[Our PM, if his recent love for foreign direct investments is to be taken seriously, seems to be a new convert to globalized capitalism, a departure from his ideological conviction that formed the basis for violent politics in the past. It can of course be argued that capitalism in a period of economic transition, especially when the Maoist party is leading the government, is really a progressive "mode of production" and thus a way forward to establishing a communist state. After all, didn’t Lenin, the high priest of Marxism, advocate his "new economic policy,” a variant of capitalism, soon after he captured power?]
By Prakash Chandra Lohani,PhD
On Sunday October 16, Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai ordered the opening, within a week, of Bhadrakali - Maitighar road (in Nepal city streets are generally called ‘roads’), which runs right
through Nepalese Army Headquarters and what apparently seemed he had a belief it would ease traffic congestion at the Bhadrakali - Maitighar intersection in the capital
city of Kathmandu. He also instructed concerned authorities to remove hoarding
boards along the main streets in the city. By now, three weeks have already passed
and neither has the road been opened to traffic nor have the hoarding boards
been removed from the main thoroughfares of the capital. What is happening here?
What has happened to the directives of no less a person than the prime minister
of the county?
Traffic Management & the
Prime Minister
PM Bhattarai´s directives give a
sense of how he views the executive role as the head of the government. Even if
we assumed for a moment that the opening of a stretch of road deserves the prime ministerial attention, the question still would likely be: 'What are the strategic
issues related to traffic management in the capital? Can it be solved through
one time potshot decisions by the head of the government or does it require
setting of certain conditions that recognize the multi-dimensional nature of the
problem?'
Alternatively, is the Bhadrakali-
Maitighar road something other than just a symptom of a deep underlying
problem of the urban management problems that have remained ignored by all the
governments including the present? If we agreed it represents a generic problem
related with urban management of the capital; does it make any sense for the
chief executive of the country to focus on a small part while ignoring the
whole? Does this also not indicate a penchant for temporary cheap popularity
instead of a serious attempt to solving the problem especially when the PM
apart from being a politician and a Marxist ideologue also happens to be an
architect and an urban planner by academic training?
If the Bhadrakali - Maitighar traffic
problem deserves prime ministerial attention, what about the problem in
Chabahil or Maharajgung, other major roads in the city where, the situation has
already become almost unmanageable? Will the PM now start issuing directives
for all these intersections also? The question would be almost a joke except
for the fact that it concerns the head of the government.
Political Illusion
One of the illusions that
politicians who are in the government have, is to think that once a decision is
made, it will be implemented. The trappings and prestige of the office inflate
the ego and it is easy to believe that all that is needed are attention
catching directives to solve the problem. This illusion is shattered swiftly when
the directives lose all their thrust and momentum by the time they reach the
execution level as we are observing in the case of the Bhadrakali- Maitighar episode.
The Bhadrakali - Maitighar road
episode highlights the fact that a leader as an executive in the government
needs more than an eagerness to issue directives with the press in attendance.
The important point is to be able to conceptualize the generic nature of the
problem and to outline policies and rules that help solve it.
Once this happens, the normal
tendency is to accuse bureaucracy and even complain that it is not cooperating
with the political leadership. I have personally heard this kind of talks very
often. The general complaint, expressed with a kind of anguish and a deep sigh,
is that the country could really be transformed from scarcity into prosperity should
bureaucracy become more cooperative. This naturally absolves the political
leadership of their own incompetence in decision making.
I have myself gone through this
process and hopefully learnt a few lessons. In 1984, when I became the finance
minister, I was convinced that the only way to boost the growth rate of the
country along with a gradual shift in the power balance in the political
structure was to help create environments that would encourage the emergence of
a new bourgeois or an entrepreneurial class. One part of this program was to
privatize 12 government corporations in one year, one every month. It was a
decision that was to my surprise easily approved by the cabinet and I was proud
of the fact that I was able to incorporate it in the annual budget.
However, by the end of the year,
to my own dismay, the finance ministry that had taken the leadership in this
project had been able to involve private sector only in one government-owned
enterprise. Similarly, government ministers who had to take the initiative on
privatization remained completely indifferent to the proposals that they
themselves had fully supported in the budget.
In spite of the grand scheme of
the budget, all that was achieved was to sell 15 percent of the
government-owned insurance corporation under the finance ministry. As for the
remaining 11 corporations, the achievement was close to nil. What strikes most
even after 25 years since is that we
have not made any substantial progress in the management of government-owned
corporations. What had happened? Why were the decisions approved by the cabinet
not implemented?
