The Enduring Struggle: Bridging the Gap Between Politics and Good Governance in Nepal

The concept that politics and good governance are two sides of the same coin sounds simple in theory, but appears complex in practice. Politics determines the direction of state operation, formulates policies, sets priorities, and draws the roadmap for the future. Good governance bears the responsibility of implementing those policies in a just, transparent, accountable, and effective manner.

When politics is confined to self-interest, power-centric thinking, and short-term gains, good governance weakens. When politics is visionary, ethical, and people-oriented, good governance is naturally strengthened. Nepal's experience highlights this very conflict.

Generally, Nepal's modern political journey is considered to have begun with the establishment of democracy in B.S. 2007. Since then, the country has passed through phases ending the Rana regime, the Panchayat system, multi-party democracy, popular movements, armed conflict, and finally entering the Federal Democratic Republic through the 'Constitution of Nepal' promulgated in B.S. 2072.

Looking at the systemic changes, Nepal appears to have made significant strides. But the question arises—have these systemic changes brought qualitative improvements to the daily lives of ordinary citizens? Has a strong foundation for good governance been laid? Unfortunately, the answer does not always appear positive.

Nepal's politics has often revolved between movements and compromises. Democracy arrived with the end of the Rana regime, but institutional stability could not be maintained. The Panchayat system banned political parties and exercised centralized power in the name of development and stability. After the 1990 popular movement (046 B.S.), multi-party democracy was reinstated.

However, political instability and power struggles failed to strengthen the governance system. The following decade saw a long armed conflict that shook the state structure itself. Finally, with a new constitution formed through the Constituent Assembly, the country entered a federal structure. While this long journey of political change is commendable, the development of institutional good governance has remained relatively weak.

Nepal is currently in the second phase of practicing the Federal Democratic Republic. Debates on generational transition and ideological shifts are intense in the political landscape. New forces and independent candidates are challenging the monopoly of old established parties. Both frustration and expectation are visible among the public.

They are seeking results rather than speeches. Frequently changing governments, games of power equations, the lack of long-term policies, and compromises made for short-term political gain have affected development plans. Political instability has also increased confusion and uncertainty within the administrative machinery.

There are four fundamental pillars of good governance—the rule of law, transparency, accountability, and public participation. The Constitution of Nepal accepts good governance as a guiding principle for state operation. Article 51 (B) of the Constitution includes good governance among the major policies of the state.

However, a large gap is visible between legal provisions and practice. When the rule of law is weak, the law is not applied equally to everyone. The saying 'Law for the small, leniency for the big' seems not just a satire, but a reality. The tendency to withdraw cases based on political influence, grant amnesty to criminals, or influence investigations has eroded public trust in the justice system.

Lack of transparency is another serious problem. Government decisions are still confined to closed rooms. Opacity in major projects, budget allocations, policy decisions, and contracts increases the possibility of corruption. It is ironic that even in the age of information technology, there is no easy access to information. Lack of transparency in public procurement processes, project selection, and resource allocation raises questions about whether the funds collected from public taxes are being used effectively.

The aspect of accountability appears even weaker. A mentality has developed among political leadership and the bureaucracy that they will not be punished even if they make mistakes. Inquiry committees are formed, reports are submitted, but their implementation does not happen. Although mechanisms exist to hear public grievances, their effectiveness is minimal.

Delays in service delivery, cumbersome processes, and unnecessary paperwork frustrate citizens. The situation where one has to rely on middlemen even for routine tasks is a sign of the failure of good governance.

The main reason for weak good governance in Nepal is the institutionalization of corruption. Corruption is no longer just a personal failing; it has become a systemic problem. Nepal's standing in international indices falls in the below-average category. Nepal's status in Transparency International's 'Corruption Perception Index' is not satisfactory. This situation is not limited to mere figures; it affects investment, development, public services, and international image.

Policy corruption is particularly alarming. The trend of escaping legal action through cabinet decisions, irregularities in major projects and land deals, and decisions like tax waivers have allegedly caused significant damage to the state treasury.

Political patronage and administrative collusion have hindered impartial investigations. Incidents like the fake Bhutanese refugee case, the Lalita Niwas land scam, and the gold smuggling scandal have exposed the weaknesses of the state apparatus. Such incidents create deep mistrust among citizens.

Federalism is a significant achievement of Nepal's political transformation. The 753 local governments are the closest structures to the people. There are examples where local levels have done some positive work in the sectors of education, health, agriculture, infrastructure, and social security. Some municipalities have improved service delivery through innovative practices. Increased decision-making capacity at the local level is a positive aspect for democratic practice.

However, challenges in implementing federalism are also significant. In some local levels, 'dozer development,' irregularities through consumer committees, and power-sharing between employees and elected representatives have questioned the spirit of federalism. Debates are also ongoing regarding the justification for provincial governments.

Such questions often arise due to increasing administrative costs and limited achievements. It is clear here that good governance is not automatically established just by changing structures. The goal of federalism cannot be achieved without strengthening capacity building, transparency, and monitoring mechanisms.

Various multi-dimensional efforts are necessary for improvement. Democracy within political parties must be strengthened by reforming the electoral system. The candidate selection process must be transparent and based on merit. Ensuring the impartiality of constitutional bodies is essential. Bodies like the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), the Election Commission, and the Office of the Auditor General must be free from political influence. Effective use of digital technology can bring improvements in transparency and service delivery. E-governance, online services, and open data systems can help reduce corruption.

Ending political interference in the bureaucracy is another important step. The administrative machinery, known as the permanent government, must be professional, competent, and impartial. Transparent criteria must be adopted for transfers, promotions, and appointments. Developing civic consciousness through the education system is a long-term solution. Aware, judicious, and active citizens are the true guardians of good governance. Serious discussions can also be held on concepts like 'Right to Reject' and 'Right to Recall' so that elected representatives become more accountable.

Ultimately, politics is a matter connected to values and ethics. Good governance is not possible merely through legal arrangements or administrative efficiency; it requires ethical leadership. As long as ethics, transparency, and long-term vision do not develop in politics, slogans like 'Prosperous Nepal, Happy Nepali' cannot be transformed into reality. Systemic change is important, but the change in characters and tendencies alongside it is indispensable.

Nepal currently stands at a historical crossroads. On one side is the old style of power-centric politics, and on the other is the rising civic consciousness demanding reform and accountability. If politics cannot become clean, transparent, and responsive to the public, the essence of democracy will weaken. But if the leadership introspects and chooses the path of reform, good governance is possible. Citizens must also make decisions based on facts and performance, not just emotion, when voting.

Politics is the art of reforming policy, while good governance is its practical outcome. True realization of democracy will only occur if both policy and the situation can be improved. Nepal has witnessed many movements and changes; now, stability, ethical leadership, and effective implementation are needed. Only then will the promises of change be transformed into reality, and good governance will become a reality rather than a mirage.

(The author is studying at the Mahakali Multiple Campus, Darcula.)