FORUM (Spotlight Weekly)

Vicious Circle Of Study Commissions

By YUBA RAJ PANDEY

The politics of study commissions is one of the major characteristics of the political and administrative systems of different societies, especially those in the developing and underdeveloped world. In the case of Nepal, if someone responsible for tackling a problem is pressured to come up with a solution, the result generally comes in the form of a study commission. People in close contact with decision-makers are appointed members of the commission.

They hold discussions and conduct seminars in one of the top-notch hotels in the capital. The commission members organize study tours to gain an in-depth understanding of the problem. The members often receive large monetary benefits on a monthly or lump-sum basis. The time given to the commission to complete its study is often extended more than once, generally at the request of the members. The expenditure incurred on the commission is far more than what has originally been allocated. The commission's report is submitted to the responsible person or organization, which becomes headline news for the state-run electronic and print media. But the report is destined to become part of the countless files stored in government record rooms. Gradually, the entire exercise disappears from memory. After some time, the decision-maker, often newly appointed or transferred to the post, constitutes another study commission and seeks a new set of recommendations on the same problem. The new commission often repeats the procedures of its predecessor.

The new members may re-open old files and even find papers considered to have been lost. Most of the findings and recommendations of the old commission are diligently copied and presented in the form a new report. After it is presented, this report, too, goes on to gather dust in the record rooms. A circle is completed, and a new cycle of commissions and reports begins.

There are different reasons why this vicious circle exists in developing countries. Decision-makers use such commissions as tools of brushing aside immediate problems. In this way, the panels become a way of hiding the dishonesty of decision-makers. Sometimes, those in power form commissions only to bestow supporters with hefty remuneration, allowances and facilities or to purchase the continuing support of individuals.

Even if a commission is formed with an honest intention to solve a certain problem, the recommendations are not implemented because they cannot be done so. The report is based on directives given by advisers and experts coming from abroad, especially from developed countries. Their suggestions are often impracticable or inappropriate to conditions prevailing in developing and backward societies.

It has become a tradition in developing countries for members of a study commission to disguise their personal wishes, interests and beliefs as suggestions in the final report. This fact makes the recommendations even less practicable. If the recommendations are carried out, they only go on to aggravate the problem. The history of all Administrative Reform Suggestion Commissions - from the Buch Commission of 2009 (1952) to the High-Level Administrative Reform Commission of 2048 (1991) - presents a glaring example of a vicious circle of study commissions in Nepal. Each of these commissions had submitted study-reports with suggestions, some of which were carried out.

The problems in Nepal's administration have rather aggravated over the course of time. Most of the suggestions given by these different commissions were based not on an objective analysis of the situation but on the personal beliefs and prejudices of the commission members. These personal beliefs and prejudices were largely shaped by the information largely gathered from the writings and advice of so-called specialists from the developed societies, including the donor countries.

The well-known Mallik Commission report also is emblematic of this vicious circle. The report of the Internal Migration Commission headed by Dr Harka Gurung in 1983 has perhaps been forgotten. That is why the Ministry of Population and Environment constituted a study team on migration policy in Nepal last year. A Citizenship Commission headed by Mahant Thakur was constituted soon after the submission of a report by a Citizenship Commission headed by Dhanpati Upadhya towards the middle of the 1990s. Decentralization commissions provide another evidence of a vicious circle. The High-Level Administrative Power Decentralization Commission of 1963 (2020), the Decentralization Committee of 1967 (2024), the Decentralization Committee of 1969 (2026), the Decentralization Sub-committee of 1982 (2038), the High-Level Decentralization Sub-committee of 1983 (2039) and the High-Level Decentralization Coordination Committee of 1996 (2053) were all constituted to find out the proper way of implementing decentralization programs. But the reports presented by these panels have largely been forgotten.

Furthermore, decentralization has become a contentious issue and the problems associated with it have become more acute. If certain steps are taken incidentally, they are nullified or weakened by the implementation of explanatory rules such as the Directory of Rural Self-help Program formulated in the middle of the 1990s. Decentralization in Nepal has always remained a popular slogan to disguise the internal character of centralization of authority. As this vicious circle represents specific political and administrative behavior, it has almost assumed the form of a new theory of governance in developing countries.