Accountable behaviour is crucial to minimise public dissatisfaction and ultimately ensure regime stability. The principle of 'right man in the right place' should be implemented
Nepal has witnessed several regime changes in its contemporary history. The first notable movement was against the autocratic Rana regime in 1950, followed by the 1990 revolution against the Panchayat system. The third, also known as the people's movement, took place in 2006. It abolished the long-standing monarchy and established a federal and secular republic framework for Nepal.
Each change was elicited by the widespread public dissatisfaction caused by an undemocratic governance system that failed to bring development and prosperity. Change campaigners were able to grasp this displeasure mounted in the public mindset and to convert it into a revolution to change the status quo. However, in each instance when the system was overhauled, the promised delivery of development was absent, and public expectation remained unmet. As a result, despondency incessantly accrued among citizens, paving the way for endless provocation for further regime changes. The recent movement of the monarchists to overthrow the current federal democratic regime can be seen once again as a manifestation of this phenomenon.
Failure to meet public expectation has been worrisome for governments due to its potential to cause political instability. Thus, political parties, as well as policy architects, are engaged in tracing deterring factors for attaining the development objectives, which ultimately has fueled dissatisfaction in the public.
Two reasons can be stated as the determinants of development stagnation. Firstly, leaders laid out abstract aspirations and goals in order to motivate people to participate in the respective revolutions. They overlooked the resource available for development. Secondly, policy architects appeared unable to utilise available resources efficiently. They were mostly unable to streamline the goals and objectives with sectoral policies. The former cannot be remedied and its damage has already been felt; however, the latter can be corrected by altering our working procedure both in policy formulation and its implementation.
The efficient use of potential resources depends on various factors. Management of human capital is crucial in this regard. A universally agreed principle is having the 'right man in the right place' in order to optimise performance. However, ideological similarity, family proximity and/or cronies have evidently been seen as key influencing factors in the nomination to key positions. Moreover, bribery is usually blamed for being a deciding factor for attaining key positions in the public sector.
Omniscient demeanors often expressed by key political leaders have exacerbated unattainable dreams in the people's mindset. Political supremos seem bent on expressing their views without consulting subject-related experts. Moreover, the power centre mostly considers their cronies as subject experts.
As stated in the preceding paragraph, political cronies, either bureaucrats, advisors, or appointees, have failed to counsel the political leaders about their implementable plans and programmes. Instead, they suggest unrealistic slogans for public consumption. For instance, dozens of slogans highlighted in bold fonts can be observed in the annual budget speeches without qualifying these through financial allocations.
However, scarce resource is allocated to the constituencies of key persons in the policy circle without considering the return on investment. Budget is allocated in relatively less prioritised sectors as per the wish of the political leaders. In other words, growth perspective is outweighed by the constituency-focused allocation to enhance the vote bank.
Additionally, line ministries often declare several exemptions, incentives as well as additional programmesin order tobecome popular without considering the public purse. A50 percent exemption in electricity tariffs for those utilising 30 units of electricity declared by Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) as well as the energy roadmap declared by the Ministry of Energy of Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) are some examples.
A well-functioning government depends on appointing or nominating qualified individuals to high-level positions to ensure effective governance. However, in many cases, public opinion has been critical of the government's decisions in this regard. A recent example includes controversy surrounding promotions within the police administration and the appointment of the central bank governor. Similarly, the deputation of top bureaucrats and appointments to constitutional bodies or diplomatic posts have also failed to gain public approval.
Accountable behaviour is crucial to minimise public dissatisfaction and ultimately ensure regime stability. The principle of 'right man in the right place' should be implemented rather than promoting political cronies interminably. There is no convincing answer or logic behind the appointment of the same person repeatedly in heterogeneous fields as the country is not making much progress. Political leaders should stop declaring impossible development objectives. Pseudo-experts should answer for their non-performance and be included in a list of non-performers thereby marking them against further lucrative opportunities.
Scarce resource needs to be allocated wisely rather than channeling a major chunk of finance in the constituencies associated with influential leaders. Bureaucrats as well as political leaders need to be jointly responsible for irrational allocation of resources. This will ultimately contribute towards a stable regime by minimising the public dissatisfaction against development plans and prosperity.
Mainali holds a PhD in Development Economics from City St George's University, London and works for the Ministry of Finance of the Government of Nepal
