A decade of governance in Nepal : Political aspect - 2

BY SHRISH S. RANA

This ‘omni-present’ obsession allows one to infer that its effects on governance are likely to be equally, if not more, omni-present since political organization appears so central to political power. So when the politics of political organization sees benefits in the politicization of the bureaucracy, the academy, the media and what else, the compulsions are indeed tempting and there is, by the standards admitted by Larry Diamond above, little hindrance to this in our ‘electoral democracy’. Political will cannot but prevail with the strength and backing of the political organization that brings one to power. And when it is now commonplace to demand good governance and civil society and transparency and the political sector obliges by echoing these calls, any attempt at political analysis cannot but ask how, in the Nepali case, should politicians and political leaders field competing organizations and activate full time cadre that now reach the very grass roots and encompass virtually all sectors of society day in day out? Where is the resource outside government? one might ask. If the politics of the past decade has been for political power, it may safely be concluded that one attraction outside governance as a reason to seek political power is that for resources.

It is only to be concluded that the effects of this level of partisanization has contributed to bad governance too.

It may be University position or perks, civil service or corporation office and emoluments or district or village level contracts or protection that is desired. One agrees with a call by Sushil Raj Pandey in a seminar paper, Perspectives of Political Parties in Nepal, for more studies on the political parties in the country. How these political parties that must hold the reins of democratic government in the country have been organizing is central perhaps to the very functioning of government and thus governance in the country. One recalls, for example, an off the cuff remark by none less a democratic luminary than the sitting prime minister Girija Koirala, stating that party funds are secret and cannot be made public. How does this go with good governance and transparency? One is yet to see any public attempt at having the funds of political parties audited.

Over the decade, good governance, transparency and corruption appear also to have become political issues. But there is politics in the conclusion that, firstly, corruption must be prevented by having public-office holders declare their assets when taking office and, secondly, that election expenses have been high and thus contribute to corruption and so election expenses must be curtailed or reduced. These are partial truths no doubt. The real truth lies in the fact that partisan politics needs resources and, for good governance, these resources need public transparency. The truth, again, is that organizing with a view that the spoils of government will nurture the organization can compromise governance. When the chief of police is replaced after only three months in office and is brought back into office within days after a similar change in government, the police organization as also the administration of the country are bound to be effected. Similar is the case when choice of appointments to the key economic post of Nepal Rashtra Bank governor is played the musical chair with. Most public sector corporations which today remain key components of the government’s delivery system appear to have been treated likewise in the past decade.

It is easy to conclude, of course, that such political priorities should not predominate the process of governance. But the manner with which political organizations have been made key to political power suggests compulsions that are real. In developed democracies the checks to excess exist. Evidently they do not do so in our context since the excesses are real. In our democracy, moreover, the electoral process appears to be legitimizing these actions and justifying them. This brings us back to a basic question: What happens when democracy legitimizes and justifies bad governance?

Policy Reflection

Experts will not be able to ignore the state of the economy, of education, of foreign policy, of security and the likes in such analysis. The overall conclusion that most informed people will arrive at is that not all is well with the ship of state.

A very consequential result of such an environment is the virtual degradation in public eyes of the politician as such. This is moreover fuelled by partisan publicity maligning the opposition. In the absence of policy discussions, the individual leader is singled out for incarceration. It will be safe to say here that partisan criticism of the individual and not policy to the point of purposive malignant is hardly conducive to the growth of productive democracy.

Much politics, for example, took place regarding Nepal’s water policy in the past decade. Particularly in the UML, differences in policy approach here appear also to have influenced the UML-ML split. This is cited here as a rare example of policy difference in the politics of the decade where debate over policy has been distinctly reflected in and contributed to organizational politics. This is also cited here as example of virtual unanimity in approach to policy reflected in the vote for the Mahakali treaty regardless of the street rhetoric of the mainstream parties. One will refrain, however, from delving more into the matter since the economic and foreign policy content of the policy would make its treatment here repetitive. Suffice it to say that water has constituted a significant portion of policy debate in Nepali politics of the decade regardless of the ultimate result of the Mahakali vote in parliament. Outside of the citizenship issue raised in the last session of parliament, little policy debate of consequence appears of have actually taken place identifying the preferences of the major parties. Political issues have been made, on the other hand, from instances of corruption and the likes. Over the decade, of course, privatization and open market gestures have been made and politicized but these appear not to have impacted much on the politics of the country other than from the point of view, again, of organizational gains for transacting politicians. Of late, however, the political obsession with the Maoist insurgency is to be watched. Official admission has it that it has spread to over fifty-two of the country’s seventy-five districts. Among other things the insurgency demonstrates an optional organizational stratagem: In an environment of wants, the haves and the government and systemic institutions such as also the mainstream parties may be targeted as culprits for the poor state of affairs as part of the political program to organize and mobilize cadre; this program can also provide the resources to nurture the organization. Viewed as a systemic threat, mainstream organizations are perhaps aware of the similar roots of their own organizations in opposition and the real dangers such strategies provide to their political organizations which, combined, compose the political establishment of the decade.

