New govt initiatives

Defence Minister Mahesh Acharya has been quick to take the Maoist bull by its horns. The government’s recent moves indicate it has now become serious about finding a solution to the five-year old insurgency problem. Royal Nepal Army and Nepal Police personnel have begun joint patrolling six districts affected by the insurgency. In thirteen Maoist affected districts, matters related to use/mobilisation of the army has been placed with the Chief District Officer. Apart from this, reports have it that the National Defence Council is also considering the creation of a National Defence Committee for co-ordination with the government and also for resource mobilisation. While these may be seen as concrete measures that should help restore normalcy, Minister Acharya will be well advised to see the use of the army only as a means for bringing the Maoists to the table. This move is not an end in itself. The solution has to be political, not military. So obviously, the use of the military has to be limited to certain roles and for a certain time period. Acharya has not indicated any time frame for army involvement in Maoist affected areas, but it is to be hoped he understands -- since as Finance Minister he also holds the purse strings the cost of protracted army involvement in the Maoist conflict. The army can be used effectively for peacekeeping, but ultimately, the police must take
over the job of maintaining law and order and providing security to the people. There is no doubt that violence and terrorism must be dealt with firmly. In keeping with this need and considering the deteriorating situation, mobilisation of the army had become necessary.

Still, there is hope that the problem can be resolved through dialogue if the Defence and Home Ministers are not talking at cross purposes. Though it may appear that while Acharya blows hot Poudel blows cold, the Home Minister’s initiative to bring the Maoists to the table must be welcomed. He has expressed the government’s willingness to talk to the Maoists. He has also talked about exchanging prisoners. These are indeed very positive steps and they should go down well with the insurgents. The release of prison guards the Maoists had captured at Dunai can be seen as a positive response from the Maoists. These developments must be welcomed for they help build confidence and they could also go a long way to create a "minimum environment" for talks.

Cultural understanding in university decision-making

By Dr Radhaber D Khati

The question, whether the process of organizational decision-making for solving problems in a traditional society differs from that of a relatively modern society is important, especially, considering the levels of development of any two societies at different times. If the decisions are different in these contexts, is it so due to processes of decision- making that differ between any two diverse societies and cultures? Do social settings and cultural factors in a country have any impact on the process of decision-making? Of late, these have been some of the prominent issues among scholars. Although it is believed that "social anthropology" underscores the conviction that all societies, modern or traditional, face the same basic problems, the process of solving these problems differs. This is so because preferences and processes of decision making, based on specific criteria, have different dimensions in various societies.

Authority relationship: It is commonly believed that one of the most significant criteria in organizational decision-making are related to the mode of subordinate and higher authority relationship. Despite the existence of stringent laws against discrimination on grounds of sex, colour, caste and class, they are yet to be put into practice. This inconsistency is more glaring in less advanced countries. Consequently, decision making has to bear the brunt of this inconsistency.

Due mention of the pattern of authority, relationship between subordinates and superiors have to be made with regard to the impact of culture on decision making. Distance between subordinates and superiors in an organizational structure is a major contributing factor to organizational decision-making. There are many supervisory personnel who are put into a structured hierarchy of people and engaged in reporting to each other. In a society where employees are not scared of bosses, and where bosses are not often autocratic and paternalistic, employees are generally found to have expressed preference for a consultative style of higher educational decision making. Issues are similar among the universities, some specifics, especially in making decisions, may be different from country to country, depending on the culture, tradition, and educational level of the people at large and their sociopolitical consciousness.

Divided loyalty: The type and degree of political interests and influence of external environment over university affairs and decisions differ. Political appointment of the chief executives at the university, and the exceptionally huge chunk of university budget to be appropriated by the government may be attributed to political and governmental influence on the administration and decision making at the university. These incidents have become trends affecting university administration, and eventually its decision making. Such habits of administrators is growing, especially in countries where politics is not mature enough to maintain a reasonable distance from non-political organisations . It is in this situation that leadership is changed with almost every change of political power. In such a transient situation, it is very difficult for administrators to use their independent conscience and still stay in office. Therefore, there is enormous risk of their loyalty being divided between two institutions: the institution of work and the institution of belief (ie, their political support centre). In fact, divided loyalty among educators is what impinges on the smooth development of an institution like the university.

