Views of a Nepali Economist

Development and Politics in Nepal

The problem with developmental process in Nepal is this: it is mired in politics. We in Nepal, involved in the developmental processes, have a hard time realizing the fact that development should be an apolitical process. If we wish to succeed, we need to separate the politics from the developmental process. However, there is a noticeable feeling in the Nepali development community that in order to achieve true and effective development in Nepal, the bureaucratic and the political actors need to get involved in any and all development processes. That, I think, is a fallacy that we continue to suffer from to this day.

Development activities in Nepal will not succeed if the targeted group knows that political actors are involved in the process—either as facilitators or as decision makers. This is because the Nepali public has a genuine distrust and loathing towards politics and politicians. And, this is where many development organizations in Nepal have gone wrong. They have clearly been affected by the political process and actors. Many openly cavort to those in the political spectrum while at the same time claiming to be apolitical and non-partisan to their core customers. When the public discovers this, it views it as a charade and a façade. This negative vibe in the public, then, hinders the effect and influence of such organizations. As a result, the desired outcomes do not occur, and the developmental activities become ineffective and a failure. This has become a common storyline among donor funded agencies operating in Nepal today.

Now, it would be unfair to put 100 percent of the blame on these organizations for this inability to separate the politics from development. I guess cavorting and cohorting with politics is a survival strategy. Without active support and participation of political parties and actors, these programs face greater difficulty succeeding in Nepal regardless of the strength and/or capacity of the program or the organization running that program. These organizations have come to the brutal realization that in order to succeed in Nepal, the political “connection” is a must. And, so, they do in Rome what Romans do: establish and enhance political connections.

Unstable politics and government in Nepal is one reason why these organizations cavort to the politicians. We have lost count of how many prime ministers we have had since the democracy in 1990. We have lost count of how many governments we have had. The constantly changing political and governmental landscape makes it difficult for development organizations in Nepal to carry on their activities if they do not establish political influence and links. Therefore, the political connection and hobnobbing continues today while claiming to be apolitical to the public, potential donors and funders.

The claim of being apolitical has been nothing but a tactic to provide refuge and a safe working environment for their workers who work with the public day in and day out all over Nepal. The hobnobbing with the politicians has been nothing but a tactic to provide a safe bureaucratic and political environment for continued presence in this country.

While it is understandable that these organizations have had to cater to the masses as well as to those in the political spectrum for their existence and continued work, it is also true that their political relationships diminish their essence. Although they do not wish to acknowledge, it cannot be denied that their increasing connection with those in politics has contributed to increased corruption and abuses of power in Nepal. The closer ties of our politicians with these organizations enable the politicians to think that their interaction, participation and influence on these organizations will blanket them from any or all criticisms. The development organizations in Nepal are making their own work difficult by providing this sort of sense of security to our political actors. Can we deny the fact that free money that the Maoist party kept getting from various foreign donors, in one way or another, helped develop the thuggish wing of the party? That is, but, only one example. The hobnobbing has hindered political accountability.

Marina Liborakina, a Russian activist, once said, “As citizens, we are responsible for how we are governed. The main issue is…to broaden citizens’ participation…especially in decision-making on crucial issues of security, peace and military”. However, in today’s Nepal, this has not been possible. Activists have a difficult time fulfilling their responsibilities because the kind of support they expect from various organizations is lacking. And, the reason it is lacking is because those involved in the developmental process in this country have not separated themselves from politics.