I was in Kathmandu for a few days in the aftermath of Gen Z protests. I
had the opportunity to speak with some friends, which helped me understand
the current course of public debates about the future of Nepal. I observed a
mixed feeling of optimism and caution among the people I talked with. While I am positive about the political
change that the protests have brought about, I think Nepal (especially the Gen
Z) needs to examine certain assumptions more seriously. In the following, I
present a list of some assumptions that, in my opinion, need more in-depth
debates/discussions.
Assumption 1: A Presidential system means stability.
No, it doesn’t. It is true that directly elected presidents are often
able to complete their full terms. However, this does not mean the governments
led by presidents are stable and effective. Presidential systems in the
underdeveloped countries, where state institutions are weak, are often the
source of corruption, autocracy, and deeper political conflicts. The
Philippines has a presidential system, but is one of the most corrupt nations
in the world. Sri Lanka has had a bitter experience with the presidential
system. Most African nations in East (e.g., Kenya and Malawi), Central/West
(e.g., Benin, Sierra Leone), and North (e.g., Egypt, Tunisia) Africa have a presidential
system of government. You can check the status of these nations in the world
corruption ranking and corruption index. One additional danger of directly
elected presidents is that such a system quickly and easily grows into a
full-blown autocracy.
Assumption 2: We need less democracy and more development.
Wrong. Democracy is never an obstacle to development. On the contrary,
democracy is a very important basis for building a strong and stable economy. A
nation marked by ethnic, linguistic, and geographical diversity (like Nepal)
can greatly benefit from a democratic system and its institutions, which
provide space and opportunities for everyone to contribute to its economy. People
often talk about China and Singapore as examples of successful autocracies -but
one needs to see the fallacy inherent in these examples. Today’s economic
progress of China is not the result of its autocracy. China is an extreme
example of a homogeneous country with a strong public feeling for the ancient
Chinese civilization, which was built on the principle of order. Singapore is a
city-state that benefited from the special circumstances resulting from the
supremacy of the US and the Western nations after World War II. Nepal is
different. Nepal’s geopolitical reality, historical experiences and social-economic contexts are completely different from China or Singapore. Nepal
cannot become strong without building transparent, accountable, and inclusive
institutions.
Assumption 3: Honest (non-corrupt) leaders will solve Nepal's problems.
True, but only partially. It is very important that political leaders are honest. This is perhaps the primary or fundamental criterion for anyone to be trusted as a leader. However, honesty is not a sufficient quality for a leader. An honest leader, if not pragmatic and accountable to her/his constituency (i.e., people), can be equally harmful. Moreover, honesty is difficult to measure, and unfortunately, often a complex standard used for the assessment of a political leader. A leader needs to be assessed in terms of her/his performance in the assigned role with objective criteria. For example, a leader leading the Ministry of Agriculture needs to be assessed in terms of increased crop productivity, increased income of farmers, positive changes in farming practices, etc., all of which require systemic reforms and restructuring with a sound vision and long-term strategy. Honesty is required in the performance of such a leader, but that is not enough. S/he needs the ability to engage with different stakeholders, build a long-term strategy, negotiate with other ministries and/or levels of government, and effectively implement the strategy. Corruption should never be tolerated and strongly punished, but non-corruption should not be overemphasized as a sufficient quality.
Assumption 4: Centralized decision-making is better.
Wrong. A government system needs to function based on the principle of subsidiarity. This means that tasks/functions must be addressed/handled by the lowest possible level of government. If a certain function can be handled locally by the local authority/level, they should be given the power and resources to do so. For example, the beekeepers in a certain municipality in Chitawan need certain technical skills to enhance or maintain the productivity of honey. In this case, it shouldn’t be the provinces or the federal government to engage with and facilitate the beekeepers. The concerned municipality has to arrange the required technical skills for the local farmers. The municipality can do it more efficiently and cost-effectively than other levels of government. In a federal system or a unitary system, different levels of government have their specific tasks and functions (e.g., printing money and managing foreign relations are the tasks of the federal government). These different functions for different levels are defined in our constitution. A government becomes ineffective when a particular level of government forgets this simple principle and oversteps its mandate. The recent decision of the information minister to provide free wi-fi to citizens in different cities is one interesting example in which he is overstepping the jurisdiction of the local governments.
Assumption 5: Development can be achieved overnight.
Overcoming poverty and achieving economic and social development is a long and complex process. It requires long-term vision; programmes to effectively utilize the country’s existing capacities and resources; and a strategy to build non-existent but required capacities. All of these are possible through reforms in various sectors (e.g., education, agriculture, tourism, trade and commerce, health systems, etc.). There are no quick fixes. We should not forget, for example, that today's economic prosperity of China is the outcome of decades of careful planning and strategic thinking, which was implemented through various reform programmes. Nepal’s transformation will require a strong collaboration of the country’s experts/planners/policymakers. Therefore, it is unhelpful to assume that a charismatic and honest individual will fix everything and produce the results very quickly. We also need to manage our expectations and believe in processes and systems -rather than in individuals and their superpowers.
