SC Decision
Debate On Decentralisation

By Mukti Rijal

THE Supreme Court handed a very landmark decision, the other day, which may have a major bearing upon upon the decentralisation process in the country. The apex court judgement may raise now some discussion on the subject of relationship between the executive and judicial organ of the government. Almost a year ago the court had, through a decision, forayed into the domain of legislature too. However, the decision was not to diminish or lower the prestige and mandates of the legislative organ. Neither had the decision created jurisdictional conflicts and debates at that time. The court decision in the past was welcomed in many quarters because it had invalidated the pension benefits and entitlements to the parliamentarians which was provided to them after their tenure in the national legislature was over. The pension entitlement to the lawmakers was opposed as it was a drain on the national exchequer and politicians deserved not to benefit from such a scheme. Some lawmakers were not in favour of pension entitlement and also opposed it. And one or two parliamentarians had even refused to receive the benefits. Lawmakers did not react to that judicial decision sharply and swallowed it up as if it did not had any effect. They did it keeping in view the popular mood and positive response the judicial decision did evoke.

However, this time the situation looks different. The lawmakers being provided with the fund for constituency development may not stomach it and can launch criticism against the judicial decision. But, the spirit of the decision of the Supreme Court seems not negative. And it has not questioned the rationale of the provision that entitles them to decide about the allocation of the resources under the constituency development fund. The court, according to the newspaper report, has required the lawmakers to enact the law to entitle them to spend the money under the constituency development provision. This can be said as an reiteration of the rule of law. The decision of the court intends to further and strengthen the process.

The scheme relating to the constituency development fund was initiated in 1994. The fund is administered and implemented in accordance with the guideline issued by the government. In principle, the guideline is elaborate and also based on the participatory spirit. However, the implementation aspect is said to be plagued by some problems. The report of the Auditor General shows glaring defects in the administration and utilisation of the fund. No doubt the fund has been allocated and spent for some good causes and there are also areas where rectification has been mooted time and again. There are reports in the newspapers that the fund money was channeled to construct the party offices and serve the partisan interests at the local level. The local government institutions including VDCs, municipalities and DDCs raised their voices contending that the provision undermined the spirit of decentralisation and local self-governance. However, lawmakers justified the fund on the ground that they are compelled to meet the several demands of their constituents including those relating to development. A parliamentarian in the Nepalese context has not only to debate the issues connected to the formulation of laws but also serve the interests of the electorate and meet the voters’ demands through several other means including supporting the small development projects. This reality can not be ignored. In the countries like India and the Philippines parliamentarians and senators do receive a certain amount of resources so that they can help their constituents in fulfilling their development needs.

However, the provision is said to be against the basics of decentralisation and self-governance. Parliamentarians should not undertake responsibilities and functions as ‘development executives’ and their mandate is to initiate, contribute and strengthen the process of law making. In the event that the lawmakers get themselves involved in the development activities their national responsibilities are related to the background. And their role as the initiator and supervisor of the development functions seldom becomes effective. For the local details and the grass root based activities local bodies including the VDCs and DDCs should be made accountable and they should be given enough mandates and resources for the same. Decentralised governance calls for strong and functional local government institutions. No authority should overrule the mandates of the local bodies and institutions. The decision of the Supreme Court should be interpreted in the positive light and enough discussions should be held about the rationale and importance of the constituency development fund. Should that the rationale of the fund be established and agreed it should be provided by means of an enactment of legislation. This will contribute to upholding the rule of law and democratic governance in the country.

Misleading Media

By Prakash Dahal

LAST Monday, one vernacular daily put a three column photograph on top of its front page and below the caption read," Litters seen around the premises of Social Welfare Ministry on Sunday in the aftermath of 22nd Social Welfare Day held on Saturday".

The photograph portrays the lush green, deftly trimmed grass dotted with litters, paper napkins and plastic glasses, as if some unruly monkeys of Pashupatinath snatched the prasad from the passer-by and fled to devour them right here.

The photograph is surely not wantonly placed neither is used as a space-filling device. Both the photograph and the caption below in bold letters are pregnant with powerful messages. They inform the readers that the Social Welfare Ministry is an irresponsible place, behaving indecently.

Hang on! ‘Inform’ may not be the correct word here.

The building and the premises that the photograph portrays are that of Social Welfare Council- an apex body constituted under Social Welfare Act 1991- to monitor, coordinate and to facilitate NGOs and INGOs activities in the Kingdom of Nepal.

The caption below reads Social Welfare Ministry instead of Social Welfare Council which is in Singhdurbar.

The man in the street is informed that the Social Welfare Ministry is somewhere in Lainchour and not in Singhdurbar.

Since the information is wrong, so the word ‘inform’ may be out of place here. The modest way of describing it would be to call it dis-informing or at least mis-informing. When a daily newspaper in vernacular put the blame for littering or dirtying the premises of Lainchour office on a Ministry that is in Singdurbar, it provides laughing stock to those who know about the whole thing, and confuses others who may be misled to believe that the Ministry changed its headquarters.

Unfortunately, not every reader has that knack of understanding things nor they ever know the news placing patterns of the newspaper. Here, they are at loss.

The photograph and the caption below read that the litters are strewn around the premises on Sunday after the conclusion of Social Welfare Day on Saturday.

The newspaper has acted honestly. Had the photographer taken the snapshot on Monday in stead of Sunday, this could have had a catalytic effect on readers’ mind. And, the daily would have been fairly honest in telling the world that the offices down there in the capital city of Nepal are dishonest, indecent and irresponsible.

Unfortunately! the office that held the gathering was off on Sunday when the daily’s cameraman sneaked into the building in Lainchour’s corner and took the snapshot. If only the caption could read that the litters were strewn around on Monday, the office day, and portrayed men swarming in and out of the office premises, this could have had the effect of the photograph taken in Kosovo war zone under sniper’s shooting.

With the office remaining off on Saturdays and Sundays and the huge iron gate remaining closed, no sweepers were available to do the cleaning works.

The daily’s way of treating the photograph with mis-informing or dis-informing captions speak volumes of superflousness and their picking of what Dryden calls straws surfacially flowing than diving deep to find pearls.

What is most intriguing about the whole stuff is the amazing dearth of knowledge of a Nepali print media about the country’s offices and ministries. If media business moves this way, the country folks may have to rely on sources undesired and unwanted.

Until yesterday, Nepalese readership which heavily leaned on Indian media to enlighten themselves on country’s affairs, used to be frustrated and irritated at Indian media’s wrongly spelling the names or coming out with half-baked information.

They perhaps never thought that the same can happen with the country’s media. Now, they may think in retrospect that why should Indian media be cursed when their own media dis-inform the public.

The daily may or may not have malicious intention in placing one photograph and writing other caption below. However, it certainly has made a bad choice and made a wrong decision. On its part, it may bluff out its way saying that the word slipped out inadvertently. But, what means should the Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare employ to tell all and sundry that the Ministry sits at Singhdurbar and not in Lainchour and that it is not responsible for the litters strewn around what the daily calls in the ministry premises.

The question is not merely of the erosion of credibility of the national newspapers but of reining in such media with an ethical rope.

When irresponsible media puts the blaming finger at others. institutions like Commission for Investigating Abuse of Authority raise its ears, but who should there be to tighten noose around such media when they act mischievously?

Discipline can only be sought from those who can keep themselves disciplined. If not, anarchy shall prevail.