In the restructure that took place, soon after the 1990s, the ministry was subjected to a considerable retrenchment. Its existing organizational and human resource structure suffered a drastic cut in the drive for a lean and effective administration. These so-called structural reforms were carried out rather hastily. Little homework was done how the considerably downsized ministry could measure up to the foreign policy implementation challenges in the post-democratic Nepal. Successive governments did bother little to develop the ministry as an essential tool to engage itself effectively with the international community. Nor was it cognizant that international relations management required the application of specialized knowledge and professionalism through the creation of a separate foreign service. The call for creating a separate “foreign service” through introduction of a stand-alone Foreign Service Act to regulate the entire foreign service, on a fair, professional and rule-based fashion was unfortunately turned down for more than two decades.
Finally, a separate Foreign Service Act has been enacted and enforced, some three years ago. It is a positive development, no doubt, but the Act painfully lacks enough teeth. Among others, the Act looks conspicuous by its silence about the appointment of ambassadors; in the absence of a clear provision in the Act, ambassadors’ appointment still remains a political prerogative. On the other hand, a clear, effective and strong regulatory mechanism is also not in place, as yet, to render foreign service truly, transparent, merit-based and professional.
Growing politicization, patronization and cronyism that were not only allowed to thrive but also encouraged greatly by the political parties in power have been largely responsible for the sharp erosion of the image and standing of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
One would wonder what the term knowledge-centric foreign service could possibly mean in relation to the conduct of foreign policy. A knowledge-centric/based foreign service would strive, among others, for creating conducive enough environments in the institution where only the best and the brightest, committed and capable professionals are taken, trained, retained and assigned responsibilities, as appropriate. But, above anything else, it presupposes, among others, (a) pursuit of a consensus foreign policy (b) a sharp, enlightened, honest and committed political leadership (c) non-politicization of foreign ministry (d) recruitment of a competent, committed and specialized workforce to deal with country-specific issues in a coordinated and informed manner. It is a fact that a well-informed and knowledgeable person is the one who commands respect and well-listened to everywhere; and more so in foreign service. Our strength, therefore, must be our knowledge, which is, and should be, the key to safeguarding our longer-term national interests. And this is what knowledge-centric foreign service is all about.
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Normally, knowledge is understood as a combination of information, training, experience and intuition. In diplomacy, it can manifest in a range of forms; it could be general knowledge acquired and gathered in the course of regular education, or the knowledge of particular subjects, such as international relations and international law gathered through specialized diplomatic training and knowledge gained through work experience. Knowledge of different countries’ culture, geography and religion, diplomatic norms, procedures and decorum also falls in its scope.
Knowledge-centric foreign service, on the other hand, places emphasis not only on the primacy of the acquisition of “knowledge”, but also on its proper acquisition, application, and enrichment to achieve the stated foreign policy goals and objectives. Being able to manage the acquired knowledge in the right time and right situation is equally important. Individual efforts to manage and apply one’s knowledge are important, too, but when it comes to its application for institutional goal realization, then institutional management efforts become paramount. Access to information, printed, or electronic, and their interpretation in the context of specific foreign policy needs is another important aspect of knowledge management.
A well-stocked library and smooth and easy internet access facility for all staff is equally important. Knowledge management would also entail the development of an institutional system where the areas of strengths/weaknesses of each officer is tracked right from the entry point and groomed all through, along with the constant opportunities for training exposures, at home and abroad, to enhance and replenish working capabilities. This is how appropriate experts and specialists in a wide array of diplomatic fields, bilateral and multilateral, are groomed.
Undoubtedly, effective management and appropriate application of knowledge is and should be an important aspect in the conduct of foreign policy. Just as the paucity or glut of information poses problem, in the absence of the ability to sieve their appropriate application, so does the overabundance of knowledge scattered in an institution. Knowledge management, not knowledge deficit in its proper context, therefore, is extremely important. It is not that the ministry suffers from knowledge deficit; there are many competent officers at all levels. It is knowledge management that the ministry awfully lacks. When young generation of bright and promising officers join the ministry with high hopes of being seen, evaluated, recognized and rewarded on the basis of their merit and performance, the existing bureaucracy in the ministry is so awfully ill-managed that it cannot assign them responsibilities, keeping in view of their areas of strength, knowledge and competence.
In other words, there is no system in place for assigning right man in the right place and with the right job. The post-90 period have seen the ministry thrown into a state of deliberate neglect by whichever party came to power with the result that the ministry slowly began to lose much of its professional sheen. Growing politicization, patronization and cronyism that were not only allowed to thrive but also encouraged greatly by the political parties in power have been largely responsible for the sharp erosion of the image and standing of the ministry. Setting into motion sweeping administrative and institutional reforms, so as to move positively toward “knowledge-centric foreign service” should, therefore, be one of the long-term foreign policy goals of the future government. But the million dollar question is: Will that ever materialize?
(Writer is former Chief of Protocol.)
bhimsen29@gmail.com
Related story
ISPs warn of internet service disruption from next week as they...
