 |
Kathmandu Sunday January 13, 2002 Paush 29, 2058.
|
Governance by the poor and for the poor...
By KRISHNA GYAWALI
Governance has become a catchword especially since the last decade of the
last century. The people either on the corridors of power or on the streets have been made
gradually accustomed to using this word in place of ‘government’. The donors and
their local ‘counterparts’-consultants and experts- have mainly contributed to
popularizing the word with its conceptual distance from the government.
‘Governance’ itself is neutral unless it is capped with adjectives.
Shasan could be both good and bad resulting respectively in Sushasan and Kushasan. With
the most common adjective ‘good’, governance has been put into global
development agenda. It has now become a household name in countries that lack and need it
most. Good governance, or Sushasan in Nepali tongue, has thus outpaced all other
development slogans or paradigms promoted by donors and followed by their dependants.
Concepts such as economic growth, basic needs fulfilment, poverty alleviation, sustainable
development, human development, gender mainstreaming and the like have given way to good
governance as their central theme of concern.
To cite Nepal’s case, successive slogans such as ‘politics for
development’, ‘unleash the stream of development’ and ‘fulfilment of
basic needs’ during the Panchayat regime and ‘poverty alleviation’ as the
Mulmantra or the motto of development during the last eleven years of multiparty
governance have successfully captured the imagination of the Nepali populace which has
tended to believe in each of these slogans and their realization. However, the lack of
vision, ability and honesty in subsequent political and administrative leadership to
implement those slogans has eroded the credibility of such slogans, leading to the gradual
disillusionment of the people. Consequently, the people were made to believe that all
these slogans were raised for mere public consumption. A deep sense of betrayal has thus
developed in people’s mind that has led to a dangerous skepticism towards the role of
politics, state and even civil society.
Good governance as yet another donor-driven policy instrument has over the
years been struggling through this injured psyche of the Nepali people. While it has yet
to define itself, find its direction, and earn people’s faith in its honest and
effective implementation, one donor agency has just at a right time ventured into meeting
these arduous challenges. Enabling State Programme (ESP), a British aid agency supported
project launched since January last year has come forward with its mission of
‘pro-poor governance in Nepal’. Assisted by the UK Department for International
Development (DFID) in agreement with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) of His
Majesty’s alone Government of Nepal (HMG/N), the programme revolves around the
central assumption that a state cannot perform, deliver, and even exist, let alone evolve
strong, unless it clearly has a pro-poor focus in its policies and actions. Enabling a
state to govern better (or to deliver goods and services efficiently, effectively,
accountably, transparently, and honestly) should be the major goal of any good governance
initiative. The way of enabling could be improving governance which is crucial for
reducing poverty in countries like Nepal. Therefore, there exists a strong correlation
between reducing poverty and improving governance as both enjoy a cause-and-effect
relationship.
The book under review is an outcome of an ESP commissioned assessment of the
state of pro-poor governance in Nepal. It was carried out by eight specialist consultants
and a lead consultant -all Nepalis- covering seven governance themes, namely, the
political system, private sector development, pro-poor policies, provision of basic
services, access to justice and personal security, national security and conflict
prevention, and honest and accountable government. The study has thus tried to be
comprehensive, leaving apparently no area untouched in its coverage.
Experts ranging from Dhruba Shrestha and Krishna Hacchethu known for the
‘apolitical’ acumen of their political analysis to a genre of emerging as well
as established professionals with rare ‘neutral competence’ including Sapana
Pradhan Malla, Surendra Bhandari, Hiramani Ghimire, Keshav Paudel, Sri Ram Paudyal and
Bama Dev Sigdel have undertaken the assessment of the seven subject areas. As the
Programme Manager of ESP, Michael Lowe, admits in his Foreword, the views expressed in
each chapter may not appear consistent, owing to the diverse academic as well as
professional background their presenters hold. However, they point to a commonality in
their contentions, suggesting that only pro-poor governance can be good governance. They
also provide benchmarks for each of the seven areas, and examine whether and to what
extent Nepal has succeeded in
meeting them.
How can governance be made pro-poor? What could be the yardsticks to measure
the degree of pro-poor character of governance? As an answer to these questions, DFID has
identified seven key capabilities that it argues are needed to enable the state and its
partners, mainly civil society organizations, to ameliorate the plight of the poor. These
capabilities are reflected in the seven
themes noted earlier.
The book emphasizes the fact that the state has to earn and enhance these
capabilities to establish pro-poor governance. It further asserts that poverty cannot be
reduced without creating a political system that provides opportunities for the poor and
disadvantaged to influence government policy and practice. This means an optimally
representative electoral system, free and fair elections, effective local self-governance,
independent mass media, strong civil society, and open, plural and liberal political
system in practice. Similarly, private sector participation in the development process,
pro-poor policy framework and resource allocation, equitable and universal provision of
basic services, access to justice and personal security, and corruption-free, accountable
and transparent governance system are equally essential to ensure good governance in the
country. Thus, the book rightly sees poverty alleviation in perspective rather than in
isolation and, equally appropriately, links it to a good governance paradigm.
However, despite having analyzed in permissible detail the issues currently
confronting governance with pro-poor focus, the book interestingly lacks conclusion both
in individual chapters and at the whole end. ESP, the sponsor of the study, confesses it
has no say on whatever the individual writers have argued in their write-ups. That is
understandable, given a widespread popular criticism of donors’ high-handedness in
the national development agenda. But why the ‘Nepali’ contributors chose not to
conclude their sayings is amusing and even perplexing. Also, the book’s analysis of
the causes, consequences and solutions of the Maoist "insurgency" in the country
is meagre and inconclusive, to say the least. An analytical study of this nature should
have included, perhaps, a separate chapter of introduction or conclusion that would have
led readers into a substantive, coherent and constructive sum-up. That would have made the
book more meaningful and beneficial for the development planners and policymakers who
should be reading it before anybody else.
Impressive layout, relevant tables and annexes, well-cited references, and
the enlistment of interviewees of professional repute supplement the rich contents of the
book. Taken together, the book makes compulsory reading for all those interested in
watching the country’s governance run by the poor and for the poor.
Other Stories
|
