Talks aftermath

Aweek after the third round of talks between the government and the Maoists, the Koirala coterie within the Nepali Congress (NC) has begun raising voices against the way the talks have been shaping up. The Maoists, a few days before the third round talks, gave up their demand for a republican state. In turn, the government scrapped the Public Security Regulations (PSR) and released 68 Maoists to create a conducive atmosphere for dialogue. Whoever says whatever else about the way Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba has taken up the task of resolving the six year old Maoist insurgency, one cannot take away from him the fact that he has managed to kick start the talks and keep them going. He has brought the Maoists to the negotiating table thrice in a bid to restore peace in this troubled land. There have been no killings of innocent police personnel and civilians as happened during the Koirala administration. The situation of peace and public security has improved palpably since the government initiated the talks. Neither can the Maoists now go back to their old demand for a republican state. The point is, it is still too early to evaluate the three rounds of talks negatively. The government should not listen to those who have been opposing the talks simply because it has not yielded more results quicker or to elements that are out to play spoil sport.

Former Prime Minister and NC president Girija Prasad Koirala has of course been pressing Prime Minister Deuba for quicker results from the talks and has publicly denounced the scrapping of the PSR. The way Koirala has been actively engaged in a campaign against the government-Maoist talks ever since he resigned as prime minister shows that he is vehemently against any (re)conciliatory move towards the Maoist leadership. Koirala has even termed them terrorists and there is no question he will accept any solution to the Maoist problem arrived at through the talks. His intention clearly appears to be more to derail the talks process than to create a healthy process towards a political solution. He is clearly out to throw a spanner in the works. Besides, the recent abduction spree in various places on different occasions shows that a section of the Maoists, especially the lower rungs, are not in favour of the talks either. They have already acted as though they are not under the control of Maoist supremo Prachanda and ideologue Dr Baburam Bhattarai. This apart, Dr Bhattarai has also hinted at the possibility of resuming violence, if the political leaders disagree with their demand for an interim government and a constituent assembly. All this could be nothing but a ploy to derail the talks. Two years ago, Koirala overthrew the Bhattarai government when it proposed talks with the Maoists. Now Koirala has begun to nudge the country towards renewed conflict to make the going difficult for the government. The Maoists, if they can still act with one mind, must now realise that circumstances for a safe landing may get worse instead of better and that there is no perfect constitution which will be totally acceptable to all even if it is drafted by a constituent assembly.

Good governance : Rhetoric or reality ?

By Sangram S Lama

The popular movement of 1990 has produced rapid growth of political and civil society organizations as the peoples’ expectations of the "new" Nepal were high. Twelve years have now passed since then and the initial euphoria has been replaced by disillusionment and frustration in all areas.

Governance can be seen as the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels but it seems so bleak and weak in almost all areas in Nepal. Legal processes lack independence and are subject to political and personal interference. The majority of cases investigated by the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority are either dismissed by the courts for lack of evidence, or in a number of cases the government did not take any action against those implicated by the CIAA, thus proving that government decisions and functioning have not been transparent. The failure of Nepal’s political leadership in combating crime is reflected in numerous withdrawals by successive governments of criminal cases relating to girl trafficking and drug dealing. A major constraint in present day Nepal is the difficulty of ensuring that people are aware of their rights. The media is officially open but in practice is dominated by the government and the big political parties and is characterized more by "disinformation" rather than investigation and analysis. Much has been written about the characteristics of efficient government, successful businesses and effective civil society organizations but the characteristics of good governance defined in societal terms such as peoples’ participation, rule of law, decentralization, transparency, responsiveness, accountability and strategic vision etc remain elusive.