We failed in the past to
implement many innovative ideas because the whole question of specifying the
boundary conditions in a decision representing the aggregation of the interests
of different groups and stakeholders into policies that forward public interest
were not seriously considered. Similarly, major decisions were not
conceptualized in the context of their links with new values and structures
that would be necessary for successful implementation. So, new ideas quickly
degenerated into potshot populist measures that ultimately created
disillusionment among the people.
No Consultation With Army
The prime ministerial decision to
open the Maitighar road, in 10 days, in all probability may be included in the
long list of adhoc decisions that will soon be forgotten. The PM has even
ignored to hear from the army. He seems to have neglected to find out if the
army can indeed carry out the decision given the institutional considerations
of security of its assets and infrastructure. A decision of this nature shows
both inability to consider the problem from a broader perspective of urban
management as well as a reluctance to take into confidence the agency
responsible for implementation. The same can also be said about his another
directive to removing billboards from the main thoroughfares of the capital.
Our PM, if his recent love for
foreign direct investments is to be taken seriously, seems to be a new convert
to globalized capitalism, a departure from his ideological conviction that
formed the basis for violent politics in the past. It can of course be argued
that capitalism in a period of economic transition, especially when the Maoist
party is leading the government, is really a progressive "mode of
production" and thus a way forward to establishing a communist state. After all, didn’t
Lenin, the high priest of Marxism, advocate his "new economic policy,” a
variant of capitalism, soon after he captured power?
The beauty of Marxism is that as
a philosophical method of analyzing history, it sounds highly rational, claims to unravel the essence
of a historical relationship and boldly declares the doctrine as a guide to
history. And, yet, its philosophical methods have been used by the high priests
of Marxism to justify the most inhuman acts in history.
The 20th century was littered
with the wreck and ruins of Marxism ranging all the way from one-party
totalitarian dictatorship that treated human beings as nothing more than body
machines to inhuman gulag (labor camps) where thousands perished in the name of
a mystic new world, a new model of political and economic nirvana (enlightenment) and the dream
of a new city shining on top of a hill. It is this holier-than-thou attitude; an immensely authoritarian style that reflects in many ways the values
characteristic of a feudal regime – that ultimately destroys the system.
On the other hand, as a system of
economic management, modern capitalism does need properly defined 'boundary
conditions' that allow aggregation of interest of the stakeholders at the
ground level for effective execution of central directives. It is time that the
PM remained aware of this imperative.
(The author is an economist by training and former finance minister of Nepal. He is the Co-Chairman of the Rastriya Janasakti
Party and a Member of the Constituent Assembly currently)
© Republica
Comment(s)
Comment(s)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Adarsha Tuladhar
<adarsha.tuladhar@gmail.com>
Date: Tue,
Nov 8, 2011 at 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: NEPAL
To: The Himalayan Voice
<himalayanvoice@gmail.com>
Dr. Prakash Lohani is no doubt a learned man
and well read individual also.
He has matured to become a good parliamentarian and is a most valuable
member of PAC at the Constituent Assembly of Nepal. His views and thoughts are well respected.
On his view of the ideological transformation of BRB or Babu Ram Bhattrai, the prime
minister, I guess he needs not be worried about because in today's world the
communists are going all out for FDI (look at North Korea Cuba China China
On the other hand Dr. Lohani should also not
overlook what is happening in the USA Nepal also US USA
Presidents keep dillydallying on
'outsourcing', 'tax cuts' and 'job
creation at home' etc. Therefore it is
not strange that BRB is thinking of other models and what is wrong if the
government can at the same time protect the interests of Nepalese investors ? Remember, FNCCI (and all businessmen) have approved of the BRB path and
they seem to be quite excited now. Isn't
it good to see such ideological
transformation?
For BRB's failure to open the Bhadrakali - Maitighar road,
I understand that it is the Army's 'fear' totally of unseen enemies so to
speak. Look at the double-edged barbed-wire-fence
running around its premises? The army
does still have some anticipation of adversity to remove them even today. So, it's total 'paranoia' of the Nepalese Army
which has caused delay in opening the street for traffic. I hope
learned people like Dr. Lohani will also think about it from the 'founded' or
'unfounded' angles of paranoia of the army rather than seizing the opportunity
to fault the Prime Minister.
Adarsha Tuladhar
Team Leader/M & E Specialist
Programme for Accountability in Nepal
TMS/IIDS - National Research Institute
Tel.: 4439187 & 4439182 (work),
mobile: 98418-88262
e-mail:
<adarshat@yahoo.co.uk>, <adarsha_tuladhar@hotmail.com>
