Foundational issues in Development Partnership

Devendra Raj Pandey

There are contradictions everywhere, the way we view national interest, the way we manage democracy, the way our politicians, public officials and civic leaders pursue self-interest and the way even many ordinary citizens display their predatory tendencies. There is a lot of talks about a common purpose but rarely anyone pursues it seriously in an environment where, among others, multitudinous problems are available to support multitudinous interests often working at cross purposes. An endemically weak political leadership that is prone more self-seeking and petty squabbling than reasoning together for conflict management does not help the process. The personal image and credibility of the leaders concerned also suffer with adverse impact on the democratic process, not to mention the public good.

Now, one can be critical of this reality; one can even curse it but, one cannot wish it away. We have to work with what we have got, and try to make the best of it, keeping the interest of the poor people of the country and the future of the nation uppermost in mind. When we try to do so –be we, I mean the donors and the responsible institutions and agensts in the civil society- we have to be mindful of one primary responsibility. If the reality is such that smooth and sustainable development or disciplined utilization of resources for that purpose is likely to be slow process, care should be taken to ensure that the quest of unrealistic results does not worsen that institutional condition. It has been our belief, at least since 1990, that the rules of the game as established under democratic constitution are the best way of managing the difficult condition and conflicts and advancing the cause of development in the country as in most other human societies. Unfortunately, this is where the nation has been faltering the most. The political and public conduct of leaders and citizens has adversely affected not only development but also peace and security in the land. In addition, there is constant threat of ill-reasoned impatience and obscuranist pursuits getting the better of good sense and torpedoing what is left of the hopes for democratic development.

The sincere efforts and hard work that have gone into NDF 2002 have to prove valuable in this reality-a reality, as stated that cannot be wished away. Saying we have to work with what we have got does not mean that we nurture the dysfunctional process and perverse interests inimical to development. This includes the negative impulses and incentives rooted in the mechanism of international aid. The political leaders must understand that any kind of complacency on the part of the state, an untenable faith in status quo and the hopeless hope that aid will keep flowing into the country as a matter of course, no matter what, will be disastrous. Everyone knows that aid volumes are shrinking in the world, and that the number of claimants is rising. Some donors have reduced their aid level already, even as, in some cases, commitments in the past have yet to be fulfilled. Importantly, not many people are cursing the concerned donors for doing so. Cynical or otherwise, the section of the public opinion in Nepal that protests that, in our condition, development aid as used in many areas may be doing more harm that good to the country is growing steadily. The challenge that Nepal faces is, thus, a moral challenge. Its leaders must command the moral authority to tell the international community and, indeed, their own citizens that Nepal remains a deserving candidate because it is truly and visibly working for the people, and, of course, the poor people at that. Development partnership would succeed if its outcomes enables the leaders to do just that.

A time of crisis is also the opportune time for responsible leaders, in the government and in opposition. To demonstrate that at least from now on they mean business when they talk about development. This is also the time to show some appreciation of the reality that unless they work seriously toward reducing corruption, injustices of various kinds and poverty, their own political future is in jeopardy. They cannot keep arguing, in particular, that corruption is a part of politics or political competition and expect the taxpayers in the donor countries to foot the bill under guise of helping the poor. In addition, the leaders have to show that they are above board, at least, when it comes to personal integrity. If that were to happen, one can firmly believe that sympathy and support the government needs from it partners would not be denied to it. The principal partners in aid and development are the taxpayers in the donor countries and the potential beneficiaries in our land. Everyone else is an agent having their own interest and utility to maximize, but whose utility to the Nepali society would end if the interests of the principals were not served.

Without a proper understanding of this relationship, effective or result-oriented reforms sought in many other areas may not be possible. For example, there is plenty to suggest to donors about the cleaning up they need to do in their own backyards and front-yards. In fact, such messages have been conveyed to them for many years now. But this can not do much good if the leaders and, indeed, the citizens of the country are not morally, politically, and professionally ready to take charge of the nation’s destiny. Similarly, if fundamental infirmities in the aid system are not addressed and if we only look for ways of explaining and rationalizing the failed structures and processes, we only reinforce the tendency toward mutual accusations that is not only unhelpful but also depressingly tiring to the principals. There is no lack of information or insights needed for planning and prioritizing development policies and practices for us to create a positive synergy between aid and development, between the policies and actions of the donors and the recipient and harness the full potential of the partnership. On the general issue of donor-HMG relations, there is the report of the Review Team on partnership. And now HMG has prepared its Foreign Aid Policy that deserves serious attention and support of donors. As we move toward finalizing the policy, it is necessary to remember one thing. This process should be allowed to regress to become an excuse for inaction rather than a sincere initiative, representing the cause of the principles.