The economic, political and administrative components are the three legs of good governance. Economic governance includes decision making processes that affect a country’s economic activities and its relationships with other economies. It clearly has major implications for equity, poverty and quality of life. South Asia is the home of almost one fifth of the total population in the world. It is the region that comprises the largest number of poor who are deprived of minimum basic needs. Massive poverty and backwardness have therefore afflicted Nepal. More than 42% of the people are living in absolute poverty, almost half of this being ultra poor. Despite the aspirations of the Ninth Plan to develop pro-poor policies, Nepal has been one of the most unequal societies in South Asia. Why? Because there is corruption prevalent everywhere right from the top to the bottom of the bureaucratic mechanism. Ministers and other high ranking government officials are openly involved in this. A recent public disclosure made by the Speaker of the House of Representatives on the involvement of ministers in taking bribes through the administrative staff is an example to this effect. Ministers and political leaders always talk of good governance, rule of law, transparency, accountability and strong political commitment in their speeches, but in practice they involve themselves in misusing their authority and power, government funds, equipment and vehicles to fulfil their vested interests. There has always been political intervention in the appointment of officials at different levels. As a result, public enterprises, government financial institutions and educational institutions have become recruiting centres for political cadres.

The elites dominate political life both in the political parties and through the bureaucracy. Very few elected representatives are women, or from the lower castes and marginalised ethnic groups. The people’s representatives, including MPs, are far from fully aware of their role, obligations and responsibilities. MPs lack experience and knowledge of parliamentary fundamentals and have inadequate support services to advance the interests for their constituencies. The need for change is recognized but there is a feeling of powerlessness to effect the change. Most people expect government and civil institutions to continue to support privileged access and opportunity. The norms and values of democracy have not yet taken root in the country.

Bureaucracy is an important part of good governance which is a system of policy implementation. South Korea has successfully managed the transformation of a poor agrarian economies into one of the fast growing industrial economy in less than three decades, because the government was able to recruit the best qualified people to learn and adopt modern administrative and organizational expertise in the bureaucratic corps. As a result the civil service is regarded as one of the most respected and rewarding occupations. Furthermore, the bureaucrats together with the private sector and civil society were able to work hard for the common cause of building an industrialized Korea. Given a strong determination by the top leadership of the government, good performance naturally generated quick promotion to an important position. They could expect due rewards for hard and efficient work in addition to the respect they received. Inefficiency, red-tapism, corruption and misdeeds were firmly dealt with by the strong political leadership. But in Nepal, all the institutions and the bureaucracy, both within and outside government, are dominated by patronage. Informal connections rather than transparent rules govern behaviour. Personal connections, "chakari" and "afnomanchhe" are often the most important factors in decision making and rewards are seldom based on performance, potentials and strength. The bureaucracy is highly politicized and political intervention in all government institutions has become a common phenomenon. There is no doubt that the quality of governance hinges largely on the bureaucracy and in particular on the quality of the political leadership. Good governance is what makes state, market and civil society organization interventions effective, successful and strong. A dedicated political leadership is the heart and soul of good governance. Weak political leadership is like an ineffective cure for a serious disease.

Non-committed leadership is similarly a half dose medicine but corrupt leadership is like a poison which brings undesirable results in both the short and long runs. If the political leadership is weak, non-committed and corrupt, then the country has no governance in place and it is sad to say that Nepal is suffering from this fate today. To come out of this crisis, we must have strong political commitment and a dedicated, accommodating, liberal and competent leadership. The institutions of governance in three domains ie state, civil society and the private sector, must be designed to contribute to sustainable human development by establishing the political, legal, economic and social circumstances for poverty alleviation, job creation, environmental protection and the advancement of women, children, ethnic and underprivileged minority groups.

The administrative machinery has to take the responsibility for the timely completion of the nation’s development and construction works in addition to managing the easy availability of services and facilities which are to be provided to the people by the state. To fulfil such a serious responsibility, the administrative machinery needs to be capable, impartial, productive, lean, economical, people-oriented and accountable. However, the Nepalese administration, apart from being burdensome and expensive, has not become transparent, prompt and people-oriented. Despite efforts, the Nepalese bureaucracy has not in a true sense become a strong instrument for bringing the outcome of development to the grassroots peoples’ level.

