Nepal adopted federalism to bring the government closer to the people. If there is a deeper decentralization, the government comes closer to its citizens. Through the proximity to its citizens, the government earns trust of the people. The extent to which the government is close to the people is determined by the effectiveness of public services delivered through its different offices and centers.
In the past, although central policies were rhetorically anchored in the ideology of decentralization of power, their implementation portrayed a different picture. Despite advocating the dire need for decentralization of power while in opposition, the same political party showed an unwillingness to let go of power and merely paid lip service to the idea once in office. Owing to Singhadarbar’s centralized mindset, local authorities were left with partial autonomy, which limited their ability to exercise real power of making prime decisions of their own.
Against this backdrop, the present federal system has sought to ensure decentralization in practice, enabling the government to reach each and every household across the country under the slogan of Gaun Gaunma Singhadurbar. How far the slogan has been emanated in the actions taken by the government has become a matter of evaluation.
Trust building
Trust is built on the bedrock of effective policy implementation, and when government commitments bring fruitful results, that make people satisfied. One of the major reasons a government loses trust and confidence of the people is its failure to effectively reach people through efficient and responsive public service delivery. In democracy, a government exists to serve the people and the nation by safeguarding the sovereignty and national unity, keeping law and order in place, driving sustained economic growth for inclusive national development, striking a balanced and pragmatic foreign policy in the national interest, and working tirelessly for the welfare and well-being of its citizens.
It is a part of the national culture of Nepali people to be peace- loving and to believe in maintaining harmonious relations on real ground, not just in principle. They value tolerance and patience. This is the reason we see them happy most of the time, despite being burdened by multiple financial and physical difficulties. Because of their tolerant character, they are generally perceived liberal and positive toward the government and its governance institutions. As long as their minimum requirements of daily necessities, such as drinking water, reliable electricity, quality education, healthcare services and employment, are easily available, Nepalis do not tend to create public backlash by making high demands with the government.
If they do not get access to these basic services, naturally a certain degree of public discontent inevitably simmers. In this situation, the government loses the trust of the people. If the people's dissatisfaction is not addressed timely, they may lose their patience and tolerance, which ultimately may turn into public unrest, and open resistance against the government. In the past, mass protests and demonstrations launched by the Nepalis, regardless of their intensity, were the result of a deficit of trust in the government. It is a widely known reality that every service-counter is a test of government credibility and efficient service of today generates public trust tomorrow.
For years, people have harbored grudges and complaints about the government's way of dealing with them and delivering public services. It is the bureaucracy that is responsible for implementing the public policies into action through certain tangible plans and procedures. If the bureaucracy shows its ineffectiveness in providing prompt services to needy citizens, it tarnishes the image of the government. Public services are primarily delivered through service counters and centers. Many service seekers at service centers are often told by the service providers to come tomorrow (‘Bholi Aaunus’). Instead of satisfying citizens by providing quick services, if they are simply told to come back the next day without any reasonable explanation, how can the ‘citizen-first’ policy of the government be implemented in an effective manner?
This is the crux of the problem in establishing good governance. Unfortunately, when service seeking citizens turn to middlemen and pay under the table, they get services then and there. In many cases, such a situation still prevails within the bureaucratic system, which is capable enough to erode the public trust and undermine institutional integrity. A culture of buck-passing the responsibilities to others is being established gradually. In many cases senior government officials do not dare to take any risk in making decisions due to a latent fear of being summoned by the anti-graft body to give a statement.
Trade unionism within bureaucracy has divided civil servants into rival groups operating under the cloak of political parties, eroding the political neutralism. This type of situation prevailing within the government mechanism is enough to widen the gulf between the government and the citizens.
The Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI) highlighted that within the period of 2013-2019, Venezuela’s administration was highly politicized. The bureaucracy was incompetent and mismanaged the economy, public services and petro-currency controls, lacked transparency, and this dire situation triggered hyperinflation and institutional collapse.
In a similar vein, the OECD’s ‘Italy Public Administration Review-2018’ explicitly portrayed a picture of how political bargaining in senior bureaucratic appointments and weak insulation of administrative institutions from party politics affect negatively over policy implementation, public trust and administrative efficiency.
These eye-opening instances suggest that Nepal must seriously work to build its citizens’ trust in government, for which the political and bureaucratic leaders must deliver exemplary results through their personal and public conduct, guided by transparency, zero tolerance for corruption, citizen-friendly behavior, and strong commitment to policy implementation.
