Government Faces Scrutiny Over Governance and Accountability in First 100 Days

The rise of a new political force in democracy is not just a change of power, but a manifestation of public outrage against traditional governance irregularities and impunity. With the new government formed under the leadership of Balendra Shah on April 13, based on the foundation of the Janji rebellion, the general public had similar intense and ambitious expectations. This government, which declared its intention to dismantle the traditional governance structure and establish visible good governance from the day it took office, had advanced administrative and economic reform efforts by publicizing the '100-day agenda for governance reform'.

The government's 100-day agenda is considered to have made a commendable start in areas of administrative efficiency, aggressive campaign against corruption, and economic frugality. Taking former Prime Minister and former Home Minister into criminal investigation based on the report of the Gauribahadur Karki Commission, bringing some former ministers, big business houses, and high-ranking officials under investigation for corruption and money laundering cases, and forming a powerful commission to investigate illegal assets, indicate that the government is ready to end impunity.

However, in the current state of the government's 100-day 'honeymoon period', to what extent have the steps taken by the government to establish good governance aligned with the universally accepted pillars of good governance? Or, in terms of ground reality, how proactive has the government been towards good governance? This article attempts to discuss these issues.

Public Participation and Dialogue

A significant pillar of good governance is citizen participation, where the voice of the citizens should be reflected in policy formulation and implementation. Although the government has succeeded in garnering enthusiastic support from the youth through social media, serious questions have been raised in these 100 days regarding institutional participation. The government did not appear to coordinate adequately with civil society, experts, and local and provincial governments while formulating strategic reform plans.

Decisions made in a centralized manner in Singha Durbar and closed rooms in unseen places have weakened the spirit of decentralization and participatory democracy. Furthermore, the government has faltered in the coordinating role that the central government should play in guiding the entire country towards the path of change.

Specifically, the move to forcibly displace squatters by demolishing settlements along riverbanks in Kathmandu and across the country, even involving the Nepali Army, without prior preparation and concrete alternatives, must have surely concerned civil society and human rights activists.

The policy of using force without identifying genuine squatters and without adequate dialogue with the concerned stakeholders clearly showed a weakened sense of citizen ownership in problem-solving. Since assuming office, the Prime Minister has maintained a distance from Parliament, other political parties, civil society, the media, and the administration, which is the permanent mechanism of the government, leading everyone to feel that the vibrant participation of ordinary citizens in the governance process has been curtailed.

Accountability and Responsibility to Parliament

In a parliamentary system, the legitimacy of the executive depends on its accountability to the legislature. Although the government initially sought to move forward by setting performance indicators, it has not shown any accountability to Parliament during this period. Since becoming Prime Minister, he has been largely absent from parliamentary sessions, has not given time to Parliament, and has tried to evade the House despite continuous demands from the opposition, which is evident to all.

The immature propaganda like the proposed 30-year service period and 55-year age limit has created a sudden shortage of experienced employees in the administrative machinery, weakening institutional memory and creating a knowledge vacuum. This has not only disrupted the transparent system of career development and promotion for civil servants but has also created fear and terror in the permanent administrative machinery of the government.

The Prime Minister, Balen, set a negative record by leaving the joint session of Parliament midway while the President was reading the government's annual policy and program. He put forward the Finance Minister to answer questions raised in Parliament about his own policy and program. The meetings of parliamentary committees have also been postponed many times due to the absence of the Prime Minister and ministers.

Despite having a near two-thirds majority, the government opted for ordinances, bypassing Parliament, the sovereign body of elected representatives. Ordinances related to the Constitutional Council and other ordinances are glaring examples of this. Such steps by the government have not only undermined the established decision-making process but have also disrupted the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances.

Transparency and Rule of Law

Transparency in decision-making and equality before the law are the lifeblood of good governance. However, cheap popularity and procedural deviations seem to dominate the working style of the new government. Although some positive steps have been taken for transparency, such as the integrated office management system to make government decisions transparent, electronic billing to make revenue administration transparent, and auditing by the Auditor General for transparency of political parties, the additional changes in tax rates after the budget was registered in Parliament and the 90 billion unfunded budget have raised questions about the government's sincerity towards transparency.