The quality of governance is crucial in determining Nepal’s future performance in development endeavours and poverty alleviation. Better governance can improve the rate of economic growth, the effectiveness of services, the safety and security of citizens and can ensure that the benefits of these improvements go to those who most need them. The key constraint in Nepal’s development over the last decades has not been lack of financial resources. While mobilization of domestic resources has been quite low, generous foreign aid has more than made up for such financing shortfalls. However, the government has wasted a high proportion of its expenditure. Good governance is thus critical in maximizing the impact of the public services that the government provides and in encouraging private investment. Both the government and donors should be alert to the political dimension of service delivery and the need to give a voice to poor and disadvantaged people. Donors should promote capacity and motivation in state and civil institutions to carry out their development roles, build up pressure for change through greater awareness and strengthen key areas of governance where internal motivation shows promise. A frank and constructive discussion of effective steps for improving governance should lead to a strengthening of the partnership between Nepal and donors. We should seek to link pro-poor governance and poverty alleviation by using scarce development resources effectively. The role of donors should be more than of a facilitator helping the Nepalese come up with their own solutions. This approach places greater responsibility for good governance in the hands of the government.

Eliminating corruption

By Nardev

Prominent leader of the CPN-UML) KP Oli accused the present government of being a bunch of corrupt leaders, citing the Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba’s previous government. PM Deuba had compromised with his cabinet colleagues by offering them Prado and Pajero. But I do not agree with Oli at all. This government came to power with an aim to eliminate all kinds of corruption prevailing in this country. So, naturally, its first priority is to identify the cause of corruption. But it is a complicated and difficult task to do. PM Deuba knows this well. There is a Nepali saying: "Only a snake can see a snake". No doubt, Prime Minister Deuba has been clever enough in this regard.

There should be a snake to find a snake. I mean, there should be a corrupt leader to find out the cause of corruption. In this regard, who can say Deuba has made a mistake by inducting so many corrupt leaders into his cabinet?

Yes, there is a person in Deuba’s cabinet who spent ten years in jail on the charge of drug smuggling. There are some persons blamed for corruption by their own party cadre. The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) is investigating others, while one has been accused of rape. It is hoped that the composition of Deuba cabinet will turn out a unique one. It can do something that has never been done as yet. Most cabinet members are experienced in different areas. Some are experienced in corruption, some in rape and some in drug smuggling. They have developed a nexus ensuring how to do business, smuggle goods across the Nepal-India border and import luxurious vehicles at the cost of state treasury. Nepalese people should therefore believe that corruption will soon end. Deuba will eliminate it for ever and every citizen of this country will live in a corruption free state.

Some leaders of the opposition party have criticized Deuba for forming a jumbo-sized cabinet. But such criticisms are quite irrelevant. They should first find out the cause why he did it before criticizing him. Deuba knew that, if he constituted a jumbo cabinet, he would be criticized. He deliberately expanded his cabinet to develop the country, to do something worthwhile for the Nepalese people. He added many of his deputies experienced in different fields to address the problems facing the country. So the nation has a bright future in the hands of Deuba’s cabinet.

Are they politically accountable ?

By Basanta Lohani

The former prime minister and president of the ruling Nepali Congress, his sister in law and leader Nona Koirala and his cousin and party general secretary Sushil Koirala are accused of clandestinely depositing a huge sum of money in an Australian bank. This came out in the opinion page of Kantipur on Sunday, November 11, 2001 in an article by Mani Raj Upadhaya, a veteran journalist with an impeccable record of over forty years when it comes to safeguarding the national interest. Upadhaya has further written that an incumbent minister went to Sydney and executed the transaction but the bank froze the money deposited within hours when it learnt about the unscrupulousness of the fund from Interpol. Neither the government, nor the party they belong to, nor they themselves have refuted this allegation so far. And, we, the Nepalese people are shocked.

Democracy is a contractual relationship between the sovereign people and a few of those assigned to govern on their behalf for preserving the sovereignty of the country, upholding the dignity of the people and increasing their material well being. This becomes possible provided the rule of law becomes a living reality, such as conceived in the preamble of our constitution, so that opportunities become common to all. Secondly, for this kind of transformation in the national life, those who were assigned to rule as leaders by the Nepalese people through the restoration of democracy in 1990 were expected to have imagination, initiative, drive and integrity. Perhaps this is the kind of situation, Rousseau had believed in The Social Contract about democracy and general will of the people while defending his thrust in the majority.

