Ongoing post-conflict recovery will be complicated by post-disaster recovery and reconstruction (R&R). Finance Minister Ram Sharan Mahat is reported to have said that business as usual will not work in post-disaster recovery and reconstruction. True. But we are yet to see how R&R is going to be different in current transition in which constitution writing and federalism has marginalized development efforts. The government's recent decision to conduct an assessment of earthquake impact is welcome as the information could be crucial to design R&R activities.If we take the disaster as an opportunity, this could be the right time to institutionalize change. However, we cannot disregard the reality that it is not only government plans, but also bureaucracy and interplay between politics and aid governance that will determine pace of R&R. Therefore, two key institutions, political parties and bureaucracy, need to be transformed to rebuild speedily.
R&R is essentially a political process. However, politicization of R&R aid is problematic. Political parties may naturally have differences, but humanitarian action and response should be beyond politics. This ideal, however, is seldom practiced as we see the disaster already being manipulated by vested interests.
The fact that six governments were formed in the last eight years means that our national politics was centered on making and breaking governments, rather than constitution writing, formation of transitional justice mechanisms and post-war recovery and reconstruction. Lengthy political transition has made people weary about emerging "political class" which is seen as apathetic to public concerns.
Amidst this unfolding of chaos, political debate in Kathmandu has shifted to a national unity government. But is government change the need of the day? Renegotiating power balance right now could have all kinds of implications in R&R initiatives. First, national unity government will annul the presence of strong and constructive opposition in parliament, which, in turn, will increase the chances of power abuse.
National unity government will hardly result in political "unity" and "consensus." This is because every major party is fragmented in a way that intra-party "opposition" has in the past been used to bring down governments.
Second, skeptical about government's transparency and capability, a segment of international community wants to bypass government mechanisms. While government change is unlikely to redress such skepticism, it could instead deprive the country of much-needed recovery aid.
Third, it won't be a surprise if PM Sushil Koirala and his team is replaced by political "king makers" who are looking for an opportune moment to shift the power balance. It is likely that politics will once again be centralized in Kathmandu, resulting in slow recovery and reconstruction. Local political leaders in districts are seen to have monopolized aid materials and civil society is credited for rescue and relief works.
This dynamic could weaken state-society social contract and shift public trust from government to civil society organizations. The outcome could be NGO-ization of aid with NGOs thriving and seeking justifications to bypass government.
Political parties and government are different entities. However, because the Constituent Assembly overlaps the parliament, people cannot differentiate the two roles. Same with CA members and political leaders. As a result, CA members could be victims of public frustration because of government inaction. People's spontaneous engagement has proved useful. However, this is also expression of how disenchantment with government and antipathy with political parties are growing in villages. In the long run, this can either spur another radical political movement or support 'new power'.
In fact, future of CA members is now contingent on quality of R&R works in their constituencies. Many CA members are therefore busy in villages. This is commendable but they should also focus on leveraging government for equitable distribution of aid. This is how they can salvage their image.
As the permanent government, bureaucracy is at the forefront of R&R works. But our bureaucracy remains conservative. To sustain power and avert royal influence, post-1990 democratic governments hesitated to reform bureaucracy which was loyal to the palace. Instead, they chose to co-opt powerful bureaucrats to curtail direct and indirect influence of the palace. An opportunity to reform the bureaucracy was lost.
Parties politicized the bureaucracy, which led to sluggish public service delivery and increasing corruption. There have been efforts by select bureaucrats to institutionalize good governance and improve service delivery, although these efforts were "personality driven", rather than "system driven".
The contribution of public officials in relief and rescue works cannot be discredited. However, R&R requires not only managerial and technical skills, but also long term commitments, decentralized administration, transparency and effective monitoring and evaluations. It is to be seen how the bureaucracy can resist politicization of R&R in local context where party representatives exercise more power than junior government officers. R&R is a big challenge in a public service system where inaction is the norm.
Mahat is right to point at the need to go beyond "business as usual", but unfortunately he has to deal with the same-old bureaucracy. So, may be, the earthquake could perhaps mark the beginning of transformation of our politics, aid governance and bureaucracy.
The author is a researcher focusing on the issues of conflict, peace, security and development
db_subedi@yahoo.co.uk
Related story
Change of Guard and OBOR
