[Show all top banners]

kalopani

More by kalopani
What people are reading
Subscribers
Subscribers
[Total Subscribers 1]

kalopani
:: Subscribe
Back to: Kurakani General Refresh page to view new replies
 Please read this
[VIEWED 994 TIMES]
SAVE! for ease of future access.
Posted on 12-27-07 3:36 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2007/others/guestcolumn/dec/guest_columns_13.php

This article and the recommendation can be a solution of our on going political problems. This guy is a Genius :)

 

Polito-cracy: De- Politicising Nepal's Bureaucracy

By Nishchal M.S. Basnyat

From handling the appointment of government secretaries and ambassadors to influencing the promotions of low level clerks, Nepal’s politicians have dug their hands far too deep into the country’s bureaucracy. In doing so, our leaders, despite their impressive democratic rhetoric, have shattered the value of honest meritocracy and have instead promoted extreme forms of nepotism and sycophancy. Consequently, Nepal has given birth to “polito-cracts”; a breed of bureaucrats with a political mind, ready to serve as agents for political parties in return for political sponsorship. As a result, corruption has multiplied and favoritism has thrived in government, with the honest and deserving bureaucrats getting left far behind. Nepal has now reached a terrifying point in its history where politics has hijacked bureaucracy. Only the unyielding detachment of politics from bureaucracy can help arrest Nepal’s transition into a country relentlessly exploited by those in power.

Hidden in the deep fabric of Nepali polity is an unnoticed threat greater than autocratic monarchy or jungle-communism; it is the overabundance of power granted to the executive branch. With the executive branch omnipotent, even in “democracy” Nepal will remain a dictatorship. Politicians seek to alter established policy towards their preferred objectives. Bureaucracies, being bound to their past coalitions and legislation, soon diverge from their original policies, and in the long haul with frequent political change, end up with little development. The country’s failure to establish a robust, neutral and autonomous bureaucracy, one that can firmly stand as a check-and-balance against politicians, means that Nepal will remain hostage to the whims of those in power. Likewise, if both the legislative and judiciary branches remain servile pawns of the executive limb, Nepal will linger in this perpetual volatility.

The salient issue regarding the form of political-bureaucratic adaptation is who, if anyone, controls the bureaucracy. Does the bureaucratic process respond to elite influence, pluralist influence, or neither? Since the mid-twentieth century the dominant paradigm, still prevalent in academia, is that of a triumvirate influence: in its simplicity, the influence of interest groups (including public interest), influence of bureaucrats, and executive influence. Also known as the iron-triangle, subsystem, or capture theory, this paradigm has been utilised in political philosophy to examine the bureaucracies of major states. The idea that bureaucracy is most influenced by interest groups was expressed as early as 1936 by Herring, followed with confirmation papers by Griffin (1939) and Sleznick (1949). However, at the turn of the later half of the twentieth century, the elite-based theories became dominant in bureaucratic literature, especially with Huntington’s detailed historical analysis of bureaucracy published in 1952. With this, the general consensus that bureaucracies are at danger of serving the needs of the subsystem’s elite and the political heads rather than the public interest became prevalent.

This elite-influenced bureaucratic paradigm is more relevant in Nepal than in the United States or Western European States. As Ripley and Franklin mentioned while defending Western bureaucracies in 1986: “Western bureaucracies are not fully controlled by any superior…they have liability to the constitution, both written and unwritten”. As a result, a list of scholars (e.g. Rourke 1984; Wilson 1989; Aberbach 1990) leaned towards the notion that overhead bureaucratic control cannot be achieved and that neither the Congress, Parliament, President nor Prime Ministers in Western States had the interest or the necessary clout to control the bureaucracy. On the contrary, in developing states like Nepal, bureaucracy remained too vulnerable to escape political manipulation. With respect to the iron-triangle, Nepal has no strong apolitical interest groups and even bureaucrats are politically active. The iron-triangle, in Nepal's case, became single sharp political spear, always ready to put political objectives over public interest.

The answer for Nepal lies in blueprinting a bureaucracy with unprecedented autonomy, isolating this bureaucracy from the potential manipulation that has made it a puppet of politicians. The solution is not to hope for honest heads-of-state, but to isolate these leaders from daily bureaucratic affairs. No sector of the country will undergo development if it blindly grants its keys to its leaders. Nepal’s long-term structural solution, therefore, lies not in switching the keys, but in changing the lock itself.

First, there is persuasive evidence that an apolitical bureaucracy will lead to greater economic growth. Weber’s classical bureaucratic literature advocated the idea that an apolitical bureaucracy would place meritocracy above nepotism in government and consequently lead to higher levels of economic growth. In 1999, Peter Evans and James E. Rauch tested the ‘Weberianness’ theory in which they examined over forty countries in the span of two decades to test if Weber was correct even in today’s context. The results were definitive: Countries, like Singapore and Hong Kong, with strictly de- politicised bureaucracies were experiencing much more economic development than in countries like Argentina, Syria and Peru, where politicians would appoint secretaries, ambassadors and other top-tier bureaucrats.

