Avoid political appointment

It is indeed surprising that no  political party in power has ever appointed competent people with the ability to serve the country’s interests. Take for instance, the appointment of 63 year old Madhusudan Prasad Gorkhali as chief commissioner of the anti-corruption body, the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) two years ago. The then RPP led government completely overlooked the constitutional provisions on retirement that would not even allow him to serve his term in office. Nor did it examine whether he had the ability to perform. Or, perhaps Gorkhali’s incompetence suited the purpose very well. In fact, it appeared that his appointment served individual interests more than the country’s. The moot point here is that such appointments made by successive governments have done more harm to public institutions than can be even speculated. 

The trend after the restoration of democracy has—as though it were inevitable—entailed change of
heads in corporations, government departments and agencies with every change of political guard. Such changes are obviously made with party loyalty as an overriding consideration. The person’s abilities become secondary in this situation. During his two year term at CIAA, Gorkhali unfortunately proved to be such an appointment. When a body as vital in fighting corruption as the CIAA has such an inept person heading it, there is little that can be expected. There is then little to wonder that legal action initiated against those who were involved in financial irregularities have hardly ever been effective. As a result, the government has failed to curb corrupt practices in public corporations.

Corruption, especially in sectors like hydropower, public institutions and state owned corporations, has increased due to political protection and ineffective implementation of laws and an unassertive and inept CIAA chief has made things easier for the corrupt. It is true that CIAA has taken up over thirty cases of corruption. This year alone, CIAA recommended action against 130 people who were, directly or indirectly, involved in financial irregularities. Unfortunately, less than 30 people have received anything close to punishment. The remaining 100 people, who it is said, have amassed enormous wealth illegally, have gotten off the hook.

The demand for a separate law to empower CIAA on subjects related to national interests has never been discussed in parliament. Neither has there been any move to establish a separate court to deal with corruption cases in the country. For instance, the Chase Air scandal, the alleged irregularities on the Chilime Hydropower contract, and the allegation that Mayor Keshav Sthapit appointed an assistant officer to collect some 390 million rupees, among others, are major corruption cases which the government has prevented CIAA from taking up. Instead, the government has reappointed blacklisted people and rewarded them. Such actions have made the CIAA chief appear not only weak, incompetent and passive, the CIAA itself has become a body that fights corruption only in name. In many ways the CIAA today is not a body from which we can expect any meaningful fight against corruption. Unless the government empowers the CIAA sufficiently, and unless it appoints someone who can really take action against the corrupt, the country will continue to fight a losing battle against corruption. The CIAA chief is also not someone who should be changed every now and then. A government concerned about morality in public office must exercise its constitutional rights objectively
while appointing any head of public corporation or government department. Yes-men may serve their political bosses well but that in no way is serving either their office or the country well.

Foreign policy and the media

-By C D Bhatta

Can media drive the foreign policy? ‘Yes’. Media can play a vital role in the process of foreign policy making in a contemporary world. Because international affairs are, quite rightly, the subject of intense public interest and media coverage. Freedom of the press has long been perceived as bestowing great power on journalists, at times an inconvenience to the most benevolent of governments. The gallery in which reporters sit has become the fourth estate of the governments. Today the instantaneous coverage of events by worldwide television and radio is regarded in many quarters as conferring excessive powers on the media. A few decades ago, the same job used to be done by the diplomats. That is the very reason why most of the countries in the world restructured their foreign ministry in the 80’s and the 90’s, giving more autonomy to the media. Few western foreign policy experts also opined that there is no need to have residential embassies anymore, as almost all the information required by the nation can be gathered through the  technologically growing media.

Some would have said it that Cable News Network (CNN) is already de facto sixteenth (and permanent) member of the UN Security Council. Propaganda is very much a feature of the present age. The revolution in communication and in information technology is bound to have significant impact in shaping the foreign policy. Some people say that it is the CNN, not the governments, who is conducting the world policy in the contemporary world. The recent merger of America Online, Inc. and Time Warner Inc. creates the world’s first fully integrated media and communication company for the Internet Century. The merger will combine Time Warner’s vast array of world-class media, entertainment and news brands and its technologically advanced broadband delivery systems with America Online’s extensive Internet franchises, technology and infrastructure, including the world’s  premier consumer online brands, the largest community in cyberspace, and unmatched e-commerce capabilities.

