NATIONAL 1 (Spotlight Weekly)]

Reality Or Fabrication?

Does the World Bank have a specific model for good political leadership?

By KESHAB POUDEL

At the inaugural ceremony of the Nepal Development Forum, World Bank Vice-President for South Asia Mieko Nishimizu turned somewhat sentimental while expressing her views on Nepal's development process. As a well-wisher and partner of Nepal's development endeavors, she cannot be faulted for offering her insights and suggestions.

In her statement, Nishimizu, said: "[T]o harness this strength, what the people need is the leadership of their government Ö leadership that gives vision, inspiration and hope; leadership that acts from conviction of that common purpose; and leadership whose consistency of words and actions earns the trust of the people overtime."

"If I am right, Nepal may become improvised in a various circle of bad governance. Some has to breed it for good, and it had better be a critical mass of change leaders with sufficient authority and power to create a secure space for change. Put differently, this is a golden opportunity for change leaders," said Nishimizu.

As far as her remarks on the quality of leadership and process of governance are concerned, she seemed to have stepped into the domain of political decisions made by the sovereign people of Nepal under their democratic political system. Of course, Nepal does not have a strong political leadership capable of bringing substantial changes. Does the World Bank have a democratic model where a country can thrive politically?

Whether one likes it or not, the process Nepal has been following over the last 12 years is the right way. The only question we can ask is why progress has been too slow. Democracy, Winston Churchill famously observed, is the worst form of government, except for all the others. What happens, however, if there are no other systems?

In his article "Democracy for the Long Haul" Samuel P. Huntington says: "That, in effect, is the situation in the wealthy industrialized democracies of the world. In these countries, however, people have become pervasively alienated from politics and public discourse, deeply cynical about their political leaders, decreasingly involved in political and other social organizations, and less and less trustful of other people. These attitudes perhaps reflect the absence of an alternative political system or ideology competing with democracy. If the choice is the ëworst systemí of government or no system of government, people may well prefer the latter."

One can read how bad the prescriptions of the World Bank have proved to be in many instances. "Scandal and the Shame: Poverty and Underdevelopment" written by Bertrand Schneider provides a cogent commentary of the mismanagement and bad prescription of the World Bank for developing countries.

Nishimizu may be well aware that Nepal has been practicing a liberal democratic system since 1990. Under the new constitution, Nepal has conducted three general elections and two local elections. The constitution has ensured checks on the power of executive, an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law, protection of individual rights and liberties of expression, association, belief and participation; effective guarantees against arbitrary arrest and police brutality; no censorship; and minimal government control over the media.

In 1990, when the country was passing through an evolutionary process to democratize the existing political system, the international donor community demanded the introduction of a participatory system. Now the country has a transparent and democratic system, but the World Bank seems to want strong leadership.

Is there any country where the World Bank has been successful in bringing about strong leadership through well-accepted and democratic means? If there is, the Nepalese people would not hesitate to accept it.