Armed repression can't be a solution to a political movement

-Dr. Meena Acharya

She is highly qualified. She is among the very few Nepalese women who command due respect and honor in Nepal's academic sector. Her expertise in the discipline of economics has made her equally famous in the countries of the region and elsewhere as well. Dr. Meena Acharya secured her Doctoral degree in Development Studies from the University of Wisconsin. The title of her dissertation was "Issues of Labor Market in Nepal". She did her M. S with distinction in Economic Cybernetics from Moscow State University, the then Soviet Union. Prior to that Dr. Acharya obtained Honors in economics from Delhi University, India  during 1958-60.

Currently Dr. Acharya is associated with Economic Association of Nepal and Business and Professional Women's Organization. She is also the board members of IIDS, SID-Nepal, and Women's Pressure Group and chairs the SAHAVAG, a NGO.

Dr. Acharya has been to USA, B'desh, Pakistan, Phillipines and Indonesia and has worked in these countries in various capacities. At the moment she is the Visiting Fellow and executive director concurrently at the Institute for Integrated development Studies, IIDS. Her employment record is rather long that include among others, Chief manager, Development finance department, Rastra Bank; Economist, development Economics Department, World bank, Washington D.C; Chief economic advisor, Rastra bank and research Officer, Nepal Rastra bank.

Dr. Meena Acharya has rendered her services for several national and international organizations that include, consultant to UNDP on Mainstreaming Gender into 2001 Nepal Census; consultant for INSTRW/UN on the project for preparation of an International Manual on collection and valuation of Time Use Data and measurement of Paid and Unpaid work and as a member of the ADB regional team led by Gustav Papanak in the project Methodology for Measuring Social Impact of Program Loans in the Region.

She had also the honor of being Regent's Lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley in the year 1993.

Dr. Meena is equally considered to be a die-hard nationalist for whom no interests were superior to those of the countries'. She has scores of books to her credit the fresh being Labor Market Development and Poverty with focus on opportunities for women in Nepal. Her articles based on research have got printed in national and international journals. She is a voracious reader and a prolific writer as well.

Dr. Acharya at the moment is the Secretary General of the Tanka Prasad Acharya Memorial Foundation. She hails from a political family, which gave personality like Late Tanka Prasad Acharya to the nation who is still considered to be one of the best Prime ministers of Nepal. Dr. Acahrya is the daughter of late Acahrya.

Last week, we approached Dr. Acharya for an exclusive interview to which she readily agreed. Below the results: Chief editor.

TGQ1: Dr. Meena! How do you assess the existing political economy of the country?

Dr. Acharya: You have rightly used the word "political economy."  There is no economy without politics or politics without economics. Politics is about struggle for power to command public resources and people.   Historically, some leaders have used this power for public good others for personal aggrandizement. Unfortunately Nepal seems to have preponderance of the second kind of leaders only.   

As a consequence the economic health of the country is deteriorating by all counts--GDP growth rate is declining, agricultural productivity is declining, income distribution is deteriorating and opportunities for remunerative employment is worsening for mass of the population. The political process, it seems, is geared to making money and enriching one's own followers rather than for public good. Corruption is all-pervasive. The political leaders in power seem to be concentrating on making speeches about its eradication rather than initiating measures to do so. Decisions are made not on their merit for public good but on the basis of who gets what, who initiates them and how much foreign money is tagged to it. Note the contrast between vertically run programs and the speeches about decentralization and empowerment of the local bodies. Political parties will follow the law only if it benefits their own parties and cadres. The leaders grant favor to the near and dear and party cadres, themselves misuse public resources and public positions for parochial gains and deride such behavior of others publicly.  This hypocrisy is exasperating for the public breeds' disillusion with the system.

TGQ2: You are considered to be one of the ardent advocates of "indigenization of policy making in Nepal". There appears to be reason in your advocacy but many claim that the current government is not even "owned" by its own rival faction, read the Bhattarai group, let alone the real and the Republican opposition. In this regard how can you visualize that the government will opt for indigenization and work for the priorities of the lay men lying below the poverty line?