Structural impacts: Cultural impacts on decision making at a university can also depend on its organisational structure . For example, the structure of a university is such that the higher level decision making authority is in the hands of chief executives who reside at the helm of the bureaucracy. This organization, which itself is under political control externally, runs in a bureaucratic culture internally. Actually, politicians who are at the helm of power in the overall structure of a university organization, exercise their power beginning from the appointment of its chief executive to the appropriation of budgets. It is because of this that institutional leaders are often political appointees. It is not strange for these appointees to act in tune with the wishes of those who have placed them in office.

Government, being at the top of the power structure, can use diverse means to influence decision-making at the university. Since it has control over resources, policy and goals of the university, it can naturally influence decisions. Having recognized this controlling power of the government, university authorities, at times, are inclined to offer such controlling opportunities to bureaucrats in the government, or to political interest groups attached to the political party in power. Either consultations are made with the influencing power centres prior to decision making or under their pressure. In these circumstances, decisions already made are either withheld or not enforced, or made inactive or too flexible.

As a matter of fact, concerned government officials, people’s representatives, both at local and central levels, have reasons to ask whether public money is being used appropriately. Therefore, it falls on the institutional leadership to satisfy the community and their leaders through institutional performances. It is their responsibility to make sure that the wishes and expectations of the people of the institution are fittingly fulfilled.. The recent trend, however, shows that the community and political leaders are not only dissatisfied with a performance of the university but are increasingly becoming critical of them. This will propel them to be sceptical about its actions, which will eventually make one lose trust in the university itself. So, lack of public trust in the institution will automatically take away our leaders' strength and capability to lead. Therefore, the weaker the leaders, the greater the threat of external political intervention.

I fear to remember

By Smriti Dhungel

Irecall now the sleepless nights that we went through, nothing but nervous wreck were we as we moved around like zombies in the day and owls at night. We had put in our best, the best that each one of us was capable of; we left no stone unturned with all the rigorous practice and nights with just a few hours sleep. Only we knew how people would pity us by giving the usual "thank god I’m finished with that" and yet we had the courage to move on, to pick up the pieces that were broken and scattered and to build it again to the best we could. I had learnt one thing from this trade, which was never to give up trying, no matter what people said and whatever happened. I recall the days of ‘trial’ when our nervousness would get the better of us no matter how much we tried to stay relaxed, not to mention the butterflies in the tummy and the blood in our veins, which would want to freeze. There was nothing but fear, fear and more fear. As I watched my friends, seeing their eyes sunken and with dark circles, hair uncombed, and boys with unshaven beard I knew what each one of us were going through. I had gone far enough and no matter what happened it was not worth giving up now.

As the day approached it seemed more like judgment day where one stands trial and the judge gives his final verdict. Those who were pardoned would taste the sweetness of success and for those found guilty and served chastisement with little escape. We all knew we were sailing on the same boat that day and each prayed for freedom. If things went wrong, a petition could be made and there were chances of a retrial for the judge was our hope and we counted on him immensely. We knew he would do the best he could as he was known for his fair judgments.

Each one of us, fearing the worst, counted the odds, however we hoped for the best. Those were the days I knew what fear was all about, a word that seems so plain in the dictionary, I had felt it and I knew what it meant and I knew that no one could understand what we were going through except those who had endured it. That was my fear of memory.

Development and democracy : Diagnostics to action

By Rajendra K Kshatri

Today, one can not expect development of a genuine market economy under fair and transparent rules of competition without democracy. The process of development has now become an essential component of the democratic system itself. Hence, a country does not have to be judged to be fit for democracy, rather it has to become fit through democracy once said Nobel laureate Amartya Sen. Yet, we must not forget that overemphasis on democracy has the danger of causing disorder. On the other hand overemphasis on the market economy may destroy a nation’s culture while emphasizing efficiency said Yasuhiro Nakasone, former Prime Minister of Japan. These two statements, however, purport two different messages but denote a single aspiration on a common basis allowing differences to determine public policy in a peaceful, non violent manner so as not to frustrate democracy.

Nepal is now responsible for sustaining democracy to make the democratic practices effective and consequential. Democracy does not simply signify majority rule, it also includes protection of freedom, respect for legal recourse as well as safeguarding free and open discussion. Therefore, the success of democracy in Nepal depends to a great extent on its constructive role with understanding of fairness and justice for people at large.