It is on these grounds that one tends to agree with Robert Kaplan who, in an International Herald Tribune article (Dec. 30-31, 1995—Jan 1st, 1996) summed up his conclusion in the headline "For the Third World Western Democracy is a Nightmare". Kaplan’s thesis that the "rote prescription for newly ‘liberated’ nations—elections within one year, followed by stability – is more likely to lead to chaos than to democracy," appears suited also to sum up the decade of governance. No less a person than U.S. Ambassador Julia Chang Block commented: "Nepal’s democracy movement succeeded suddenly and completely. Political and social institutions changed almost overnight, new and inexperienced political leaders emerged, and politics and governance became far more complex…With political parties banned for more than thirty years, their activists incarcerated, exiled, or underground; with judicial, legislative and bureaucratic institutions long dominated from above; and with labor and social organizations often established along political lines, it is not surprising that of the original 14—member Cabinet, few had any administrative and management experience, and only one, a former Fullbrighter, had visited a foreign country outside of India. The new 205—member Parliament shares similar characteristics." (see Foreign Service Journal, April 1992). Bloch’s assessment of the need for know-how on matters of governance is valid no doubt, but one would insist that the power game would overwhelm any knowledgeable prescription on running a democracy in Nepal’s party-centered democracy. The developed countries associate the right to organize freely with democracy, the political party only manifests this right, how these parties operate is distinct to their respective societies, their customs laws and values. Whether this applies to the Nepali context demands very somber analytical studies. Indeed, one would venture to suggest that political parties in the country treat the difference between their respective ideologies and mass values the grist for politics to be bridged by their political organizations. That this should reflect on governance would seem only natural. There does not seem to be any dearth of knowledgeable politicians in the political parties themselves, it is perhaps their inability to translate this knowledge into action that must be focused here. One is of the conclusion that organizational politics in our context too demands real compromises and the politician must do so to achieve and remain in power.

The ability to field cadre on the street and to paralyze any branch of government and industry or institution and the use of this ability to garner votes at election-time in the absence of policy debates is a daunting challenge for our politicians indeed. The past decade has seen this repeatedly proven. How it has effected governance is reflected surely in overall national performance.

This is the contextual reality of the change that ushered in the decade of "omni-potent" organizational politics. The change came when the third general elections under the partyless panchayat system was due amidst intense factionalism within the partyless ranks that provoked a previously unknown Royal interjection in the last session of the Rashtriya Panchayat. The change came amidst the "the third wave" of democracy when the democratic movement in eastern Europe succeeded in toppling individual communist governments in favor of the multi-party democracy and human rights championed by the competing Western powers. And the change came when critical Nepal-India talks were stalemated and Nepal was under a virtual embargo imposed by India. It is this last attribute of the circumstances of political change in the Kingdom that, one must hesitantly point out, that appears to have impacted on policy change in the country. If, for example, increasing trade imbalance favoring India is one economic indicator, at the foreign policy level this is visibly manifest in the dropping of the Zone of Peace Proposal. The Tanakpur treaty and Mahakali represent the more tangible aspect of policy change in the decade. The not so tangible one appears to be in the security sector with those who man the constitutional organ empowered to oversee security admitting that the organ has not met in the decade.

Conclusion

Politics has hardly centered around budgetary arguments, an established bureaucracy has been continuously shaken, and the percentage of the population under the poverty line has been officially increased with the result of dangerously marginalizing the tax-paying middle class. Indeed, from the point of view of Nepali governance, Kaplan’s conclusions that democracies are weakened by ineffectual compromises initially sets one thinking on the compromises made and with whom.It is known that the Congress and Communist parties acculturate cadre from the very school age and the effects of early indoctrination are surely showing in the politics of the country. The contention that the decade of change has brought democracy puts an undesirable halt to political development that can be counterproductive to the development process itself.

(Concluded)

(Excerpts of the paper presented at a seminar on A Decade of Governance in Nepal organized by Nepal Foundation for Advanced Studies (NEFAS) in cooperation with Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES), Germany, Sept. 19-20,2000, Kathmandu.)

Headline | 5 Question  | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past |