This brings us to good governance that propels the society to a new kind of property relationship where inequality decreases over time because of efficiency and egalitarian distribution of income and the wealth of the nation. This is possible when people are empowered and democratic institutions are strengthened. To this end, there has to be transparency and accountability. Can we think of any political system in the world other than democracy in terms of transparency and accountability? No. But how come those assigned to lead the people under democracy could amass such huge funds to deposit in a foreign bank while constantly chanting democratic transparency, accountability and people’s welfare, and still have thousands of people rally around them?

This is the greatest riddle stuffed inside democracy which otherwise is the only system that can provide expression to an individual collectiveness. What the leaders have stuff inside because of their greed has again become the only reason why they constantly have to defend democracy without ever creating democracy. This is the paradox, and the more so in third world countries. And the way Nepal is one of the poorest of the poor even by South Asian standards, ranking 129th in the human development index just before Bhutan and Bangladesh, the level of governance is perhaps proportionate to the level of poverty and critical awareness. This can explain the reason why this country is now turned into a looter’s paradise, where it becomes a free for all to loot so long as they are willing to share the booty with the politicians. This is how a triangular collusion between the politicians, businessmen and criminals developed devouring the sensibility of the nation. This is how democracy was used as to legitimize this national loot.

Again, this is how a new mode dehumanization has started in Nepal under a democratic dispensation, something one could never have thought of had democracy been allowed to function the way we all though it would. In this mode, people are needed once in every five years when some will be allured by money, some coerced, some threatened and some eulogized to seventh heaven in an election mechanism managed by money and muscle, and preferably with the state apparatus. Once legitimacy to rule is thus secured it becomes the prerogative of the new rulers to loot and siphon off government funds as much as they can in the name of democracy and the people. This is how they have treated people as nothing more than a commodity needed only once every five years. However, in this process they become vulnerable and insecure. This insecurity has generated so much fear in them that they are clandestinely taking their ill-gotten money out of Nepal to other countries in Europe and America. Marcos of the Philippines did the same thing until the beginning of 1986, and so did Suharto of Indonesia. As it appears, our own leaders are simply following them in taking such funds out of this country as the best guarantee of the future. But, what type of future?

By all counts, this decade is a decade of failed development. The growth in terms of per capita GDP that we have achieved in this period is just around two percent. This also is taken away by the mighty few. The growing inequality is evident where the highest 10 percent of the population takes the lion’s share of over 52 percent of national income as against 11 percent by the lowest 40 percent. This is how the poorest of the poor are extremely hard hit especially in the hills. When this bleeding poverty had flowed enough to find an ideological confluence in what Prachanda and Baburam started as a Maoist revolution six years ago, the stream of rebellion grew as a threat to democracy itself. But I consider that the threat to democracy is more from the looters whom I call a counter democratic force because of their no faith in democratic values and ideals except for the rhetoric for public consumption. The speaker of the House of Representative, Taranath Ranabhat, has publicly said that the ministers take money and are involved in corruption. So much so that he recently poured his agony at a public meeting by asking the question: we have earned enough even for our four generations. Can’t we stop now?

CP Mainali, the communist leader, publicly admitted over three years ago that he was involved in corruption and took money in a sugar deal. Just to get glimpses of corruption and dishonesty, and the greed of the new rulers, this year’s Auditor General’s annual report is enough. He too has publicly questioned the very need of auditing because it is the government that is all bent on violating the financial rules and regulations. In this type of scenario, when Upadhaya came up with this news of Girija Prasad Koirala who has a notorious record of being involved in different kinds of financial scams including Dhamija and Lauda, it certainly could not go unnoticed and, thus, has caught the attention of us all. So we would humbly like to ask
them: don’t they have any political accountability? If so, don’t they owe an explanation to the Nepalese people?