Mayors and deputy mayors and chairs and deputy chairs of the ward offices must have in place a system that makes them close to the people
How are politicians in Nepal responsive to the ideas of the citizens? How easy is it for citizens to come up with ideas and approach their representatives either at local and national levels and pitch their propositions?
I recently witnessed how difficult it can be to ask the cooperation of a major local government for one event that a group of youths wanted to organise. Though I am referring to a small initiative, I do believe it is symptomatic of a broader attitude.
The idea was quite simple: host a hybrid event in which an international world class expert on sustainable mobility and urban regeneration would present some of the best examples of how a metropolis can slowly reduce the cars' role in urban space. The request for collaboration was basically not for a budget to host the event. Rather it was for ensuring the participation in the event of a major elected local official who is highly well considered nationwide. The plan was also to ask the local government in question to host the event, but doing it so in a "smart" way, without any unreasonable demands.
The expert in question would have made an online presentation, and participants could have either joined in person or online. After many fruitless attempts to seek an appointment with the elected officer, the youths behind the idea had to give up.
Even the expert in question somehow got frustrated with the continuous delay and lack of communication.
This piece is not intended to be a tool to channel my personal dismay and my own frustration at witnessing how such an interesting proposition could not be taken seriously. Rather the purpose of this column is to think about how elected officials can be more responsive and receptive to the ideas of the people.
My first consideration is that, at the end of the day, it is also a question of how these persons are supported in carrying out their job and responsibilities. Politicians, both at local and national levels, need strong teams made up by not only thematic experts who could carry out research and share insights and provide suggestions on the complex policy issues but also competent persons who can act as sort of "project managers" and help the politicians to prioritise and have a say in their official schedules.
I do remember, once when I was visiting Washington DC, I had run into an aide of a Congress woman who had shared with me a staggering figure of people working for the politician, not only inside the Capitol but also in the home district office.
In the context of Nepal, it would be inconsiderate and insane at the same time to replicate such a model simply because there would not be the money to do so.
Yet one of the major issues affecting national politics is that most of the politicians are not adequately prepared for the tasks they have to perform. If they lack knowledge, how can they be responsive? They can be masters in party politics, wizards in shenanigans and tricks to outplay rivals, but when we talk about policy level discussions, a lack of expertise becomes a common factor for many of them. Having serious, competent and knowledgeable aides, even in small numbers, can make the difference.
But it might not be enough for politicians to raise above mediocrity. There is still the need to find creative ways to meet the people's expectations. For example, they could designate and allocate, each week, a certain amount of time to meet citizens.
There are many ways of doing so, including the more formal one in which a citizen officially requests a meeting with the elected official and within a reasonable amount of time, such demand is fulfilled. It can also be more casual, in which there is an "open door" policy where citizens can come and meet the politician without a prior notice.
Now, if we think about it, there is already an open door policy, but it is not by design but rather by default. People, even civil servants and other stakeholders, just show up without any prior appointment and without any notice simply because there is no system in place to arrange time for such interactions.
The open door policy that I am instead referring to is a specifically designed method for politicians to reasonably do whatever they can to be as close and as accessible to their constituents as possible.
Certainly at the local level, especially in small and rural communities across the country, elected officials are, by virtue of the local context, already very accessible, and there is no need of any new system. The situation is different for big urban centres where elected officials have hundreds of thousands or even millions of citizens living in their jurisdictions. Mayors and deputy mayors and chairs and deputy chairs of the ward offices must have in place a system that makes them close to the people.
It is something that might, at the first instance, appear as an annoyance or inconvenience, but, in the long run, they will realise the benefits of having such a system in place. First, it helps understand what local people are going through while also ease the identification of anomalies in the system. Second, it is a way to prove the elected officials' stewardship and leadership thanks to a strong sense of civic accountability that is a cornerstone to any forms of responsive governance.
Returning to the case of the failed attempt to organise the interaction on sustainable mobility, I do still hope that one day, the politician in question would realise the importance of running that small event. A little bit of enhanced system with the right supporting staff and higher forms of accountability can create wonders and lay the foundations for truly people-centered politics.
I am sure that that many ideas and propositions from the bottom are going to waste because politicians are too distant from the people. At the end, this is not only a pity but also a form of dereliction of duty.
