When the current govern­ment took office in Feb­ruary this year, there was excitement over the prospect of stability and a new era of ‘pros­perity.’ Five months later, even though it is too early to give a definitive judgment, much of the excitement has evaporated. The promise of an end to ‘business as usual’ has failed to materialize; the tough talk of ending ‘syndi­cates’ in transport sector died down. Instead there are whis­pers of allowing the status quo to remain until a new arrangement, and outsourcing of public poli­cy to interest groups. Likewise, the talk of overhauling the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has been limited to just that and the idea of forming think-tanks within the PMO to generate policy options hasn’t left the drawing board.Much of this chaos and criti­cism stems from lack of adequate decision-making structure and absence of institutionalized deci­sion-making culture. Ad-hocism may sometimes have its merit, but in general it does more harm than good. The first priority for this government should have been putting together a structure to streamline decision-making as well as implementation process­es. Instead ministers and Nepal Communist Party officials have been busy unraveling the exist­ing structure without ensuring a proper replacement.

 

It isn’t too late to undo some of the early missteps provided that the members of the govern­ment have the humility to review and reflect on their actions so far. Instead of seeing this sudden surge in protests as a grand con­spiracy, they should ask them­selves: where have we failed?

 

The solution is still the same: putting together a proper struc­ture. This should start at all levels simultaneously but most impor­tantly at the nerve center of the government: the PMO. Currently the PMO has too many cooks—both political appointees and civil servants—working at cross-pur­pose with no integration of their services and accountability.

 

While the political appointees have may the prime minister’s ears, it is the career civil servants who have authority to get things done. And there has historically been mutual hostility between the two sets of staff—affecting the efficacy of the PMO, as well other ministries and departments.

 

The reporting and accountabil­ity structure in the PMO and oth­er ministries and departments should be streamlined. There should be a clearly designated Chief of Staff or Head of Staff who acts as a buffer between the exec­utive and the entire team. This allows for structured flow of infor­mation, inputs and decisions.

 

Such a structure will make the entire team responsible—lead­ing to increased likelihood that any announcements the prime minister or the executive makes is backed by due-diligence and homework, thus ensuring its success. It will also minimize the risk of party officials leveraging associations with the prime min­ister for personal gains. Such a structure will also lend credence and status to prime minister’s numerous advisors while deal­ing with foreign government and their entities—providing a clear pecking order for others to see and interact with.

 

In the United States, almost all executive-level offices have a designated chief of staff, includ­ing Congressmen. The position combines functions of private secretary, confidante and advi­sor—giving the office bearer broad authority to decide who gets to see the executive or what informa­tion reaches his or her desk.

 

There is an urgent need to streamline the PMO and oth­er executive offices through a Cabinet decision—laying down the standard operating proce­dures and hierarchy—integrat­ing the roles and responsibilities of both career civil servants and political appointees. In the long run, this should be institutionalized through a parliamentary act.