If we take a look at the extensive changes carried out by the governments in the post-monarchial era, the most challenging and controversial change has been the issue of democratization of Nepal Army. The reason this issue has been so controversial can be attributed to the diverse perceptions of democracy as conceptualized by various political parties, scholars and individuals. Democratization means different things to different organizations and people. Democratizing the national army according to universal tenets of democracy like electing leaders, exercising democratic rights, etc is probably out of the question. However, certain elements of democracy like adherence to law, accountability, good governance, and competence can be implemented quite realistically in the army.
The democratization of Nepal Army should center on increasing the professionalism of NA. Emphasis should be given on making NA qualified, competent and capable strategically, tactically, technically, and with respect to resources. The center of attention should be on raising the core competencies of the Army and discouraging the undue involvement of NA in political and other unaffiliated areas. Improving and maintaining these core competencies and professionalism is, in fact, at the heart of democratization of the army. The democratization must aim for competency in its given mission, civilian control—in recognition of the sovereignty of the people, protection of apolitical and non-partisan culture, inclusiveness, adherence to International Humanitarian Law and basic human rights principles, and good governance reflecting transparency, responsibility and accountability.
TRAVELANDTOURNEPAL.COM
According to Samuel Huntington, professionalism in the army comprises of expertise, responsibility and corporateness. A professional armed force does what a democratic government asks it to do on behalf of the nation and the people, it does not ask why. A professional army is never political, and vice versa. NA should internalize this, and should enhance the professional aspects of the NA personnel through trainings.
NA’s recent past has been difficult, with it getting flak for allegedly being loyal to monarchy, being undemocratic, non-inclusive, and for violating human rights. NA is probably the organization most scrutinized by civil society, media, and politicians alike. NA has established itself as a strong instrument of national security in history. NA has not only subordinated to legitimately constituted governments, but also established professional capacity and ethos by becoming more accountable and inclusive.
NA’s recent plans, policies and proceedings promise to shift the paradigm in order to give the institution a face-lift to suit the present context. These policies revolve around three realms; the need for enhanced Civil Military Relation (CMR), raising the professionalism of NA, and the welfare of soldiers. Holistically, these policies are directed at reforming the NA. NA has played an instrumental role in the integration of combatants, complying with Comprehensive Peace Accord, which is seen as a prelude to the entire peace process. NA has demonstrated that it is a major tool of the state that carries out the legitimate orders of the government of the day, which substantiates the essence of better CMR. Undoubtedly, an appropriate relationship between the military and the state manifests the functioning of a vibrant democracy.
Winston Churchill once stated that there is nothing wrong in change, if it is in the right direction. NA’s promotion system in the past was an intensely anti-entrepreneurial structure, instead of being a “cutting-edge meritocracy”. Promotion was solely based on seniority and trainings. Reward was based on the length of service rather than knowledge, intelligence, or innovation. The seniority system had culminated in widespread stagnation in middle-level officers. Frustrated with the limited upward mobility, many outstanding officers were in constant panic, and either looked for alternatives, or resigned when they found better opportunities.
Probably this prompted a reform in the promotion system, for the first time since the inception of NA. According to the new grading system outlined in the Nepal Army Service Regulation 2069, promotions are now based on scores obtained by eligible candidates for seniority, current service, work performance, training, service in remote and difficult areas, medals, and evaluations made by the promotion board. This will also send a message to junior officers to maintain high standards of integrity and professionalism. This policy, over a period of time, envisages establishing certain standards of decency and professionalism, thereby benefiting the army and the country.
Democratizing NA according to universal tenets of democracy like electing leaders is probably out of the question.
But any change in the system offers dichotomous circumstances. On the one hand, even a change for the better is always accompanied by drawbacks and discomforts. On the other hand, if we don’t change, we don’t grow, and if we don’t grow, we aren’t really living. However, there is room for improvement. It is desirable that the policies do not change with every change of command, and are allowed to stabilize over a period of 5 to 10 years before they are reviewed for their efficacy. The chunk of weightage in making policies is carried by the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) made by senior commanders. Thus the commanders need to exhibit moral courage in reporting objectively. There is also a great need for the promotion board to be surgically objective in implementing the policy to good effect and in making it sustainable. Picking vibrant and competent officers and making them future leaders on the basis of merit is praiseworthy and daring.
NA seems to be moving towards an overhaul according to the need of the hour. To achieve its objectives, NA has revealed its short term, midterm and long term goals. NA will struggle to be a high-performance organization if leaders fail to encourage thoughtful dissent. Even if the changes are brought to realization, the members of the organization are likely to want to hold on to the old systems because they justify the past and are a source of their pride and self-esteem. Naturally, any new policy when introduced is bound to attract criticism, as it entails certain sacrifices; but effort should be made to view the changes in a holistic manner.
The author is a Major in Nepal Army
Related story
Nissan unveils new Leaf car after Ghosn’s arrest delays it