AOL Time Warner’s unparalleled resources of creative and journalistic talent, technology assets and expertise, and management experience will enable the new company to dramatically enhance consumers’ access to the broadest selection of high-quality content and interactive services. AOL Time Warner’s brands will include two leading partners in the print and electronic media vis-a-vis the Time International and the CNN. CNN and Time International which have been already playing leading role in the international affairs will dominate the entire media of the world in the days to come where diplomacy, particularly diplomats will have no say.

In a world where the latest buzz-phrase tends to dominate debate about policy issues, the ‘CNN factor’ has, in recent times held its own alongside other favourites such as ‘new world order’— or ‘disorder’, depending on one’s taste. Anyone who has watched Christiane Ammanpour (now CNN’s Chief  International Correspondent) reporting from Baghdad during the Gulf war or Steve Harrigan, reporting from Chechnya, or Satindra Bindra reporting from New Delhi can guess the role CNN has been playing in the world politics.

They have dominated the entire policy of the nation-states. The two interventions — in Northern Iraq and Somalia and now in Chechnya — triggered a major debate within academic and government circles. Foreign policy ‘experts’ in particular were dismayed by what they saw as this unwarranted intrusion by the Fourth Estate into the policy process. But none can stop it as it is the reality and people’s  desire.

Dark words are spoken about media irresponsibility and the need to do something  about it. When CNN tells the world about wars, refugees, atrocities, hijackings, it induces public demand that something must be done, but the same public also thinks that governments are less effective and should do less. This produces inevitable but contradictory surges of popular concern, relapsing into criticism of over engagement when governments respond.

During the 1980’s proliferation of new technologies transformed the potential of news media to provide constant flow of global real-time news. Tiananmen Square and the collapse of communism symbolised by the fall of the Berlin Wall became major media events communicated throughout the world   instantaneously via TV. During the last decade of the twentieth century, the question asked was to what extent this media persuasiveness has impacted upon government - particularly the process of foreign policy making. The new technologies appeared to reduce the scope for calm deliberations over policy, forcing policy-makers to respond to whatever issues journalists focused. This perception was in turn reinforced by the end of the bipolar world and what many viewed as the collapse of the old anti-Communist consensus which - it was argued - had led to the creation of an ideological bond uniting policy makers and journalists.

Released from the ‘prism of the Cold war’ journalists were, it was presumed, freer not just to cover the stories they wanted but also to criticise foreign policy. The phrase ‘CNN effect’ encapsulated the idea that real-time communication technology could provoke major responses from domestic audiences and political elite to global events.

CNN effect’s literature is that news may play a lead role in deciding the foreign policy of a country. At a time when the Indian media are bustling over Nepal citing the involvement of Nepalese nationals and its security lapses at the airport ( a living example is the recent interview of the pilot of the ill fated aircraft in CNN’s Insight Programme in which he blames the Nepalese government).

The network of international terrorism has spread all over the world and countries like America are finding it hard to fight terrorism. The bombing of the World Trade Centre in 1992 in America is an example. When the highly equipped American intelligence service could not do anything how can a country like Nepal play a lead role in curbing international terrorism.

It is insanity to blame security lapses at Tribhuvan International Airport, particularly in the case of the recent highjacking. The Asian Age of 16 January (Pak Pincer: To Nepal with hate; By Dalip Singh) grossly blames the operation of ISI agents from Nepal.

The Nepalese government must give some leverage to the local media. We need to add extra teeth to our media. Overall, it is the media on whose information diplomats rely. By and large, it is the media which plays a key role in shaping foreign policy, not foreign ministry officials or the ministry. Foreign policy was snatched away  by media in the late 20th century all over the world and there is no doubt that the foreign policy of a country in the 21st century will be influenced by   the media. So most governments in the world are investing on the media for the efficient conduct of statecraft, especially, foreign policy and defending themselves from foreign intrusion. Why can we also not do so?

On development and aid effectiveness

-By Diwaker Chand

Seminars and conferences in  Kathmandu these days are more of a regular feature. Every alternative day there is a seminar on topics like good governance, role of civil society and human rights. Surprisingly, the other day there was a talk programme on ‘Victims of Maoists Insurgency on December 17th, which was rather different and probably a mega event organized by the World Bank, DFID, UNDP and ADB, the largest donors in the context of Nepal.

