KATHMANDU, DECEMBER 4

People working in the development sector often whine and complain about the United Nations system, the vast and complex galaxy of programmes and entities that have the noble mandate to make our planet more just, inclusive and sustainable.

I must admit, with all honesty, that I am a lukewarmly member of this group.

I knew people who worked inside the UN System, and they were complaining, and then finally, they mustered the courage to leave behind awesome perks and started again.

Over the years I have been indirectly and directly collaborating, though informally and without any financial gain, with the 'system', and I know that it is not easy to partner with it. Yet I am an outsider, and if I discount the six-month internship experience many years ago, I never worked inside the UN, and I do not deeply know it.

So I am not fully and totally comfortable criticising the system just per se. For my difficult balancing, there are several reasons.

First, the goals and mandate of the whole UN system are simply too important to be dismissed because folks running there are not that good at running partnerships. Despite its nonsensical fragmentation of agencies and programmes, still the world needs the UN.

No matter how it might be criticised, the UN system has been playing, and it is still playing a major role in Nepal, even though, with the nation getting stronger despite the multiple challenges we face these days, slowly it has become less visible. Yet there is a good reason for this: it is all because of the progress made by the country over the last 15 years, and there is no doubt that the UN played a huge part in this success story.

All over the globe, when there is a messy situation, a country on the edge of internal strife, a famine or a natural disaster, the UN is a force for good.

Coming to my second reason for struggling to define my criticism of the UN is the fact that there are a lot of good and committed people working inside it. I met many of them, real professionals, people who, no matter what, push themselves to change the status quo. So let's define myself, a critical supporter of the UN, someone well aware of the positive sides of it but also someone 'navigated' enough to get frustrated over how it could be much better run, especially in terms of outreach to the civil society.

One of the key issues that often gives a negative view of the UN is the 'bubble' effect, something that I also call it the 'McKinsey' mindset there. When something is very big and deals with lots of money and tries to tackle hard problems, and folks inside are really well paid for their job, there is a high chance of these people getting insulated, shielded and too far from the reality of every single day.

It is a bit like McKinsey, probably the most prestigious and cutting-edge global consultancy, so powerful but also sometimes controversial as well. If you get into McKinsey, you are really on the top of the game, and you are really well rewarded for it. While UN officials are not paid as much as the most prominent private consultants of McKinsey or BCG, another major consultancy, certainly they get paid a fat check.

Though many complain about it, I do not personally think this is the main problem.

The issue is the attitude that often comes with the prestige and the responsibilities that UN folks have to deal with on a single day basis. It is not arrogance at the personal level, how could we generalise on that, but rather it is the incapacity to be reachable, humble and open to new ideas and collaborations.

This sort of detachment is real and perhaps difficult to avoid when as per your rules and role, you have to mainly work with the bureaucrats from various ministries, because, let's not forget it, the UN and correctly so, must strengthen the capacities of its hosting governments.

Yet, at the same time, the UN is so important, and there are so many committed persons working in it that it is just unfair to be over critical. There is no doubt, for sure, there are several ways for the UN to improve and be more open.

Again, it is not as simple as it might sound because I believe that there is a unique working culture that probably slows down things, that sometimes makes people disappointed and really frustrated. For example, the UN can do a much better job at trying to explain its work and its ways of impacting the society, and at the same time, new measures should be taken for the civil society or the citizenry to get in touch with its 'system'.

From open days where students and NGOs meet and familiarise with the UN officials to having more structured engagement with the citizenry with periodic sharing and town hall type of meetings, to new innovative programmes for civil society organisations, there is so much that could be done.

I am wrapping up with a personal story. I have been part of a consortium working on an innovative climate leadership programme.

We struggled to get our ideas heard, and it took many months to get one appointment with one agency, and it was not useful at all. Yet at the same time, over our continuous attempts, we also met some UN officials who were very responsive and interested and helpful.

Nothing happened, but at least they showed respect towards our ideas and were appreciative.

Recently I even took the liberty to reach out to one of them via mail to express my gratitude but also my disappointment to how things did not work out the way I had hoped for.

This person replied me immediately with a long and clear e-mail explaining how her agency works and also by praising, again, our ideas. She went out of her way to acknowledge my opinions.

Such exchange of mails, the respect that this person showed me, highlights that we can't use broad 'brushes' to depict the UN, which brought some optimism into my perspectives. For it, I want to publicly thank this person for taking my concerns seriously, and I seriously rock for a more open and efficient UN.

The issue with the UN is the attitude that often comes with the prestige and the responsibilities that its folks have to deal with on a single day basis

A version of this article appears in the print on December 5, 2022, of The Himalayan Times.