Development activities in Nepal will not succeed if the targeted group knows that political actors are involved in the process—either as facilitators or decision makers. This is because the Nepali public harbors genuine distrust towards politics and politicians. And this is where many development organizations in Nepal have got it wrong. They have clearly been affected by the political process and actors. Many openly enter the political spectrum while at the same time claiming to be apolitical and non-partisan to their core customers. When the public discovers this, it views the claims to political neutrality as a charade. This negative vibe in the public, then, hinders the effect and influence of such organizations. As a result, the desired outcomes are not achieved, and developmental activities are rendered ineffective. This has become a common storyline in donor funded agencies operating in Nepal today.
It would be unfair to put all blame for this lack of separation of politics and development on these organizations. Cohabiting with politics might be a survival strategy. Without active support and participation of political parties and actors, these programs are unlikely to succeed in Nepal regardless of the strength and/or capacity of the program or the organization running it. These organizations have come to the brutal realization that in order to succeed in Nepal, political “connection” is a must. And, so, they do in Rome what Romans do: establish and enhance their political connections.
Unstable politics and government in Nepal is one reason why these organizations gravitate towards politicians. We have lost count of how many prime ministers and governments we have had since the advent of democracy in 1990. The constantly changing political and governmental landscape makes it difficult for development organizations to carry on with their activities without establishing necessary political linkages. Therefore, the political connection and hobnobbing continues today even as these organizations claim to be apolitical to the public, potential donors and funders.
The claim of being apolitical is nothing but a cover for their employees who work with the public day in and day out all over Nepal. The hobnobbing with the politicians, likewise, is little more than a tactic to provide safe bureaucratic and political environment for these organizations’ continued presence in this country.
While it is understandable that these organizations have had to cater to the masses as well as to those in the political spectrum for their existence and survival, it is also true that their political relationships diminish their essence. Although they are reluctant to acknowledge this, it cannot be denied that their increasing connection with those in politics has contributed to more corruption and abuse of power in Nepal. The close relationship between politicians and these organizations leads the former to believe that their participation and influence on these organizations will keep them from any criticisms. The development organizations in Nepal, I believe, are making their own work difficult by providing this sense of security to our political actors. Can we deny that free money that the Maoist party kept getting from various foreign donors, in one way or the other, helped corrupt its ranks? That is but only one example. Most importantly, this kind of hobnobbing has hindered political accountability.
Marina Liborakina, a Russian activist, once said, “As citizens, we are responsible for how we are governed. The main issue is... to broaden citizens’ participation...especially in decision-making on crucial issues of security, peace and military”. However, in today’s Nepal, this has not been possible. Activists have a difficult time fulfilling their responsibilities because the kind of support they expect from various organizations is lacking. And, the reason it is lacking is because those involved in the developmental process in this country have failed to keep themselves away from politics.
The author is an economist
Related story
Expedite capital spending