Second, unlike politicians, bureaucrats in Nepal are a much more permanent part of the system. In their long careers, they will work under an array of different administrations with varying political ideologies. It is, therefore, crucial that bureaucrats be politically neutral. A multitude of politicians may come and go, but a weak and political-minded bureaucracy can deteriorate Nepal in the long haul. A politically impartial bureaucracy will also offer the stability that politics in Nepal cannot. In a country like ours where the government changes almost every eight months, the entire bureaucracy gets reshuffled according to the new government. Every eight or ten months, new secretaries for ministries are appointed, new ambassadors are appointed and our leaders and their families make their bids for top positions in government. It is this constant change in bureaucracy, not political instability alone, which has hurt Nepal the most. While other nations also experience political volatility their bureaucracy remains stable, avoiding this constant political face-lift.

Third, as Gellner famously proclaimed “an apolitical bureaucracy balances the malevolence of the political mind”. Bureaucracy is meant to stand as a check-and-balance against the self-interest of politicians. In Nepal, however, bureaucracy has assisted politicians rather than impeding them. Bureaucrats in almost every ministry are politically aligned. This has not only led to unnecessary inter-office politics but has also reciprocally led to politicians pushing their man into higher positions. Ultimately, the entire executive branch and the upper-hierarchy of Nepal’s bureaucracy has become one inseparable political unit. Only the disentanglement of politics and bureaucracy can once again bring out the watch-dog characteristic in bureaucracy that is becoming increasing vital for Nepal.

Fourth, the separationof politics and bureaucracy will play a key role in eradicating corruption. As a protection against corruption and the willful misuse of power, the impersonal and “inflexible” rules and regulations of bureaucracy should be a relief and a buffer. In Nepal, government appointments have become a great income source for political parties. Corruption has manifested in two ways: First, politicians expect monetary returns before appointing certain bureaucrats into top positions. Secondly, there are a myriad of incidents in Nepal’s recent history where politicians have appointed certain secretaries and ambassadors, expecting financial “chandas” in return to the political party. Recently it was reported in the Nepali media that the CPN (UML) would levy a 15 percent "tax" on the income of ambassadors that they had nominated and appointed. We can only speculate on similar secret policies that Congress, Maoists and other parties may have employed. It is this kind of repulsive "dalal" politics that exemplifies the political manipulation and milking of bureaucracy. In addition, anti-corruption agencies like the CIAA in Nepal should not be vulnerable to political bias. The political influence in such agencies has resulted in the ignorance of great theft of the country’s riches. The detachment of the political and bureaucratic branches in government will go a great distance in purging such incidents.

Fifth, our inability to detach politics from government means we are in the danger of handing over two crucial institutions into political hands: the Army and Supreme Court. What happens when both national security and state justice are in a political grip? Unless the Army remains politically nonaligned we will be handing over military power to politicians. Similarly, the lack of justice we see in society today can be accredited to political control of the country’s Supreme Court. The reason that some of the most fraudulent politicians and bureaucrats are free to enjoy their Pajero-plodded lifestyle in the capital today is testament to the political hijacking of the justice system. In this way every social and government function will be significantly distorted if politics is allowed to entirely manage bureaucracy.

Sixth, in an age of highly technical dilemmas a purely top-down model of political-bureaucratic relations does not make sense for all policymaking to be the exclusive domain of politicians. In Nepal, secretaries are appointed to ministries in which they have little experience and ambassadors are sent to countries of which they have little knowledge. Unless we reward career long bureaucrats, politically appointed officials only become generalists who lack the information and ability to resolve a myriad of issues. Along these lines, writers like Hugh Heclo (1975) and Terry Moe (1985) argue the relative merits of "neutral" bureaucrats versus "responsive competence".

Finally, in modern democracies there is a general consensus that there is no harm in elected officials directing the bureaucracy. However, in Nepal, the politicians are rarely “elected”. Nepal has not had an election since 2056 BS and the plethora of politicians that have come and gone have not been those that have garnered the people's baton. Although they might have divided up pieces of the administrative pie, they do not represent the vote or will of the people and therefore should not have the right in completely directing the country's administration.

Acknowledging the stern threat of a politicised bureaucracy, most progressive democracies have constitutional measures against this potentially perilous cohesion. In the United States, for example, the doctrine of separating politics and administration resulted in the passage of the Pendleton Act of 1883, which created a merit system and career civil service. The merit system assured that many jobs in the bureaucracy would be filled on the basis of expertise rather than on the basis of political affiliation or ideological preferences. The civil service provided limited tenure to administrative personnel, guaranteeing that they could not be removed from office without cause. Similarly, in Nepal it is the Civil Service Act of 2049 BS that guides bureaucracy. The Act was amended two times: First in 2055 BS and also as recently as in 2064 BS. Article 44 of this Act prohibits civil servants from indulging in politics. Contrary to popular belief, the written laws are not the problem rather it is the leaders' disregard and disrespect towards these laws that has caused great injustice. Despite the cries of many bureaucrats there are been a multitude of unjust political appointments and the government has never taken action on the grounds of this Act since 2046 BS.