It is futile to deny that important achievements have been made in some specific sectors of the society that should serve the interest of the stated beneficiaries. This includes the outcomes of the struggle for institutionalizing democracy. In these desperate times, the challenge is to hold on to them and to build on them so that the cumulative process of development can accelerate. And this should be possible if the leaders wake up finally to their historic responsibilities and carry their external partners along with them in the fulfillment of the mission. The unanimous emphasis on poverty reduction by the government and the entire donor community alike is a source of encouragement. The promise to being the poor into the mainstream of development, to harness the wisdom, the sensitivities and the capacities of women for development and to include all other exclude sections of the population in the process should now be translated into action. If this were to happen, the country would be making a new beginning. But this is not likely to happen unless we take care of another type of poverty.

Nepal now appears like a nation that is not sure of its future, and we have become a people addicted to aid, afraid of what might happen should there be a withdrawal or reversal in its flows. This makes us a poor partner in moral and psychological terms. I am not talking about the day to day issue of managing government finances and the legitimate quest of the finance minister for external resources in that context. The finance minister deserves full support if this forum and also some sympathy, especially since the changes that are necessary in the governance culture of the country of the country are beyond the reach of one ministry. I, for one, will be satisfied if he keeps the finance ministry clean and its officials professionally motivated at least in the Foreign Aid Division. But, there is a more important issue.

It is one thing to depend upon foreign aid for development finance, and another to depend upon foreign aid for development itself. More aid does not necessarily translate into greater external dependence. It becomes so when aid does not lead to a corresponding enhancement of the development capacity of the recipient nation, and leaders to some erosion in it instead, and when it develops a tendency to fuel the greed of some in the name of the need of many. The risk becomes critical when important messages concerning the value of sustainability, accountability and performance have to come through foreign aid also. Why is this so is a mystery. After all, these values are a part of our own traditions, spiritual and otherwise. At the moment there is a danger that as a nation, we may be losing our intellectual, professional, and human capacity for development. Clearly, our capacity to think ourselves, to analyze problems and look for solutions that work for our diverse people is not what it could be. This is becoming a major constraint to development, even if finances were to be so.

Suddenly, we have every organs of the state, including the parliament and the judiciary and, now even the Prime Minister’s office linked to foreign aid. I do not understand why a code of conduct for our members of parliament has to be devised with foreign aid. Our judiciary feels impoverished if it does not have some foreign aid projects. And our bureaucracy needs foreign aid to do routine things like drafting simple legislation. Foreign aid is not looked upon as a resource; it is just an easy way opf getting extra-budgetary allocation useful to the concerned offices and the officials. Without foreign aid, many public office are now unable to do the simple things that they have been doing all along. It is distressing that in the name of decentralization, we might now be making the local bodies also dependent, physically and psychologically, on foreign aid.

This is not a criticism. After all, Transparency International Nepal also receives foreign aid to execute its agenda of fighting corruption. But one must not ignore the capacity erosion that is taking place in national institutions in spite of the good intention of the donors who support such causes. Similarly, with the attempt of the donor community to bring the civil society into the mainstream of development partnership and harness its faculty for development, the syndrome of aid dependence has now affected the non-state societal actors as well. We are losing fast whatever values we held about social service, voluntarism, public spirit, personal sacrifice, professional fidelity and so on in the service of foreign-aided projects. No nation has been built and no economy developed in this manner, no matter how handy the access to financial resources might have been for some of them.

These are some of the foundational issues in development partnership that deserves critical attention if reforms is to be initiated in earnest. Excerpts from the book "Nepal Tomorrow: Voices and visions" edited by D.B. Gurung, article on "Development Partnership for Greater Aid Effectiveness".

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