The audience were under an impression that such a dignified fora would be addressed by no less a dignitary than the Finance Minister. But Prithvi Raj Ligal, the Vice Chairman of the National Planning Commission, addressed the fora. Ligal was very pragmatic regarding the perception of Development Aid in Nepal. He began blaming the donors for being rigid which has resulted into aid-ineffectiveness. Donors attach too many conditions which also is equally attributable for affecting the efficacy of aid. Ligal stressed that the donors needed to be more flexible and develop better understanding and support the required needs and local initiatives. It was stated that Nepal has received $4 billion in foreign aid since 1956. In 1990s, the annual aid flow has been between $400 to 600 million. Aid productivity analysis presented by David Dollar on behalf of the World Bank ‘Assessing Aid - What works, What Doesn’t and Why’ stated that “countries with good policy have received more aid and vice versa”.

However he cautioned that aid productivity in economic terms may not be good while it still receives a large amount of aid, and countries which have far better aid productivity but whose data are considered to be distorted were receiving lower proportion of aid. By the size of aid Zambia was receiving, its per capita income should have been around $20,000 whereas actually it is around $400. Burma, since it is considered to be distorted, in spite of better aid productivity, would be receiving less aid compared to non - distorted countries. With regard to Nepal the assessment was rather pessimistic. Nepal has very weak economic policy and therefore should make more sincere efforts towards the development of ‘good policy’.

Rather than the economic productivity, the donors seem to worry more about the level and degree of ‘distortions’. The method of measuring ‘distortion’ which was not discussed at length at the forum, however, was obvious that ‘political parameters’ seemed to have been given more weightage while assessing the volume and doses of aid to the developing countries. So the question that would mostly be raised would not be on the basis of economic transparency and accountability but rather it would be sensitively weighed in their scale on the basis of ‘political parameters’.

This must be the reason that in spite of constant pressure from the civil society and the people in general regarding the incessant level of corruption going on in this country the donors seem to be turning a deaf ear largely because Nepal still seem to fall within the ‘good policy’ spectrum. It may have weak economic policy as per their parameters but there are measures to correct such weakness e.g. raise the water tariff, electricity tariff, deregulate the fertilizer marketing, remove the subsidy on fertilizer, raise the price of diesel so that Nepal would keep on receiving the green dollars as aid. One of the moderator of the forum explicitly defined Development Aid as ‘taking money from the poor in the rich country and giving it to the rich of the poor country’. It was very well said. No matter how poor the ‘poor’ of these rich countries are going to be by emptying their pockets they still have rich and competent governments who are going to replenish them in one way or the other.

Dollar, an economist at the World Bank, spelled out that “providing significant amounts of money has not made much of a dent in poverty in countries with weak management”. Professional institutions like the World Bank cannot afford passing such causal remarks.

If the resources, if proven to be spent inefficiently and if there are empirical evidences to prove this, then institutions like the WB and ADB being equal stake holders should have raised the question and given them warnings. If  inefficiency prevails right from the beginning, what were these institutions doing during all this time?. In the private sector any defaulters (if proven guilty) are not excused and /or exempted then why should a country being a state party and therefore a recipient client, if proven to be guilty, should not be punished and made to bear the penalty?

The case may be slightly different with UNDP which does have political criteria and political space, but the institutions like the ADB and the World Bank being purely professional enterprises should act like the rest of bilateral donors. The second query which the author would like to disagree with the presentation of Mr Dollar is with regard to his views on ‘good policy environment’ and when he specifically reiterated that the “Donors are more or less financing whatever the recipient government chooses”.

This may be true under the circumstances where the government is ‘Good’ and ‘Strong’ but in the case of Nepal which is consummately donor driven such hypothesis is not at all applicable. The increment in daily utilities specially the electricity bills, water tariff, the price of petroleum products and imposition of VAT, provoking privatization etc are some  of the examples of donor dependency and supremacy in formulating and getting the plans in operation. How can any plan in Nepal be ‘bad and/or weak’ when they are formulated by the best of experts who are grafted from the best of the institutions in the world , be it Adam Smith Foundation for counselling the Privatization schemes and/or experts from Sri Lanka for drafting ‘Quality Tourism schemes’ etc. Since most of such plans are of long gestation most of the experts don’t have the time to see these projects when they are completed. By the time it is completed they would already be preoccupied formulating such good programme for a “weak” country in some parts of Asia, Africa or Latin America.