Dr. Acharya: It is very unfortunate that the infighting within the Nepali Congress is pushing the country to the brink.  Moreover, the infighting is not for policies but for positions of power and for self-aggrandizement. Our leaders seem to be running after a "mirage" woven by the international development institutions and the donor community. Successive governments have adopted policy packages of privatization and liberalization on the advice of the donors, without examining their actual implications for the country.  It is my basic contention that such policies can not be pro poor unless we ensure employment to the poor citizens of this country, through protection of local employment and technical education. The leaders talk about the information age and people taking advantage of the new information economy because India is doing that.  Such declarations are made, without any attention to the fact that 45 percent of the men and 73 percent of women are still illiterate in the country, that the enrolment levels are one of the lowest in South Asia, that it is hard to find even competent secretaries and the fact that most of the technical manpower in our industries is foreign. They talk about a labor surplus economy and cheap labor while a Nepali laborer is not willing to hire himself/herself out at the going market wages depressed by the inflow of foreign labor. All the studies on policies and programs are foreign funded and can not raise uncomfortable questions not favored by the donor community.     

Indigenization of policy making does not require cooperation of various party factions or parties. It requires a capacity and willingness on the part of the policy makers to pay attention to public voice, to decentralize the policy making process, to rise above party and factional interests and to do some honest thinking on the country's situation. In a multiparty system, the political parties must offer various alternative packages to fight the country's problems. Inter-party and in-party debates must be about such policy and program packages. But our leaders seem to be fighting not about such policies and programs but solely for the positions of power.  Donor advised and sometimes imposed policies and programs are adopted without much discussion.  As a consequence there is no difference in policies and programs under various governments and the people have no actual choice. Votes are caste not on the basis of policy packages offered by various political parties but out of habit, immediate personal gains or outright threat.   

TGQ3: There has been, we are told, slide in the economy of Nepal.  Its cumulative effects on the governance are obvious: crisis, a crisis of governability. In this context, what are the fundamental causes that have caused this scenario and how it could be rectified? Also tell us who is to be primarily blamed for the ailment in which the nation's economy has plunged?

Dr. Acharya: Yes, the country is in crisis. For the last ten years and during the decade before that issues of peoples' livelihood have been mostly ignored in practice. There has been no dearth of rhetoric or policy pronouncements, but lack of basic honesty among the policy makers and political leaders, has led such policy and program packages eventually to waste paper baskets. In the mean time people's livelihood opportunities have collapsed. People were expecting that with the establishment of a democratic system of government, we will get a cleaner and more transparent government, which will be responsive to peoples' aspirations and needs.  But, the rhetoric of responsive government was, it seems, just a slogan employed by some leaders, who were then out of the system, for gaining access to positions of power. Democracy currently seems to be limited to winning elections by hook or by crook. 

Corruption has been on the increase. Corruption is inherently anti-development because economic decisions are made not on the basis of whether it is efficient or will generate growth, employment, income and well being for the people but on the basis of who gets what as discussed above. Secondly, infighting within the parties and scramble for power among the parties has left little time for a meaningful work for the political leaders. Thirdly, hugely expensive elections have drained away a large part of public and private resources, generated large-scale political corruption and criminalized the politics. This has put the political leaders at the mercy of the smugglers and foreign forces whom they have to appease.   

There is no idealism left anymore among the politicians. Those with some idealism are marginalized from the mainstream parties. The population is being groomed into a culture of unrestrained consumerism and capitalist individualism.  The silent massage is that it is all right to do anything to get rich. Opening up of the country to international media has accelerated the demonstration effect without developing the productive forces to a level whereby the rising consumer expectations could be met. All this has produced high demand on the public resources, disturbed social structures and created a situation of ungovernability. 

Ethnic aspirations are rising, hunger for a just and equitable society, and social justice is rising. The nation state is under pressure from all sides.   Globalizing capitalism is marching rapidly to break down all social and political barriers including that of nation states so that the market can rule supreme.  All other inequalities are declared unacceptable except the one perpetuated and recreated constantly by the market. But our governments have paid little attention to these rising aspirations of historically disadvantaged communities and people.  Resources have been concentrated in appeasing the vote banks rather than solving the legitimate grievances of the people. When such issue are raised democratically, little attention is paid to them.  Often these issues are tied with party politics.  But in a democracy the party politics has to focus on peoples' grievances and those in power must have enough patience to listen to them and take care of such legitimate grievances.   When leaders ignore such voices the situation gets out of hand, as is currently reflected in rising influence of the Maoists in the country.

