Once upon a time, the then two biggest mainstream parties in agitation mode had exhorted the very same business community not to pay tax to the government of the day, promising to legitimize that act of “civil disobedience” upon reclaiming the reins of power.
If the end justified the means back then, the precedent cannot be gainsaid now. On the face of it, all that the business honchos want is a congenial business climate, including security of property, life and limb. And they are only using a tool taught to them by those who now rule the roost in Singha Durbar. Yet a ruling party functionary retorts that they should demand security from the government instead of issuing the no-tax threat. Unanswered remains the question as to whether it is not the basic duty of the government to maintain law and order of its own volition, without being told to. But then we live in such times when it is de rigueur to describe a crippling nationwide strike as “largely peaceful” just because vandalism is minimal by our standards, ignoring the fact that it is only out of sheer fear that shopkeepers down their shutters or motor vehicles stay off the road, no matter what the political order is.
BARE IT ALL
On second thoughts, the ruling party official is right in one sense. Some businesspeople with deep pockets are Constituent Assembly members. Upon their appointment, several of them had been rather quick to deny having any political affiliation as such, and pledged to utilize their positions for industrial sector development. If they are not satisfied with the law and order situation, or have an issue with the labor movement, or want a steady power supply, why don’t they demand a collective audience with their political patrons, put forth their demands and, if their demands are not met within a given timeframe, quit the CA? What’s the point in continuing as CA members when they are not able to even deliver what they had promised their own kind? To be sure, even the congenitally cynical would find it hard to believe that they are clinging to their CA seats for the salary and perks it offers. Unless, of course, there is more to their anointment to the constitution-making body than meets the naïve eye.
Lack of financial probity in political parties has been the bane of Nepali democracy. Virtually all electoral candidates—or at least those who hope to win—violate the stipulated limit on electioneering expenses, and get away with it.
The organized business community has also been asked by some ruling party stalwarts to make public the “extortion” money paid to a particular party (read CPN-Maoist). It is not clear, however, whether the demand only relates to the payments made after the ex-rebels were mainstreamed or also to those made during the Janayuddha days. Remember how popular cheap but comfy local walking shoes of a certain variety and chowchow of a certain brand were among rank-and-file insurgents? It would be more pertinent to ask which major business house did not provide “donations”—euphemism for protection money—to the rebels than which did. Aiding the rebels might have been against the law back then. But in the light of subsequent political changes, those who did so can easily claim the moral high ground, to have had the foresight to contribute to a worthy cause. For, one does not need to be an Einstein to tell which party New Nepal owes its key political features to.
Although the leaders of the organized business community threatened to stop providing “donations” to political parties as a whole if the latter did not get their act together, there is yet to be a statement by any prominent leader of a ruling party or party-affiliated member of the intelligentsia demanding that business leaders make public their “voluntary” donations to the coffers of political parties of all hues, too. This is not surprising. Doing so would be suicidal—for parochial party and personal interests, if not for democracy.
Lack of financial probity in political parties has been the bane of Nepali democracy. Virtually all electoral candidates—or at least those who hope to win—violate the stipulated limit on electioneering expenses, and get away with it. Further, whether it is to organize annual tea parties or carry out day-to-day organizational operations, it costs money. Proceeds from levies on party members are grossly insufficient. Assorted vested interests foot the bill. Business houses are dependable sources of party income, though at the cost of allowing them to influence public policy. The quid pro quo takes the form of, inter alia, provisions in the annual budget that serve the interests of certain business group(s), and securing concessions beneficial to certain business group(s) during trade negotiations with other countries. Yet, billionaires who try to extract the maximum possible publicity mileage for being gracious enough to cough up a couple of hundred thousand rupees as relief aid to disaster victims are loath to reveal details of their contributions to party kitties!
Of course, it would be gross injustice to just single out the business community. Foreign interest groups, often channeling funds through proxy organizations of the non-governmental variety, are no less important a source of income for some political parties. Powerful political, economic, strategic and theological interests are behind the apparent generosity. Although the pound of flesh they ultimately extract is usually far more detrimental to national interests than the quid pro quo secured by vested domestic business interests, their subtle machinations attract little public attention.
ROAD TO BAD GOVERNANCE
It is incumbent on any democratic party worth its name to make public all its sources of income—not just levies paid by its members but also donations from business groups together with contributions from its loyalists and anonymous supporters in the intelligentsia and civil society. They should have their accounts duly audited. A law that bans parties from contesting elections if they have not had their accounts audited would be welcome. Transparency, however, should not be confined to pecuniary matters alone. There are non-pecuniary perks of serving vested, particularly external, interests—educational quotas and scholarships for the offspring of political leaders, as well as for budding leaders. A clear party policy on this matter—a powerful determinant of who really calls the shots in national policymaking—is long overdue.
Without addressing such a basic issue of financial probity at the party level, stamping out corruption nationwide is a pipedream. Take a look at the democracies that New Nepal is supposed to strive to become and that also happen to be Nepal’s major donors from the western hemisphere. Political parties and politicians there cannot make a secret of the sources and magnitude of their funding for long without incurring the wrath of the law. Alert voters can sooner or later know who finances whom, and vote accordingly.
The prevailing discourse on governance in Nepal, unfortunately, pays little attention to such an important issue. Projects on good governance and political transformation have yet to firmly spot it on their radar. These happen to be times when corruption is hardly an issue of mainstream debate. In fact, it is being rationalized on the grounds that the country is in transition. So if we are in for perpetual transition, as developments do indicate, we might as well resign ourselves to perpetual corruption and bad governance.
kharelparas@yahoo.com
Related story
Sugar factories ‘show interest’ in paying cane farmers after th...
_20240311121839.jpg)
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
