Why governance matters

Nepal has been a country in transition for the last two decades. In this timeframe, it has gone from being an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy to a republic. These are significant achievements in what is a short span of time; but in the process, Nepal has also suffered from an acute lack of effective democratic governance which has translated into a lack of development.  

The pursuit of inclusive economic growth and sustainable human development should form the foundation for policymaking in the developing world. One of the key factors underpinning the degree of success countries have enjoyed in meeting development challenges is that of democratic governance, and the quality and legitimacy of its institutions. Poor governance either undermines the effectiveness of policies or prevents policymaking altogether.  

Today, Nepal is confronted with multiple challenges that include, but are not limited to, stagnant economies, poor physical and social infrastructure, a prevalence of poverty and a lack of investments. These challenges can be attributed to poor governance and weak institutions that are often struggling to establish their legitimacy.  

Since 1990, Nepal has not seen a single government serve its full term in office. The extent of the political instability comes to light when one considers that Nepal has had 18 different governments in the last 22 years, excluding two periods of direct rule by the King.  

The culmination of the civil war in 2006 brought along its own set of governance challenges which Nepal has not been able to cope with fully. The country has only had an interim constitution since 2008. Its elected Constituent Assembly also served as an interim government from 2008 until May 2012 when it was dissolved. Today Nepal has a caretaker government.  

Nepal achieved democracy, but not enough time was invested in entrenching and sustaining the democratic advances made. One political crisis after another further eroded the legitimacy of its already frail institutions.  

As a result of these problems, Nepal has suffered from a development deficit. The political parties have not been in a position to invest enough time, thought and effort into creating a sound development policy. In the few instances they have, they have not remained in government for long enough to see the implementation of these policies through. Successive governments have spent significant time and resources trying to ensure their longevity, and have not focused on laying down policies that could boost development in Nepal.  

The last time Nepalese citizens had the opportunity to elect their representatives to parliament was 14 years ago in 1999. This has led to severe problems of accountability and legitimacy. People don’t have a say in how they are administered, and even the legitimacy of institutions is questioned. Today, several people in the country query the legitimacy of the Maoist-led caretaker government, and the legality of its decisions is being questioned.  

The key problem is that the senior leaders of the key political parties – the Maoists, the Congress and the CPN (UML) – are not accountable to the public so long as a new constitution for the country not promulgated, which is when they will be faced with electoral pressure. Only when Nepal has its next election to the Constituent Assembly (who knows when that will be?) will people have a chance to elect their representatives again. Till such time that happens, the divide between the political parties and the populace will continue to deepen.  

For now, democratic governance is all but absent as citizens are neither properly represented in government, nor allowed to participate in decision-making through institutional frameworks. Besides, there is little to no accountability as politicians have not been faced with electoral anxiety for the last five years. This has all led to an acute legitimacy crisis for the government, which in turn continues to impede its performance. 

(This was a column printed in the Himalayan Times on 24 February 2013)