Submit your Article

Spread over 66 pages and 145 points, the policies and programs President Bidya Devi Bhandari presented before the federal parliament on May 24 was rather unwieldy. Rather than being a concise list of its priorities, governments over the years have tried to cram in as many points as they possibly could in this pre-budget document. What this does is undercut the credibility of the policies and programs, or what should be the state’s most important priority. It also makes people question the government’s competence.

Many of the promises are unrealistic too. As we have been reporting over the past few months, progress on the Kathmandu-Tarai fast-track project has been glacial. In over five years that the project has been handed over to Nepal Army, only 16.1 percent of work has been completed. Yet the new policies and programs commit to completing the whole thing by its new 2024 deadline. If achieved, this would be a mini-miracle. The new government document also says construction of the Nijgadh International Airport the fast-track will connect to will also get momentum—even as the debate over its desirability rages on.

There are some good points about the document as well. For instance, it vows to take steps to prevent land fragmentation. This is vital at a time even agricultural and forest lands are being ‘plotted’ for residential purposes, often by wrecking the surrounding environment. Full digitization of land administration, the provision of identity cards for poor families, the new emphasis on organic farming, fast tracking of truth and reconciliation, more support for local industries and goods—these are all appreciable initiatives.

But then this coalition government could be gone in as early as next six months following federal elections. Successive governments have traditionally been very reluctant to embrace the policies and programs of their predecessors, especially if they happen to be of a different political persuasion. The other area of doubt is lack of focus on helping the country tide over the current economic crisis. Coming at such a vital time, this document could have represented a welcome break with the past. Alas, it’s more of the same.

The tortoise-paced vote-counting following the May 13 local elections is a farce. With better preparation, the Election Commission could easily have arranged for more counting stations and personnel to tally votes in big cities like Kathmandu and Bharatpur. Surely the commission officials understand that prompt results are among the salient features of free and fair elections. The longer the results take, the greater the suspicions of foul play. And why keep counting votes for up to a month when you could literally do it in minutes? 

To its credit, the Election Commission has repeatedly tried to phase-in electronic voting. During the 2008 Constituent Assembly election, the commission had piloted electronic voting in some booths of Kathmandu constituency number 1. Both local and international poll observers had deemed the pilot a success and encouraged wider adoption of electronic voting. Yet Nepal to this day continues to exclusively rely on paper. The major political parties are apparently unconvinced that the machines cannot be tampered with. But experiences from around the world suggest paper voting is more amenable to tampering and fraud—by a magnitude—compared to electronic voting. If India, with its wretched history of electoral violence and rigging, now has no qualms about embracing technology to make its voting system quick and transparent, there is no reason Nepal should not adopt it too. 

Twenty or more days to count less than 200,000 votes (in Kathmandu, for instance) is way too much. The voters are being made to continuously check updates to see how their candidate of choice is faring—as if they have nothing better to do. Being so inconvenienced, they might be discouraged from voting next time. Perhaps it is too late to adopt a full-fledged electronic voting for upcoming provincial and federal elections. But as the commission has clarified, there is still room to employ electronic voting in these elections, at least in places with relatively high voter education. We could not do it soon enough. Increasingly adept at using apps and appliances, Nepalis, with a bit of education, are more than capable of exercising their franchise electronically.

Even before up to 17.3m eligible voters line up to cast their ballots this Friday, a few inferences can be made. One is that the outcome of the May 13 vote will, to a large extent, determine the outcome of the forthcoming provincial and federal elections as well. In 2017, the local elections had suggested that the momentum was with the left coalition spearheaded by CPN-UML’s KP Oli. The coalition had captured 400 of the 753 mayor/chairperson seats—well ahead of Nepali Congress’s tally of 266. In the subsequent provincial and federal elections, the coalition bagged six of the seven provinces and garnered a near two-thirds majority at the center.

The Friday vote will also be a test of Nepali people’s willingness to overcome their bias. According to election analysts ApEx spoke to, around 60 percent of eligible voters are forecast to vote along party lines. But a surprise victory of a candidate from outside Nepali Congress and CPN-UML in a big metropolitan like Kathmandu, for instance, would signal a huge shift in the psyche of the Nepali voting public. The major parties will then be forced to rethink their plans (and tickets) for the two subsequent elections.

Do we the voting public really want meaningful and progressive social changes? The political parties have already cheated us by denying adequate number of tickets to women and marginalized communities. Yet unexpected wins for candidates of these communities will again force our major political forces to go back to the drawing board, to rethink their traditional way of ticket-distribution and electioneering. Overcoming communal, gender and political bias is never easy. But that is what we must do if a peaceful, prosperous and harmonious society is what we aspire for.

There must be clear signaling this Friday. The beauty of a functioning democracy is that if people speak, their representatives must listen. Vote then with a clear conscience. Vote for clean and competent candidates, even if you have to momentarily cross that inner Rubicon to do so. Vote to break the status quo.

Political meddling in the appointment, retention and promotion of top-ranking civil servants has become par for course in Nepal. One recent victim of this was Maha Prasad Adhikari, who was wrongfully sacked as Nepal Rastra Bank governor. The Supreme Court duly restored him to the post and dismissed the government’s flawed logic for his removal. Now an appointment in Nepal Police has come into controversy. On May 1, Additional Inspector General (AIG) Dhiraj Pratap Singh was appointed the new police chief. A day later, Biswa Raj Pokharel, second in command before Singh’s appointment, filed a writ at the Supreme Court, asking for the annulment of Singh’s ‘wrongful’ appointment made by violating seniority. 

Things are not so straightforward. Both Singh and Pokharel had joined the police force on the same day in 1993. But in 2019 the KP Sharma Oli government promoted Pokharel to the rank of Deputy Inspector General—ahead of Singh. A year later, it created an additional AIG post to adjust Pokharel, much to Singh’s chagrin. Now Singh has turned the tables on Pokharel. There is clearly a lot of politicking behind the appointment of the police chief—more so on election-eve.  

Over the years the government’s executive arm has behaved like a law unto itself. Whenever a new government is formed, it tries to appoint high-ranking judges and chiefs of security bodies along partisan lines, and the latest police row is part of the same trend. This is not to argue that a less competent senior officer must always be promoted over a more competent junior. But there is seldom any evaluation of competence when making these political appointments. 

Unless a system is developed to rigorously vet the eligibility to civil servants for top posts, the government would do well to stick to the seniority basis. After all, many officers are deservedly in higher ranks based on internal evaluations. Even if we don’t get it right immediately, in time, this will set a good precedent and boost the morale of our state organs. It’s never a good idea to break the natural chain of command without a solid reason.