As more new and young faces have come into the parliament from both existing and new political parties, it would increase the accountability of the government. I expect the new government to be more accountable.
For common people, the government is the face that provides citizenship, birth, and death certificates. As a facilitator, the government should improve service delivery. It is one of the challenging parts, as the government is often criticized for not providing effective and efficient services. Digitization of government services, which was expected to ease the process, has in fact created more complications. The new parliamentarians, whether in the government or in the opposition, should regularly question bureaucrats and government institutions. If we look at the victory of Balen Shah and Harka Sampang in the local elections, it was not due to the big agendas. They won the people's confidence by advocating for small things. Consider the migrant workers. All they need is the right documentation, timely passport services and hassles-free services in labor and immigration departments. These aren’t big expectations. They are small things that can make Nepalis happy. There are often discourses about neighboring countries' policies such as Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), but I don't know how these things connect with a layperson. For me, citizen service is the only thing that matters. Among the newly elected parliamentarians, there are businesspersons too. Don't you think it raises the issue of conflict of interest? Individuals from business backgrounds going into politics is not a new thing. It is normal and a global trend. For example, the United States had a big business tycoon becoming the president of the country. What we have to look at is that in a democracy we have to rely on three key pillars: legislature, executive, and judiciary. And within these pillars, a system of accountability is built. As long as we ensure the accountability part is not compromised, it would take its own corrective action. In our previous parliaments and constituent assemblies, we have seen businesspersons not only as MPs but ministers too. Some even headed the parliamentary committees. What we need is think tanks and policy institutions that could help parliamentarians make, amend and implement better laws and policies. So, if we keep the cycle of accountability and fundamentals of democracy intact, I think, we don't have to worry much. Because, when a businessperson becomes a minister, he or she is automatically under public scrutiny, especially in the age of social media. Let's not also forget, whether business people are in the parliament or outside, they have over the past 30 years been able to influence policy making, influence legislation, and budget. You don't have to be in the parliament to influence the government and its decision-making. As we wait for the new government, the country's private sector has upped its ante against the government and the central bank. They say the current environment is not conducive for business because of government policies. Do you agree with them? I don't think so. The private sector in Nepal is used to super profits. And, they are not happy now, as those profits that they are used to are not happening. They want society to continuously consume. But there have been impacts on consumption post-covid and post-Russia-Ukraine war. If a customer is not in a situation to buy a car, a car dealer can't force him to buy one. As far as the interest rate is concerned, everyone in Nepal has invested in bank shares and they expect high dividends from banks. But banks can only distribute high dividends if they can charge high interests. All the businesspeople are bank promoters, who want high profits, and the banks have no option but to up the interest spread rates. Be it multinational banks or low CAMEL-rating banks, all of them charge the same interest rate, what's the difference then? There is no incentive for efficiency in banks. It is basically a syndicated cartelized environment. But who is running the banks? The same businessmen who are in the street protest are also the shareholders and promoters of the banks. Given the mandate of the election, it seems we will have a coalition government in place. Where should the new government focus? The focus has to be on the economy. Everyone is talking about geopolitics, foreign policy and all, but the foremost thing is you need to create jobs. Around half a million Nepali youths come to market seeking jobs every year, but we are only creating jobs for 50,000-70,000 annually. Everybody else is unemployed and leaving Nepal. Even if they are leaving, we can at least equip them with skills. But that's not happening. For the business environment, there has to be a reform. The parliament has not functioned effectively since July 2019. Fifty-seven legislations are still pending. We need legislation so that Nepalis can invest outside. Today, there are 800 IT companies in the export of IT services. If we allow them to open business development offices in Dubai or in Singapore, they are going to do wonders. So, we need to think from a globalized perspective, attract more foreign investments, and not fall into cartelizing behavior. We also need to ensure that we get some big projects that utilize a lot of electricity. There has to be some large-scale transformational stuff. This is a country where an MoU of $25m is signed, and it becomes the headline news. Nepal is a $40bn economy. So, we need to scale up the size of deals and investments. Our political structure is designed in such a way that foreign investors do not pay anything to the political parties. So, how do political parties sustain themselves? That is one question. The local and parliamentary elections have given a very interesting indication that you really don't need money to win the election now. Why would people pay political parties? They would rather fund an independent and get him/her into the parliament. How do you see the future of Nepal? I am always optimistic about the future of Nepal in the long run. I had thought that the political transformation that happened in 2022 would only happen in 2027. So, I am happy that it happened five years earlier. If you look at what rides the Nepali economy, the first thing is remittance. Remittance will not decrease because people are leaving. But it’s not like the remittance only comes from Gulf countries. Half a million people in the US, 200,000 in Australia and as many in the UK also contribute to remittance. Countries like Japan, and Israel are also opening up for seasonal workers. Our economy is also based on social spending such as weddings, religious works, festivals, birthdays, anniversaries, and all. I guess our per capita social spending is higher than that of Western countries. Look at the money being spent on weddings, bachelor parties, and wedding photography. They have become a big business. Until these social spendings declines, I don't see our economy going down. Like in other countries, our consumption was not impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic either. Land transactions are also keeping our economy afloat. Nepalis have never stopped buying land. There is a limited supply of land, so the price of property is very high. If someone bought a piece of land 20 years ago, he/she will make more money than from investing in stocks. So, these three drivers have kept the Nepali economy going. And I don't see it changing anytime soon. You have been very vocal against the Nepali private sector, terming them 'rent seekers'. Have they changed their character over the years? If you look at traditional sectors, then I don't see them changing their character. They are still cartelized. But there are no cartels in the new sectors like ICT. We are seeing some amazing innovations in these sectors. The likes of Burger House have disrupted the eateries sector. They are not a part of cartels and associations. And, we will see more disruption in the future. In the financial services sector, more private equity funds are coming. And these private equity companies would demand a certain set of behavior from their investees. A company like F1 Soft has been able to do so much without being part of any association or cartel. That's where I see the private sector moving. And also, it is a generational transformation, as the newer generation thinks differently than their predecessors. The nexus between business and politics have been more rampant in the last few years. It was more visible in the last one year as the federal budget drafting process was tampered to suit certain business groups and licenses were issued to those close to the power. How dangerous are these trends? I think it’s a global phenomenon. Large oil companies in the US can make or break the government. If we look at the most efficient democracies, the nexus between power and business is always there. But what is important is that when there is a conflict of interest, the media should bring out the issue. In Nepal, we have seen people very close to power, be it in the royal regime or in the democratic regime, taking advantage. But if they do not reform and become professional, they will not sustain. People and the groups that have misused the power have grown very fast, but also fallen at the same rate. Also, if you are an influential businessperson, politicians will come to you. That's a natural process and it is not a one-way relationship. There should be enough mechanisms in place to curb these issues. There must be community standards on what is the acceptable relationship between politicians and businesspeople.
