‘Good Governance Requires Ministers Who Can Withstand Pressure and Are Free from Middlemen’
News Summary
- Kashiraj Dahal stated that corruption begins at the start of a new government formation due to competition among ministers over the division of ministries and positions.
- He emphasized that since the constitution distributes power among federal, provincial, and local levels, more than 15 ministries at the federal level are unnecessary.
- Dahal pointed out that ministers must work with clear strategies, free from pressure and middlemen, to deliver effective results.
As the formation process of the new government begins, political circles are abuzz with the scramble over how ministries will be divided, reduced, and which ministers will be appointed. In previous years, the initial competition over who would get ‘powerful’ ministries has been the root of distortions. How should a newly elected government, with a strong public mandate, prepare to ensure good governance? This article is based on an interview with Kashiraj Dahal, Chairperson of the Public Administration Reform Commission:
0000
The process of forming a new government has started once again. One persistent problem we face is that from the very first days of government formation, corruption stems from the race to split ministries and secure ministerial posts.
If the new government, which comes with popular mandate, does not address this trend from the start, it will be difficult to maintain momentum for good governance.
Our current constitution distributes power among the federal, provincial, and local levels of government. The federal government is responsible for matters of national importance and international relations.
The provincial and local levels have their own roles and service responsibilities. Given this distribution, there is no need to multiply ministries, departments, and offices at the federal level.
Studies have shown that having over 15 ministries at the federal level is inappropriate. In my 2013 report, I proposed 12 ministries.
Later, the State Affairs Committee reached a consensus among all parties to not exceed 15 ministries.
At the provincial level, 5 to 7 ministries are sufficient. Yet, we continue to see an increase in the number of ministers and splitting of ministries. For example, why does Karnali province need 7 ministries?
The main issue in politics is the management of political activists. Filling offices, structures, committees, and boards simply to accommodate activists has taken place.
However, this has not produced any substantive outcomes and has only increased administrative expenses. Elections occur, representatives are elected, but without tangible results, how can this be called ‘true democracy’? Instead of focusing on governance as the main policy, politics has become only a venue for addressing unemployment. When will the electoral system be transformed from mere ‘electionism’ into ‘real democracy’?
Another astonishing aspect is that ministries are labeled ‘powerful’ or ‘weak’ immediately after ministers are appointed. Abroad, ministries of science, technology, and intellectual property are viewed as powerful, but here, leaders compete for finance and home ministries.
This is because the finance ministry allows distributing budgets to their constituencies, and the home ministry facilitates money flow under the guise of intelligence, protecting mafias. We have misused resources rather than utilizing them effectively.
It is time to abandon the obsession with choosing ministries and focus on those that promote prosperity and innovation.
Incoming ministers must be capable of bearing pressure and be completely independent from middlemen.
Policies and laws designed under the influence of middlemen are in place today. The next ministers must have a clear roadmap — what to accomplish in one month and what outcomes to deliver in six months. Time must not be wasted on mere ribbon-cuttings and seminars.
A minister’s secretariat should be lean and efficient. Large secretariats allow middlemen to operate by withholding information from ministers, which has been a past problem.
Ministers must recuse themselves from decisions where they have personal interests. Making decisions based on personal gain is corruption, violating international norms.
Therefore, the new government must abandon old practices and work towards effective outcomes. The Civil Service Act should be enacted swiftly to enable capable and creative personnel management, and a rational transfer and promotion system implemented. Continuing the past trends will not enable a new journey.
Hence, the government must take the initial and mandatory step to restore discipline and deliver the experience of good governance.
