Nepal could consider a one-year cooling-off period with exceptions for critical roles, coupled with robust oversight to ensure compliance, thus balancing the need for ethical governance with the practical demands of the country
Nepal's Federal Civil Service Bill proposes a controversial two-year cooling-off period for retiring top bureaucrats, barring them from political, constitutional or private-sector roles to prevent conflicts of interest. While supporters argue it promotes ethical governance, criticscall it discriminatory, citing potential expertise loss. A cooling-off period aims to block retired civil servants from leveraging insider influence, aligning with global practices to ensure ethical transitions and curb favouritism.
The primary argument for the cooling-off period is its potential to reduce conflicts of interest. Top bureaucrats often have access to sensitive policy details, insider knowledge and networks that could be leveraged for personal gain in new roles. For instance, a retired secretary immediately appointed to a constitutional body like the Election Commission or a private firm could use their influence to sway decisions in favour of former associates or political allies. A cooling-off period ensures a buffer, allowing time for such influence to wane and reducing the risk of unethical conduct.
Nepal's bureaucracy has faced criticism for its "retirement club" culture, where top officials seamlessly transition into lucrative or powerful positions post-retirement. This practice undermines public trust in governance, as it suggests a revolving door between public service and personal gain. A cooling-off period could signal a commitment to transparency, reassuring citizens that public office is not a steppingstone to personal enrichment.
Immediate appointments often favour well-connected bureaucrats, sidelining other qualified candidates. A cooling-off period levels the playing field, allowing a broader pool of professionals to compete for roles in constitutional bodies or private sectors. This aligns with global practices, such as in the United States, where cooling-off periods for lawmakers and officials prevent immediate lobbying roles, ensuring fair access to opportunities.
Bureaucrats nearing retirement may prioritise short-term gains or curry favour for future appointments, compromising long-term policy goals. A cooling-off period disincentivises such behaviour, encouraging officials to focus on public welfare during their tenure rather than securing post-retirement positions.
Opponents argue that a cooling-off period could waste valuable expertise. Barring them from immediate roles in constitutional bodies or advisory positions may deprive the country of their skills. For example, retired secretaries with deep knowledge of federalism or public administration could contribute significantly to policy continuity if appointed promptly.
Bureaucrats argue that the provision unfairly targets civil servants, as no similar restrictions apply to politicians or other professionals. This perception of discrimination has fueled lobbying efforts to scrap the clause, with critics claiming it undermines their career rights.
Enforcing a cooling-off period in Nepal's context may be difficult. The country's small bureaucratic elite and interconnected political networks could lead to loopholes or informal influence, even during the waiting period. Additionally, monitoring compliance and defining what constitutes a "prohibited appointment" could strain administrative resources.
Nepal's history provides several examples of top bureaucrats transitioning to prominent roles immediately after retirement, highlighting the need for a cooling-off period. One notable case is that of a former Chief Secretary, who, shortly after retiring, was appointed as a member of the constitutional body. His swift transition raised concerns about impartiality, as his prior role gave him significant influence over policy decisions that the Commission later reviewed.
Another example is a former Secretary, who joined a private consultancy firm working on government contracts shortly after retirement in 2020. Critics argued that his insider knowledge gave the firm an unfair advantage in securing contracts, underscoring the potential for conflicts of interest.
Internationally, Nepal's ambassadors have occasionally been appointed immediately after retirement, leveraging their bureaucratic networks. For instance, a retired secretary was appointed as Nepal's ambassador to a neighbouring country in 2019, raising questions about whether their prior access to diplomatic channels influenced the appointment.
Globally, cooling-off periods are common but vary in scope. In New Zealand, reforms in the state sector included cooling-off periods to ensure ethical transitions, balancing expertise retention with conflict prevention. In the United States, the Lobbying Disclosure Act mandates a one- to two-year cooling-off period for senior officials, which has reduced but not eliminated revolving-door practices. Nepal could draw on these models, tailoring the duration and scope of the cooling-off period to its context.
The proposed cooling-off period in Nepal's Federal Civil Service Bill is a bold step towards ethical governance, addressing concerns about conflicts of interest and public trust. Its benefits – mitigating undue influence, promoting fairness and encouraging long-term thinking – are significant. However, the potential loss of expertise, perceived discrimination and implementation challenges cannot be ignored.
To address these concerns, Nepal could consider a flexible approach: a one-year cooling-off period with exceptions for critical roles, coupled with robust oversight to ensure compliance. Such a policy would balance the need for ethical governance with the practical demands of a developing nation. As the debate intensifies, the Parliament must weigh these factors carefully to craft a policy that serves the public interest while respecting the contributions of its civil servants.
Kayastha holds a PhD degree in Journalism and Mass Communication
