the whole incident. No other prime minister in the world might have that kind of straightforwardness. I repeat, he is a saint. His quotable quote has heightened the image of Nepal. When the Prime Minister has unlocked the door, who can stop the barrage of rain outside.

The basis of  Nepali foreign policy is to say yes when others blame us. How can a country like Nepal have the right to deny and secure its justice?

We believe in the Buddha who said that defying suppression is a crime.

And about the Nepali hijacker, the Intelligence Department had records of Mr Hijacker who had been involved in various crucial insurgencies like robbery, bombing, raping and hijacking. Actually he is wanted by many international investigation branches. It was our mistake to let that damn hijacker into the plane.

Nepali political parties are particularly famous for making comments when even the slightest mistake is made anywhere in the world that could hurt patriotism. Be it Pakistan or E Timor, Nepali leaders are always there to raise a finger.

Price hike is the most vital issue for the opposition. They can collect a hundred thousand signatures and  invite a special session too, to make sure that the hike is excessive. That’s what they are there for. Their duty is to create a political atmosphere. Not to speak against Indian allegations. So what if the allegations have been made blindly and are unjust. Our political parties are not there to lock horns over such issues especially since they are not interested in countering the slanted views fed by the Indian government to the Indian media.

Philanthropic endowments with small donors

Giving donations to achieve fame in this world and credit in the next is a long established Nepali tradition. Guthis, while they functioned effectively, were examples of how contributions from members and income from other resources were mobilized for the purposes of some common good (either in the form of material construction or maintenance or in the performance of a social ritual). Today, we hear about donations of buildings to political parties, contributions of significant size made to hospital, the establishment of endowments for literary awards and for scholarships for daughters-in-law who couldn’t otherwise afford higher education. Older forms of givings by individuals - construction of ghats or renovations of temples - are still going on.

Many such examples of giving are the work of individuals or families. While we do not know the exact volume of such gifts made annually in Nepal, we can say for sure that it runs into crores of rupees. Preliminary investigation suggests that most instances of giving are not mediated by intermediary organizations and there is nothing wrong with such face-to-face contact between the giver and the target groups or institutions.

However it is also the case that our society has developed in ways in which direct contact between those who want to engage in philanthropic activities and those in need of help is increasingly becoming difficult. Hence there is a need for intermediary organizations who can work as a lami between the donors and those in need. Such organizations have to not only raise funds from donors but also manage them properly and disburse them to the genuinely needy.

In this context I celebrate the fact that last Saturday about 100 people walked 10 kms to raise four lakh rupees for a Nepali philanthropic organization, Tewa. Founded in the mid-1990s, Tewa supports women’s initiatives all over Nepal and its endowment will reach 1.5 crore rupees by mid-2000. That is an achievement that deserves emulation by others. However, to invest their energies in the right places, other organizations should pay attention to lessons learnt by Tewa.

In an interaction programme organized by Martin Chautari last month, Tewa’s founder-convenor Rita Thapa remarked that in her experience, Nepal’s burgeoning corporate sector was not yet ready for modern philanthropy! Initially she had expected that Nepal’s sahujis, byaparis, and udyogpatis would be very supportive of her idea. But many attempts at persuasion resulted in very little success. She advises others interested in raising funds not to waste their time visiting Nepali businessmen. Instead she places her hope on the ‘small’ contributors, who slowly but surely, have helped the growth of Tewa’s endowment over the years.

For a people who tend to be mesmerized by the fact that Bill Gates has established a philanthropic organization worth about 17 billion dollars (the world’s second largest such organization after Glaxo Wellcome), it is worth asking why our own corporate sector has such a poor record of giving. In the same interaction programme, management consultant and lawyer Ratna Sansar Shrestha argued that this is so primarily because (a) the net worth of Nepali businessmen is small; and (b) a substantial percentage of their wealth is retained in the form of ‘black money’. Big-donations by sahujis with black money will automatically attract questions regarding the sources of that money and would lead to complications with the tax authorities. It is people with ‘white money’ who would be, provided the correct tax and other incentives, willing to give parts of their wealth away.

These insights suggest that such organizations will have to rely on regular but small-amount donors if they want to establish a sizeable endowment. If that is so, let us do some calculations. If they give themselves a two-year time framework, they will need to find 4167 people who are willing to give Rs 1000 per month for 24 months to create an endowment of 10 crore rupees (Rs 1000 x 24 x 4167 = Rs 10 crore and 8 thousand). It is as simple and as difficult as that! Invested at ten percent, this endowment will generate funds of one crore rupees per year. If 15-20 percent of that is taken away for administrative costs, 80-85 lakh rupees will be available each year, to this organization to support its own or others’ activities.

That is no small amount. In the cultural front, that kind of money can support the work of a good team of artists, writers, and researchers. In the service delivery front, that kind of money can support the education of many children or provide health care facilities to a sizeable rural population. In the activist front, it can support journalists and advocates of various important issues. In other words, this kind of money will enhance both the service delivery and pressure-giving abilities of Nepali civil society.

So what needs to be done to transcend Tewa’s success? First of all, the people involved in setting up these foundations will have to have a ‘clean’ record when it comes to handling finances. Otherwise they will not be able to generate trust amongst the potential donors. Secondly new laws must come into place so that such foundations can be registered as “Trusts” whose endowments cannot be nationalized. As of now, registered as NGOs, such organizations fear that the endowment they have raised can be taken away by the government under certain conditions. Thirdly such foundations will have to have clearly stated goals regarding how the money raised is to be spent.  

Fourthly, tax laws will have to be amended to encourage those with white money to give gifts. Currently our laws allow taxpayers to deduct five percent of their net income or one lakh rupees (whichever is less), given away as donations, in their tax returns. Fifthly our property inheritance laws give sons an automatic right to ancestral property. As argued by Ratna Sansar Shrestha, these laws must be revised to encourage property owner to give away their wealth to philanthropic foundations.

Regular small donations by Nepalis can create big philanthropic endowments in Nepal. Are there any takers out there?

-By Pratyoush Onta