There is no question that it is the larger of the political parties and their leaders who are responsible for this bleak situation in the country.  Larger part of this blame goes to the Nepali Congress because in nine of the last ten years, it has been in power.  The opposition is not free of blame either because most of the time it has failed to raise issues directly related to peoples' livelihood. It has tended to surrender national interest in an attempt to remain in power or to share it. Instead of discouraging corruption and punishing criminals it has participated in corruption and protected the corrupt, on the basis of donations and party alliances. There is no ethics in political behavior of most of the current generation politicians, particularly those in the so-called national parties. Leaders have been unable to present a vision to unite the people for a better future.

TGQ4: Some donors openly air that they are in a dilemma to whom to support-the Maoists who are virtually ruling the rural Nepal and the Mafia who were running the Urban governance. Their serious concern is that development efforts in Nepal have got stuck to their utter dismay. What solid measures would you suggest to get out of this morass so that donors too can feel comfortable in serving as an institutional partner of the people in improving the existing low quality of life of the people? Your exclusive comments please. 

Dr. Acharya: The donors can hardly be absolved from the responsibility of bringing Nepal to current situation.  Since 1960s they have been active in Nepal guiding government policies and even undertaking programs by themselves. After the democratic changes they have devised, supported and some times forced policies on us. They encourage corrupt political practices by supporting one or other political parties or leaders.  They scum to the illegitimate demands of the political leaders for providing resources to one or other of their pet NGOs. They create their own INGOs in the name of supporting Nepal.  

Some of them, particularly larger religious INGOs, have also tried to plant religious dissensions by conversions in the name of running schools and hospitals.   The ethnicity issue is blown out of all proportions.  It is such a tragedy.   While the western donors are over sensitive to ethnic issues because of their own history of eliminating all indigenous culture and people where ever they went (US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia), our politicians have tried to ignore the legitimate demand for power sharing by various ethnic groups. We need to wake up quickly to the multiethnic reality of our nation and try to address their legitimate grievances within the framework of a Nepalese nation.

There is no point blaming each other. There is no urban Mafia as such in Nepal.  Most members of the urban elite have rural roots and interest in land. There is no urban capitalist class in the country, barring the members of the Marwari community who have migrated to Nepal in recent past. That is why land reform is so difficult. This dichotomization of urban-rural is also not very appropriate.  Nevertheless, it is true that virtually Maoists are ruling in some districts of the country and it has been difficult for donors to enter those areas. Currently there is no need for donors to enter those areas. They can wait until they are approached for help. These districts can illustrate what we can do without the donors. Donors should take lessons that when people do participate in governance donors can not dictate their terms. As for my solid recommendation for solving the Maoist problems and getting on with the urgent task of development, the government should negotiate with the Maoist insurgents as soon as possible. Armed repression can not be a solution to a political movement.   Such a move will only magnify the problems.  The parties in power and opposition must be able to convince the Maoists that they will not rig the elections in order to defeat their rivals from smaller parties and individuals. The Maoists on the other hand should understand that people would not gain by pushing the country to a civil war. Given the international situation they can not win a violent war quickly. Even if they win temporarily, there is no guarantee that they can meet the peoples' aspirations and retain the power in the long run (Remember the counter- revolution in Nicaragua). The only solution is to work for silent revolution. Given the strength of the left movement in the country, may be we can achieve revolutionary changes in the pattern of governance and development process without a bloodshed if we work together. Dogmas must be abandoned, on the left or the right.           

TGQ5: What is your "development vision" for this country and what role Nepali media can play in this context given the state of affairs in the country as it stands today.

Dr. Acharya: My vision about the future of Nepal is a prosperous, equitable, multiethnic power sharing and just society led by a group of clean leaders who do not sacrifice ethics and morality to remain in power. I understand that we can not survive as an autarchy.  We must open up to the outside world and cooperate with other nations in the subcontinent, but this process must develop from within and not imposed from outside. My dream is to get out of the list of  "least developed and poorest countries". Although our leaders seem to compete for that label to obtain foreign aid, I feel very painful about it. I do not believe we are one of the least developed and poorest countries of the world. It all depends on how you define development and poverty.

The media also must be honest and not get partisan for economic benefit. It must try to understand issues in depth before commenting on them. It should not defame people without sound evidence and pursue people on partisan grounds.  It should educate people on vital public issues presenting differing views with equal respect.

Headline | National | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past |