Nepal's Appointment Reforms: Balancing Process and Purpose

Appointments in Nepal have long been associated with controversy, political division, favoritism, and financial dealings. Even sensitive institutions like universities, health academies, and diplomatic sectors have not been spared. The questions raised in the past regarding the appointment of vice-chancellors, academy officials, and ambassadors have affected educational standards, research culture, institutional credibility, and even Nepal's international image.

Therefore, the current government's effort to adopt a transparent, impartial, and merit-based appointment process should be viewed positively. Reforms are necessary to restore public trust in public institutions, and commitment to reform is welcome. However, in the enthusiasm for reform, we sometimes make the mistake of prioritizing the process over the main objective.

Upon studying some of the procedures prepared for the appointment of vice-chancellors and other high-level positions, as well as proposed methods discussed on social media and in public discourse, an old story comes to mind:

Once upon a time, God thought—now I will create the world's most excellent and useful animal.

He began creating a new creature by taking good qualities and body parts from various animals. A long neck like a giraffe was given to see far and eat leaves from high up. Long legs like a deer and a horse were made to walk fast in the desert. A hump was placed on the back to survive without water for many days. The leg structure was made different to walk easily on sand. Thick eyebrows and different eyes were made to withstand sun and storms.

God kept adding the good aspects of each animal. But the creature that was formed in the end did not look as beautiful, balanced, and attractive as other animals. It became a camel, looking strange, unbalanced, and complex.

Then God smiled and said—

Even when trying to add every good thing, the expected result may not come. Balance and naturalness are equally important.

The message of this story is profound. Trying to over-reform sometimes disrupts balance. Everything is good within limits; beyond that, simplicity, practicality, and the objective itself can be lost.

The current debate surrounding the selection process for vice-chancellors, heads of health academies, and ambassadors seems connected to this context. In the name of removing past malpractices, the process is becoming so layered, with so many conditions and formalities, that there is a risk of the process overshadowing the main objective.

Transparency is necessary in selecting university leadership. Capable and ethical leadership is equally essential in health academies. Similarly, ambassadorial appointments are not just a matter of political balance but are linked to the nation's international representation and diplomatic capacity. However, making the process overly procedural in the name of transparency can weaken decision-making.

There is a saying in our society—a new monk rubs a lot of ash. The tendency to create new structures, add processes, form new committees, and bring new criteria in the enthusiasm for reform is not new to Nepal. But the question is—was the problem really a lack of procedures? Or was the problem their misuse, wrong application, and political interference?

Nepal already had procedures, processes, and legal structures for appointments before the current government came into power. There were university acts, selection processes, and criteria for qualifications and experience. There were also constitutional and administrative arrangements for ambassadorial appointments. The problem was that these arrangements were not implemented impartially.

Therefore, the solution is not just to add new, complex structures; it is also to implement the existing system honestly, impartially, and accountably.

Universities, health academies, and diplomatic bodies are not just administrative offices. They are institutions that build ideas, knowledge, research, policy, and national image. The individuals leading them require academic vision, commitment to research, institutional experience, ethical credibility, leadership capacity, and sensitivity to national interests. These qualities cannot be measured by mere paper processes.

Excessive formality and procedural burden can sometimes discourage even qualified individuals.

On the other hand, the autonomy of universities and academies is also equally important. If the appointment process gets entangled in excessive administrative control, unnecessary interference, or procedural complexities, these institutions risk becoming more like administrative structures than independent and creative centers.

What makes a university vibrant and strong is not the number of rules; it is the quality of leadership and institutional culture. Similarly, what makes the diplomatic sector effective is not just formal procedures; it is also the vision, experience, and credibility to represent the nation.

Reform is necessary. Transparency is also necessary. But reform must be balanced. The process should be such that it attracts qualified individuals, not discourages them. The procedure should be such that it makes decisions easy, impartial, and credible; not unnecessarily complex.

Today, the need is for the results of reform, rather than the performance of reform.

If capable leadership can be provided to universities, health academies, and diplomatic bodies, its impact will last for generations. But if the process is made so burdensome that capable people start backing out, the very purpose of reform can be weakened.

On the other hand, it is not necessary that all qualified individuals will come forward to participate in the process saying,