The existing public sector institutions obviously have enormous advantages over to-be institutions. The National Planning Commission (NPC), for example, is a good source of institutional memory on Nepal's developmental needs; the Ministry of Physical Infrastructure and Transport Management is equipped with hundreds of highly qualified engineers; the Ministry of General Administration can provide dozens of competent public managers; the Ministry of Finance has already been tapping both domestic and external financial sources; and the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development can mobilize hundreds of local bodies in the reconstruction process.On the other hand, the presence of private sector in Nepal's public sector management has been well recognized, particularly during Maoist insurgency. Despite some limitations, the Nepali private sector contributes to as much as 78 percent of our capital formation which indicates its potential to contribute to national reconstruction. The nongovernmental sector, however, has been seriously criticized mainly for lack of accountability and transparency. Regulatory reform should therefore reorient NGOs to turn them into important actors in the reconstruction process.
But there has been a perceived lack of trust in governance for over few decades. People hardly trust governmental initiatives; private sector is always suspicious about government's policies and plans; and most importantly, the nongovernment sector has been working to counter the government. In many situations—even in this extraordinarily painful situation— governmental institutions have been reactive rather than proactive. The post-disaster management has thus been botched. So what is the way forward?
This article will take up a less discussed issue of reconstruction: citizen participation. The current discussions on reconstruction capture the political, administrative and financial aspects of governance. But top-down approaches are still the most common. An example is the competition among existing public sector institutions, including the NPC, to lead the reconstruction process. The notion of citizen engagement in the reconstruction has therefore been neglected. Who is taking care of real demands of the poor, victimized and very ordinary citizens at large?
Because there have not been local elections for over a decade, people in rural areas are now less aware of their right to get involved in the decisions that affect them. Central government agencies at the district level have been constantly enlarging there spheres by enforcing 'top-down' culture. Except in planning process, local bodies do not recognize citizen participation. Instead, local bodies have been recognized as the most incapable local institutions for handling even small issues. Many NGOs have been operated by family members and relatives. Political parties at local level are not demanding participation of ordinary citizens in political decision-making.
In this context, creating a separate reconstruction authority would undermine the right of the citizens to be involved in government decision-making. The current initiatives of NPC in creating a database of victims and damaged property would certainly give us a greater insight, but NPC does not necessarily adopt bottom-up planning in long-term reconstruction. The prevailing status of local bodies also does not ensure citizen participation. In general, Nepal's existing governance structure lacks institutional framework that promotes citizen participation. Comprehensive public sector reform is therefore necessary so as to recognize the importance of citizen engagement and thereby establish citizen-centric institutions.
Citizen participation in reconstruction should be understood in at least four terms: inclusion, decision making power, influence of participants on rules and quality deliberation. The conventional understanding of inclusion should be widened and incorporate the notion of including all 'victims'. Representation of people from different socio-economic backgrounds would certainly help, but it would not capture the spirit of inclusion in the reconstruction process. People at decision-making level should henceforth be enabled to influence the rules and overall functioning of the institution they represent. The reconstruction authority, if created, must be equipped with these elements. A careful legislative mandate should be given to this authority.
Alternatively, the government should not delay local elections. Regardless of disadvantages of representative democracy, people in rural villages should have somebody to 'speak' on their behalf. Some villages are to be moved to safe districts: who will speak on or against these moves at local level? Do the central government or bureaucrats working for it always have to impose their decisions on local people? And to what extent are ordinary people exercising their constitutionally guaranteed 'right to get involved' in decision-making?
The author is pursuing PhD on Public Sector Reforms at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra, Australia
thaneshwar.bhusal@canberra.edu.au
Related story
Local governments allowing mining in Chure to generate income
_20220319002712.jpg)
