Do Not Compromise the Dignity of the Ambassadorial Post

An ambassador is a position that carries out diplomatic work for political purposes for the country where they are assigned. In this sense, an ambassador can be considered a political representative. More literally, an ambassador is a person who represents one country while residing in another. Historically, such a person would convey news, information, or messages from one king to another. An ambassador is considered a very special and authoritative person of their respective country, which is why in English they are often referred to as 'Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary'. Building relations with allies largely depends on the role played by ambassadors. The behavior they display and the diplomatic restraint they adopt determine the relationship between the two countries. This relationship can either benefit a country or lead to conflict. Therefore, someone in such a position must be knowledgeable about foreign affairs. Only with the proper knowledge, experience, and a sensible personality can an ambassador effectively maintain their role. Thus, the person appointed to this position should be respected not only by their own country but also by foreign countries.

However, Nepal has struggled to uphold such practices. Last week's cabinet meeting, which recommended ambassadors for 18 countries, failed to prioritize expertise. While some candidates including two career diplomats have relevant experience, most others do not seem to have possessed such qualities. In a multi-party democratic system, the government is run by party leaders. So, it is not unreasonable for them to appoint ambassadors of their likings. However, prioritizing party workers over qualified candidates for such crucial positions is against the dignity of such posts. Of course, party members may expect rewards, but there are numerous other posts that can be given to party loyalists. Parties like the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, which have millions of members, include thousands of individuals knowledgeable about foreign affairs. Yet, despite recommending party loyalists, those expertise with foreign affairs are conspicuously missing in the list.  The current NC-UML coalition government was expected to address such distortions, but as it seems the issue will continue to persist. It is true that party leaders find it difficult to manage their supporters, but there are many other positions they can use as rewards. About 36,000 positions with state privileges exist in local bodies as well as other state bodies. It is ironic that leaders still lack the knowledge of who should be appointed. It is dangerous to think that only those close to them, or those who are not potential threats, are considered eligible for the post of ambassadors. It is unfortunate that the country bears the cost of leaders' narrow-minded selections based on personal connections rather than merit.

The recommendation of ambassadors is also flawed from the standpoint of inclusion. Out of 18 appointees, 15 are from the same community and only four are women, which contradicts our constitution's goal of ensuring all state agencies are inclusive and proportionate. No one from the Dalit community, which makes up around 13 percent of the total population, has been included. It appears the leaders of major parties are content with maintaining the status quo. There is a pressing need to create practical and effective criteria for appointing ambassadors. While the appointment will inevitably be made by party leaders and incumbents, it is crucial to make the process transparent. People have a right to know the qualifications and experience of nominees and their intended contributions as ambassadors. If this transparency is ensured, people may accept appointees even if they are close to a party. However, those who recommend or appoint should be accountable for the nation's investment and time wasted if unqualified individuals are appointed over those with expertise in the field.