The easing of social problems which reduces suffering has an impact on political stability. However, it is not that easy to define political stability and even more difficult is it to measure it. Only certain core values, beliefs and patterns of behaviour in a sense are proxies of stability. The existing challenges Nepal faces are by no means exhaustive. We need to understand that yielding concrete results can only be complemented by political will without which there would be serious discontent. However, what is proclaimed by deed as well as assurances of the government is that this is indeed a welfare state concerned for the good of all. In fact, this aura alone legitimizes its existence and authority.

With the advent of democracy, what has happened however, is that people have begun to feel even poorer and more isolated. This is perhaps due to our political masters irrespective of their parties who could not make positive response to the needs and demands of the people. Rather, they were much inclined towards their party interests. In fact, it is hard to find major achievements to focus on any activity made in favour of general public in order to respect people’s aspiration, as an excellent example of a step taken in the direction of consolidating democracy after its establishment in the country. Perhaps, it is due to the Nepalese political system, built up in a series of unfortunate episodes over the past several decades that it has hardly found a fair and equitable solution for a new initiative. The bitterness of these arguments reflect some distinctive sore in the Nepalese political arena.

Interestingly enough, economic justice and social security aspects are much neglected in the process of economic development in the country. Much has been talked but nothing is moving for a genuine market economy under fair and transparent rules of competition. All this tends to encourage bribery and corruption. For decades, honest toil has been less well rewarded in the country than swiping public funds or swindling fellow citizens. To curb it is not simple. It requires much more than piecemeal reform measures so far attempted in the country. In fact, the present situation demands nothing less than a fundamental change in our approach and attitude to the vision and understanding of development as such.

Yet, even the government plans a special arrangement on a fuzzy mix of subjects including good governance, corruption control and maintaining peace and security to keep democracy alive in the country. It seems urgent that Nepal, with its dedication and commitment has to set certain promising goals to show its people that it cares at least a little for democracy. The question is, what can be done about these issues? A considerable insight, thus, has to be envisioned into some of the ingredients that contribute to promotion of public good to ensure fair treatment of all.

Admittedly, an absence of the rule of law and a lack of transparency and accountability in the overall state administration weakens the economy and undermine the participatory process. Thus the right to know must be made at least optional with certain exceptions through the provision of legal instruments, otherwise it would be impossible to make citizens aware of public opinion and policies which at the end might adversely affect the decision making process of the government. This, indeed, is a major agenda that Nepal has to look into very seriously and cautiously.

There has been progress in the struggle to combat corruption in many corners of the world, where Nepal can not remain in isolation. Corruption is a crime of calculation, rather than passion. Combating corruption therefore begins with designing better systems. This it requires two basic preconditions- a minimum level of organization in civil society, and an environment in which civil liberties are safeguarded. In Nepal, neither of these conditions has determining role in practice. Feelings about our value system are often difficult to define. It is in fact, due to our prejudiced attitude we oversimplify, generalize, categorize an object, person or situation. Therefore, most of us at one time or another have fallen into the trap of stereotyping.

In the context of Nepal, democracy is already more than ten years old. At the beginning, the new born infant, democracy, had barely been able to teach us the idea of right and wrong, but now it should direct us to develop our awareness of good and bad, acceptable and unacceptable. The present situation of the country provides a firm base for a debate on the impact of democracy and a debate on the reform process to consolidate that which is much needed in our country to make democracy stable. Unless we try to understand democracy, as such, we may merely think of making it stable. If we try to understand the essence of democracy, we will be able to recognize what we want and take the appropriate action to achieve that goal. The whole exercise that has been done so far fails to enable us to recognize ourselves as we truly are. Unless we see ourselves realistically, we may not be able to take giant leaps. In fact, it is very urgent that we accept our past and change our attitude.

It is probably no surprise that our democracy gave birth to many talkers but few listeners. Everyone probably has observed politicians and people entering a discussion with no relation to the topic. Their aim is not to listen or try to understand but to preserve their own egos. A common tendency is to approve or disapprove rather than judge or try to understand the objective for better results. No politician or government official likes to be criticised. In fact, we should not be immune to criticism, no matter how sharp, unpleasant and caustic it may be. Most of us only try to divert attention from the true problem by blaming one another.

Under the new government, things are looking up a little. The trouble with Nepal is simply the unwillingness and inability of its leaders. The government, nevertheless seems anxious to enforce minimum standards to improve its monitoring, inspection and enforcing of services for the cause of sustainable well being of its people. A genuine commitment, however, seems to be lacking for establishing and promoting certain essential national priorities in the light of our real needs. To prosper in the long term, what is needed more than anything is that leaders give primacy to national interest.