Against Thatcher's dictum, Nepal's main political parties have agreed, in principle, to form consensus government after the devastating April-May earthquakes. Besides, the proposal to establish an all-powerful reconstruction authority, is also gaining traction. Excellent for incompetent politicians to shift the blame and greedy politicians to make money, both ideas are counterproductive.
Let's start with consensus government. Sure, such government makes sense for a new constitution. It may help find agreement on contentious issues and speed up the process, because constitution making mostly involves words. However, reconstruction and development involves huge amounts of money, resulting in collusion to share the spoils. There is opposition in democracy for a reason.Opposition parties watch over government and check it from going to extremes, offer competing narratives for progress, inform the public about the government's excesses and mistakes, and present alternatives in elections. A national government—without a political watchdog—goes against the basic norms of democracy; it rather promotes collusion, abuses and corruption.
Nepal is not the first democratic country to face a big disaster and reconstruction challenges. European democracies and the United States have fought two World Wars and several other catastrophic conflicts without any national government. Each year, America suffers from colossal destruction from hurricanes, tornados, fire and earthquakes, but no one has ever suggested that a national government is needed to deal with their aftermath. Neither has India ever pursued such a horrendous idea, even though it has fought several wars and insurgencies and tackled numerous disasters.
Why? Because consensus government is the sugar-coated first step to dictatorship, where there is no legitimate opposition to question the actions and excesses of the state and to hold it to account politically at parliament and at polls.
Similarly, no other country has created an all-powerful reconstruction authority having jurisdictions over most aspects of government in disaster-affected areas. The reason is simple. It flouts the principles of checks and balances, creates overlapping jurisdictions, duplicates functions and expertise with regular agencies, and causes non-optimal use of scarce resources.
In Nepal, the idea of consensus government is motivated by anything but better governance. The political parties and their leaders have two objectives. One, they want to be partners in corruption rather than watching over each other to minimize the scourge. Two, they have narrow agendas. Sushil Koirala wants it to reduce the CPN-UML's stranglehold on his government. Sher Bahadur Deuba wants it to replace Koirala. Madhav Nepal wants it to form a UML-led government by removing Koirala. Pushpa Kamal Dahal wants to have his hand in the till and Baburam Bhattarai wants to head the reconstruction authority to run a parallel government.
To be sure, an authority can be useful for sectoral activities. The Rastra Bank regulates banks and the Electricity Authority produces and distributes electricity. You can also establish an organization for the growth of a limited area with limited jurisdiction, though the challenges of checks and balances and accountability to apply resources judiciously would remain.
However, having an overarching national authority for reconstruction of Gorkha to Sankhuwasabha, which the earthquakes have affected, goes against national interest. First, it is undemocratic. The Army has floated the idea and the Maoists have endorsed it. They share one thing: their craving for absolute power. The Maoists are outright pro-dictatorship. The Armies in developing countries seek to emulate the Pakistani military that keeps the elected government under its thumb, takes power at will and controls lucrative military businesses.
Second, it will create a parallel government. No matter who heads the authority, they will be running a parallel government in the disaster-affected areas. Baburam Bhattarai and the Army brass want that job. Bhattarai wants to resurrect the parallel government that he headed during Maoist insurgency. He will seek to convert the quake-afflicted areas into Maoist fortes as part of his quest for communist dictatorship.
He is brilliant for destruction, not for reconstruction. As head of the Maoist parallel government, he destroyed schools, bridges, and health posts during the insurgency; and as head of the Nepal government, he destroyed thousands of houses in Kathmandu. He is already on record that the earthquakes should be used as a pretext to destroy thousands of more houses in Kathmandu to expand the roads at the cost of poor and needy people. As for reconstruction, what precisely has he constructed or developed as head of government? Give me one credible example.
The Army brass that cites UN quick-impact projects in peacekeeping areas as a model actually want to widen its power and build its own economic empire, as in Pakistan.
Government is about making the best choice among competing interests and options. The most effective way for reconstruction of quake-devastated areas is the simplest way. Do not concentrate power further in national government or in a reconstruction authority. Delegate it to the local level, specifically to the affected groups and give them the resources and technical backup. Let the beneficiaries decide what they want and how they want and let them do it.
This approach will produce the most desirable results. It will empower people, take resources to where they are needed, create jobs locally, and minimize corruption, for everyone knows how much one is getting. In this model, a large share of the cost of decision-making and reconstruction would come from voluntary participation and labor, as people would want to be involved in the construction of their houses, temples, roads and other local infrastructures.
We have our own successful experiences in this respect. Poverty has declined steadily because government allowed people to travel abroad for foreign employment and provided small credit to farmers to work on their own, not because the government created jobs. The forests, destroyed by nationalization, have started resurging after the government gave the local consumers direct stakes in forest management.
This is time for leaders to focus their energy and attention on relief and rehabilitation, not waste their time bickering over a new government and going to senior leaders' doors to find a place in the Cabinet.
I am not surprised that politicians want to share the booty in the name of national government as there will be a huge injection of resources from domestic and international sources and that the Maoists and Army want a reconstruction authority. What surprises me is the supportive or lackadaisical attitude of civil society to these horrible ideas.
Some commentators have backed these unequivocally undemocratic ideas without thinking for a moment about their implications for democracy, accountability, clean government and judicious use of available resources. NGOs, most of whom are associated with one or another political party, have not spoken against these proposals either.
Abba Eban says, "Consensus is what many people say in chorus but do not believe as individuals." To ride over the crisis, Nepal needs belief, not empty chorus. Therefore, the ideas of consensus government and its sibling, reconstruction authority with mega powers, are counterproductive— in fact suicidal for democracy, human rights, and democratic parties.
The author is with International Hotel Group in London
Related story
Prince William concerned at 'terrible human cost' of Middle Eas...
