Democracy means trusting people, respecting their views and honoring their rights

- Shri Kul Chandra Gautam, Deputy Executive Director, UNICEF, New York (recently in Kathmandu)

The experience of countries that have drastically reduced poverty within a single generation shows that with strong political commitment, appropriate public action and genuine community participation, most of the Millennium Development Goals, MDGs, are indeed achievable.

Every country is, of course, different. And Nepal at this juncture is in a particularly precarious situation with the political turmoil and insecurity, which are seriously hampering development activities.

It seems to me that security is the biggest challenge for Nepal's development at the moment. But there seem to be 2 dimensions to Nepal's insecurity.

First, we have the insecurity caused by the Maoists insurgency.

We must all deplore the wanton destruction of the country's infrastructure in the name of a people's movement. The tactics of extorting money from innocent civil servants or plundering foodstuff from ordinary villagers through intimidation has no justification.

Recruiting children as combatants or using women and children as human shields in combat is utterly unacceptable. And the fact that one side uses such tactics cannot justify similar action by the other side.

The second dimension of Nepal's insecurity is closely related to the first one-and may, in fact, be its root cause. I refer here to human insecurity, caused by lack of basic social services.

A nation cannot be secure when a large segment of its population is chronically malnourished, sick, illiterate and feel there is discrimination and injustice. Neglect of human security is bound to continue to jeopardize Nepal's national security.

Both these two forms of insecurity must be tackled with equal vigor. A lasting solution to the Maoists insurgency requires progress on both these fronts.

The pursuit of Millennium Development Goals, duly adapted to Nepal's reality, must therefore be an integral part of Nepal's pursuit of peace and tranquility as well as development.

Fortunately, Nepal has already made a head start by producing a very thoughtful progress report on the MDGs. I would like to commend the National Planning Commission of HMG/N and United Nations Country Team for being one of the first countries in the world to produce such a report.

I have remarked that Nepal is generally second to none in producing good reports on all kinds of development issues that are a la mode. A few years ago, the UN came up with the idea of the 20/20 initiative, Nepal produced one of the first and the best reports on that subject.

When UNDP started producing national human development reports, predictably, Nepal produced one of the first and among the best national HDRs.

If we could be half as effective in producing results, as we are in producing reports, the people of this country would indeed be very well served.

Our ability and agility in producing such reports indicates that Nepal has the latent capacity to rise to the occasion to prepare good program proposals and attract donor interest and support.

I sense an enormous reservoir of goodwill towards Nepal in the international community. But I also sense a certain frustration with the endless political squabbling, rampant corruption and bureaucratic inertia in development administration.

The key obstacle for Nepal's development is therefore not the lack of resources or solidarity of the international community, but the need to keep our house in order in terms of good governance.

As we make progress in good governance, I have no doubt that adequate resources can be mobilised for essential investment.

Development is a complex business, and I do not want to offer any simplistic solutions or prescriptions for Nepal's advancement. This MDG process report offers many specific ideas for jump-starting development in all areas related to the key MDGs.

But if you would allow me, pending the improvement of the security situation, resolution of the political crisis, improvements in good governance, and large scale investment in physical infrastructure-all of which take time, I would urge Nepal to concentrate and accelerate its efforts in the immediate future on 2 specific areas of development.

First, invest heavily in basis education.

I was surprised and distressed to learn that according to the analysis contained in the progress report of the MDGs, if current trends continue, Nepal is unlikely to reach the goal of universal access to, and completion of, primary education even by the year 2015.

I would urge that this ought to be one of the goals, which Nepal must aspire to achieve, against all odds.

Basic education, particularly of girls, is unquestionably a key to significant poverty reduction. It gives a young woman a sense of personal empowerment and self-confidence to make decisions that affect her life.

An educated girl tends to marry later, is more likely to space her pregnancies, will seek medical care for her child and herself when needed, will give better childcare and nutrition, and will ensure that her children attend primary school-all important factor in preventing the intergenerational transmission of poverty.

Education is also likely to enhance a woman's income-generating capacity and will embolden her to claim her rights and those of her children. There simply is no other investment with the broad range of positive multiplier effects as girl's education.

And if Nepal is truly committed to ensuring universal primary education, it should not be too difficult to mobilize adequate external support on a fast track basis.

Second, I would urge that we endeavor to double, and eventually consider tripling or quadrupling the amount of the current annual development allocation to every village development council.

I was distressed to learn that because of budgetary constraints and the fear of insurgency, the allocation of annual grants of Rupees 500,000 to every VDC is proposed to be reduced by 50%. I think this is most unwise and is bound to retard many worthwhile local development activities.

Of all the development expenditure incurred by the government, the allocation to VDC directly reaches every village in the country. The total amount of this grant for the whole country amounts to only Rs.2 billion or about $25 million per year.

This is a very small percentage of Nepal's national budget, and a small amount even compared to Nepal's ODA receipt.

Yet it is doubtful that any other development expenditure of such magnitude reaches so many villages and benefits so many people. Even if there is some leakage and inefficient use of some of these funds, I am sure higher percentage of it reaches and benefits ordinary people than almost any other comparable investment.

Because of the multiparty system, there usually is a pretty good system of checks and balances at the local government level. Everybody knows virtually everybody else in a VDC, and it is practically impossible for a local leader to siphon off resources without being known by rival leaders. Chances of big time corruption are infinitely smaller at that level than in large-scale development projects involving contractors and commissions.

In proposing the doubling of such allocation, I would suggest that the additional funds be used to institute a system of incentives for villages to upgrade their infrastructure and basic social services with measurable indicators. For example, one could institute a system of classification of all VDCs of Nepal into 3 or 4 categories based on some of the measurable indicators of the MDGs duly adapted to Nepal's reality. These could include percentage of girls enrolled in primary school of female literacy, access to clean drinking water, contraceptive prevalence, infant mortality rate etc.

Encouraging a healthy competition among neighboring villages and districts to upgrade themselves from one category to the next using such indicators could greatly accelerate the pace of rural and national development. There are some good examples of such programs in other countries, e.g. in Thailand and Indonesia that Nepal could learn from.

Using direct development grants to all VDCs to encourage them to promote goal-oriented, indicator-based development planning and implementation could be a very special way for Nepal to pursue the Millennium Development Goals.

This would also be a meaningful way in which relevant UN agencies and other donors could support Nepal's efforts to promote community based, results-oriented development outcomes.

For far too long, a disproportionate amount of political power, the power of patronage and control of resources has remained in the hands of the elite in Kathmandu, other major towns and district headquarters. Let us be daring enough and trusting enough of our local communities and devolve more power and resources, in a planned manner to these communities.

Let us not be afraid that local communities might make mistakes, might waste some resources. Haven't we done that, big time, in Kathmandu and the district headquarters?

Democracy means trusting people, respecting their views, and honoring their rights. Let us build a strong democracy in Nepal from the villages upwards, by devolving more tights, responsibility and resources to our local communities.

Statement made by the author at a conference convened by the Society for International Development, Nepal Chapter, in Kathmandu on 26 July 2002: Chief editor.

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