More than 1,500 political appointees were summarily dismissed based solely on ordinances, without any appropriate legal basis, justification, or opportunity to explain. Such a move is a blatant violation of the rule of law and the 'principle of natural justice'. This has further terrorized and created a vacuum in the country's public machinery.

Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Administrative Reform

Administrative efficiency is about providing prompt services to citizens by maximizing the use of limited resources. Regardless of the political leadership, the successful implementation of policies and continuity of service delivery rests on the shoulders of the permanent government, i.e., the employee administration. Instead of reforming the administration through the Civil Service Act, the government appears to be making politically propagandistic and ad-hoc decisions by holding the bill in the Ministry of Law.

The immature propaganda like the proposed 30-year service period and 55-year age limit has created a sudden shortage of experienced employees in the administrative machinery, weakening institutional memory and creating a knowledge vacuum. This has not only disrupted the transparent system of career development and promotion for civil servants but has also created fear and terror in the permanent administrative machinery of the government.

Although the government has initiated positive actions such as implementing an integrated office management system, issuing digital bills, concluding decisions at three levels, and reducing the number of ministries to cut expenses, the decision to create a large number of advisors and personal staff in the Prime Minister's Office and other ministries has begun to disrupt the administrative chain.

Such parallel mechanisms can lead to a tendency among employees to remain inactive rather than work and get into trouble. This can raise questions about the overall effectiveness of the government. When advisors and personal staff, who are not accountable to Parliament, interfere in the policy decisions of ministries, it not only breaks the chain of authority but also certainly jeopardizes the collective accountability of the Council of Ministers to Parliament.

Equitable Society, Economic Reform, and Financial Burden

Good governance demands equitable distribution of resources and sustainable economic development. In the budget for FY 2083/084, which is said to have departed from the economy, the budget for agriculture, which employs nearly two-thirds of the population, has been reduced by more than 18 percent. The highest rate of personal income tax has been reduced from 39 percent to 29 percent. This is likely to further increase economic inequality.

Although the system of paying government employees every 15 days has been introduced to increase cash flow in the market, a clear policy and framework for utilizing the increasing excess liquidity in banks has not emerged. The financial burden is increasing due to about 60 percent current expenditure, capital expenditure limited to 20 percent, rising foreign debt, and continuous devaluation of the domestic currency.

Undoubtedly, the Balen government's resolve to establish good governance, control corruption, and end politicization in public service is excellent. However, the destination of good governance cannot be reached by terrorizing the bureaucracy, which is the permanent government, by ignoring accountability to the elected Parliament on one hand, and by governing under the shadow of advisors unrecognized by law on the other.

Due to the fear created in the administrative structure and continuous ad-hoc decisions, a culture of indecisiveness is likely to prevail among employees involved in development projects. With files not moving forward due to fear of the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority and administrative action, the country's capital expenditure is likely to slow down further historically.

Although the government has set ambitious goals of 7 percent economic growth and a per capita income of 3,000 US dollars, the confusion seen in the administrative sector and the declining morale of the private sector and large investors have spoiled the investment environment. The non-performing loan rate of banks has increased, and the stock market's bearish trend has not stopped.

Conclusion

Undoubtedly, the Balen government's resolve to establish good governance, control corruption, and end politicization in public service is excellent. However, the destination of good governance cannot be reached by terrorizing the bureaucracy, which is the permanent government, by ignoring accountability to the elected Parliament on one hand, and by governing under the shadow of advisors unrecognized by law on the other.

Such a working style is likely to create 'passive resistance' in the bureaucracy, ultimately limiting the government's plans to paper, and will certainly spoil the environment for mobilizing foreign aid.

Therefore, by critically reviewing this 100-day 'honeymoon period', the government must be able to abandon the pursuit of cheap popularity in the coming days. Only by embracing parliamentary accountability, the framework of the rule of law, and broad public dialogue, and by keeping the morale of the permanent government high, can the Balen government's resolve for good governance be realized. Otherwise, good governance will remain limited to the surface, and deviation from governance will become the permanent character of this government.