The paramount concern becomes, then, how do we detach politics from bureaucracy in Nepal? The country does not have to wait for a score of philanthropic politicians who under-utilize their own powers and refrain from the temptation of manipulation. A set of counterintuitive, yet innovative, strategies can also help arrest political manhandling within bureaucracy.

First, there is no reason why political parties should have such enormous clout in choosing secretaries, ambassadors and other administrative heads. Nepal does not have to look far for enlightenment in this issue. India inherited one of the most structured bureaucracies post-colonialism. Despite its initial hiccups with corruption and nepotism for a few decades, today India's bureaucracy demonstrates the ability to work on its own heartbeat. In 1992 JD Peterson summed it up in his paper 'State, bureaucracy and change in India': "India, a nation that represents one-sixth of humanity, runs not because of its self-fulfilling politicians but because of its neutral bureaucracy'. There is no litmus test greater than that of the Foreign Service in any country. Kishan S. Rana in his 2002 report 'Inside the Indian Foreign Service' writes about India's impressively neutral and meritocracy-based Foreign Service: "Major Indian missions and embassies are natural concentration points for talent...As a service, the Indian Foreign Service has no political bias and is well harnessed in the pursuit of national not political interest". In Nepal, the situation is deplorable. The over-politicization of bureaucracy is the reason an array of important embassies are left without ambassadors for years, as political parties are too caught up fighting to put their own people in power. The time to permanently reduce and limit political appointments in all sectors is well over-due.

Secondly, the gist of the problem is also centered on party funding. With the thirst for more funding and insecurities of power, each political party aims to garner more money and place their people in positions of power. Greater transparency of party funding is a must. Third, the CIAA, and other counter-corruption agencies, should also report on bureau-politics along with anonymous agencies that cater to observing this dangerous interrelationship. Although such measures might not eradicate political manipulation, they will go a long way in alleviating the matter.

Ultimately, the laws are already in place, the only tragedy is our failure to follow them. As a society Nepalis are too resigned to the status-quo. As politicians we are far too busy preferring "Hamro manche" over "Ramro manche".

For many, bureaucracy is often the focus of popular dislike; the notorious ‘red tape’, the infamous “they”. It is hard to imagine that in this era of bureaucracy bashing and widespread antipathy towards government that bureaucracy can be a constructive force. Yet, both the political history of modern democracies and contemporary political literature has vigorously endorsed a stronger and independent bureaucracy. From early Aristotelian scriptures to Rousseau, Montesquieu and Locke, there is a general consensus that even contemporary theorists like Bennis forward: “bureaucracy is a reaction against personal subjugation, nepotism, cruelty, emotional vicissitudes and capricious judgments of leaders”. Despite its weaknesses, the emergence of an autonomous bureaucracy has been central to achieving and securing a democratic system. For Nepal, bureaucratic liberty and autonomy will be the strongest safeguard against the country’s perpetual political instability.

(The writer can be contacted at nbasnyat@fas.harvard.edu)

(Editor’s Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal around the globe are requested to contribute their views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than 1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the article. Please send your write-ups to editors@mos.com.np)

Have your say ! (Registration required)

 


 


Please Log in! to be able to reply! If you don't have a login, please register here.

YOU CAN ALSO



IN ORDER TO POST!




Within last 200 days
Recommended Popular Threads Controvertial Threads
डीभी परेन भने खुसि हुनु होस् ! अमेरिकामाधेरै का श्रीमती अर्कैसँग पोइला गएका छन् !
शीर्षक जे पनि हुन सक्छ।
What are your first memories of when Nepal Television Began?
Sajha Poll: नेपालका सबैभन्दा आकर्षक महिला को हुन्?
ChatSansar.com Naya Nepal Chat
NRN card pros and cons?
Basnet or Basnyat ??
निगुरो थाहा छ ??
Nas and The Bokas: Coming to a Night Club near you
TPS Re-registration
अमेरिकामा छोरा हराएको सूचना
ओच्छ्यान मुत्ने समस्या ( confession )
susta manasthiti lai ke bhanchan english ma?
Returning to Nepal with us citizenship. Property ownership
Do nepalese really need TPS?
Breathe in. Breathe out.
Drawback for applying NRN card
nrn citizenship
Democrats are so sure Trump will win
My facebook archive (for sale)
Nas and The Bokas: Coming to a Night Club near you
Mr. Dipak Gyawali-ji Talk is Cheap. US sends $ 200 million to Nepal every year.
Harvard Nepali Students Association Blame Israel for hamas terrorist attacks
TPS Update : Jajarkot earthquake
NOTE: The opinions here represent the opinions of the individual posters, and not of Sajha.com. It is not possible for sajha.com to monitor all the postings, since sajha.com merely seeks to provide a cyber location for discussing ideas and concerns related to Nepal and the Nepalis. Please send an email to admin@sajha.com using a valid email address if you want any posting to be considered for deletion. Your request will be handled on a one to one basis. Sajha.com is a service please don't abuse it. - Thanks.

Sajha.com Privacy Policy

Like us in Facebook!

↑ Back to Top
free counters