Summary of Key Points
- The Prime Minister’s Office is the central hub of the country’s governance system, responsible for implementing and monitoring Cabinet decisions.
- Interference in the transfer, promotion, and appointment of personnel within the Prime Minister’s Office is occurring, and this must be stopped, says Sharad Prasad Trital.
- To control corruption, Trital emphasizes the need to establish a powerful commission to investigate the assets of former officials and the necessity of a Land Misuse Investigation Commission.
Sharad Prasad Trital, former Secretary known for his investigation into land in the Baluwatar Prime Minister’s official residence that was registered in the names of private individuals by land mafias, led the study committee on the Lalita Niwas case. Trital also has experience in reforming the Prime Minister’s Office.
Having worked as Section Officer, Under Secretary, and Joint Secretary at the Prime Minister’s Office since 1997 (2054 BS), Trital has closely witnessed governmental transformation efforts. As the new government under Balendra Shah takes shape, we present edited excerpts from a conversation with former Secretary Trital on making the Prime Minister’s Office more people-centric:
Where should Prime Minister Balendra Shah start reforms when taking over governance from Singha Durbar?
In our governance system, the Prime Minister is the most responsible official. All mechanisms operate under the direction and leadership of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s Office and Cabinet Secretariat assist the Prime Minister’s work; this office is the major hub for the country’s administrative system.
Previously, Prime Ministers also centralized power at Baluwatar. However, the real model of good governance is represented by Singha Durbar or the Prime Minister and Cabinet Secretariat. This office is responsible for implementing Cabinet decisions.
This body sends decisions to other agencies, monitors their implementation, and conducts policy analysis. It investigates and evaluates ministry proposals, assessing suitability. The Prime Minister’s Office and Cabinet Secretariat serve as the primary location for law-making processes.
Only after decisions here are made, are bills presented to Parliament. Policies are likewise determined from this office. It also monitors whether parliamentary laws are properly enforced.
The Prime Minister’s Office must be an information hub. All information necessary for development and good governance should be available there for the Prime Minister to effectively utilize.
Reform must begin from the highest level. To achieve change and fulfill government objectives, the Prime Minister’s Office must be strong and capable. When this institution is effective, other agencies become more impactful.
Where should reforms in the Prime Minister’s Office begin? With human resource management or other areas?
Generally, honest employees are sidelined in the Prime Minister’s Office. Reforms could have been possible with their help, but interference in transfers and promotions demoralizes staff. Terms like “being sidelined” or “pulled back” are common.
In other democratic countries, the most capable and honest personnel are placed in policy preparation and analysis. For example, in India, the best employees aspire to work in the Prime Minister’s Secretariat. Unfortunately, this mindset is lacking in our country.
What should be the core function of the Prime Minister’s Office: monitoring, coordination, or policy deliberation?
The Prime Minister’s Office should be investigative and innovative. A coordinating style is also needed. Currently, there is interference in personnel transfers, procurements, promotions and appointments, which must stop.
Intervention is necessary in policy, implementation, and results — efforts should be expanded where work is efficient and intensified where improvements are needed.
Are the priorities of the Prime Minister as an individual and the office different or aligned?
The Cabinet formalizes the Prime Minister’s intentions. The PM alone cannot make all decisions; plans are implemented based on Cabinet decisions. In this system, the Prime Minister’s Office acts as the implementing mechanism. The Prime Minister’s Office and the Cabinet are central institutions and their priorities do not differ.
The Prime Minister spends time on political party matters. Is that a conflict?
That is a distinct matter, but the Prime Minister should not be a party spokesperson. They are the leader of all parties and members of Parliament, above party interests. The government must separate itself from party labels.
The government must demonstrate its commitment to controlling corruption. A Land Misuse Investigation and Asset Verification Commission should be formed. The government must become strong enough to prevent petty bribery.
What roles do civil service leadership such as the Chief Secretary and Secretariat play within the Prime Minister’s Office?
The Prime Minister’s Office includes advisers and experts, but these individuals have started creating their own offices, using government resources and exerting control over staff — a problematic trend. Expert teams should remain within Baluwatar and provide advice during routine work.
Experts must coordinate with employees; otherwise, staff face pressure and productivity decreases. Honest employees currently find it difficult to work, which must be addressed.
Should the Prime Minister be allowed to form their own team?
The Prime Minister may form a team but discussions should occur collectively at Baluwatar. Expert teams need to be accustomed to group dialogue to avoid pressuring staff.
Media criticizes the PM for ruling from Baluwatar rather than Singha Durbar. Is this justified?
The Prime Minister should work from Singha Durbar. Experts must not interfere in the administrative system.
How should government programs incorporate manifesto promises from an elected Prime Minister? What role should politics play?
A party with two-thirds majority must strive to implement declared promises, but implementation requires Cabinet decisions or laws. The Prime Minister cannot forcibly implement policies alone.
Bringing personal party advisers into government increasing party influence is problematic. Political advisers should demonstrate expertise; otherwise, their suggestions are disregarded.
What kind of coordination should exist between federal ministries, provincial, and local governments?
Mechanisms for coordination at different levels must operate effectively. The perspective of viewing provinces and local levels as subordinate needs change. The existing constitutional and legal mechanisms should be implemented regularly. Meetings should be held to promptly resolve issues.
The Prime Minister’s Office reform started in 1997 (2054 BS). What improvements have occurred since?
We recommended transitioning to a desk system after studying the constitution, laws, and India’s model. Previously, PM Office and Cabinet Secretariat were separate, complicating management. Merging them improved efficiency, but major improvements are still lacking.
Information technology has accelerated work. Secretariat and unit management have improved but employees still feel undervalued.
Challenges emerged collecting information while working in coalition governments and with ministers from various parties. The Prime Minister’s Office feels less effective.
This office also monitors subordinate institutions but is often limited to gathering paper reports. Political advisers and experts have created pressure that obstructs primary tasks.
How does our Prime Minister’s Office compare internationally?
Planning is good but work that citizens feel is still insufficient. The administrative system isn’t poor but implementation faces difficulties.
Previous governments lost control over ministers and the family allegedly dominated the Secretariat. Why was reform not achieved?
People close to the Prime Minister carried out illegal activities in the office. Revenue Investigation and Asset Purification departments should have been involved but no changes occurred. Controversial figures were appointed and politically protected.
Incidents like gold smuggling and fake Bhutanese refugee cases are economic crimes linked to the office, resulting in misuse of power.
However, if power is properly used, reforms will be immediately visible.
Institutions around the Prime Minister’s Office such as the National Vigilance Center, Public Procurement Monitoring Office, and Nepal Trust remain inactive. Is this static or changing?
The Prime Minister protects university chancellorships but cannot devote time to them. The National Vigilance Center can control corruption. According to my study, if the Prime Minister wishes, 70 percent of corruption can be stopped.
In countries with good governance, anti-corruption systems fall under the Prime Minister’s authority. Our country has similar institutions, but they have become places where employees are sidelined. There is a lack of rules, resources, and expert staff.
The Prime Minister can empower these institutions by enabling information collection and forwarding to the Anti-Corruption Commission. Consistent leadership is vital to strengthen them.
What priorities should the new generation of Prime Ministers have?
The new government emerging from the Gen Z movement must focus on controlling corruption, establishing good governance, and meeting development and employment demands. Corruption is the country’s major problem.
From the outset, the government must send a clear message on its commitment against corruption. Ethical norms should be developed and the National Vigilance Center strengthened for enforcement. Creating a strong commission to investigate former officials’ assets is necessary.
Where should asset investigations begin?
I am clear that investigations should start backward from the government immediately preceding the Gen Z movement. Some insist tracing back to 1990 (2046 BS) is needed. Corruption from the Panchayat era is also investigable.
The commission should submit phased reports for implementation. It is possible to investigate assets of the Prime Minister, ministers, parliament members, senior officials, and political appointees.
Can corruption from the Panchayat era be uncovered today?
Particularly land misuse can be found. During the monarchy, it was common to allocate government land as personal rights — a form of corruption. Land distributed under fake squatters’ names must be investigated through a judicial commission.
Land misuse is widespread nationwide and requires an investigative commission and action. Petty bribery should be controlled so the public does not face hassles in ordinary matters, while major corruption must be prosecuted.
Video/Photos: Kamal Prasai
