Abuses of democracy

SUKHDEV SHAH

In a recent communication with a friend based in Kathmandu, I made an inquiry: How is Sujata after Singapore? Her mega binge there using public money (she hasn’t denied it yet) reminded me of the royalty’s abuse of public purse and I felt compelled to express my reservations—even outrage—at the incident. Looking at it in historical perspective and interpreting it in a larger context, such behavior by high government officials helps make sense of Nepal’s predicament—its alarming slide into political anarchy, deepening poverty, population flight, and, overall, a darkened prospect for return to normal conditions anytime soon.

For Nepal, its greatest problem—I would say, The Mother of All Evils—has been the abuse of authority by its high public officials—bureaucrats and politicians—who, regardless of their political beliefs and party affiliation, spend their time in office largely on amassing personal fortune. Starting from the period before the restoration of democracy in the 1990, we used to hear of Panchayat leaders’ unabashed abuse of prerogatives and privileges beyond what they would be entitled to doing state duties. Such abuses had been carried out at all levels of officialdom, culminating in the absolutism of the monarchy that treated Nepal’s resources, its people, and treasurers, no differently than a private possession, which it could use and abuse at will without worrying about morality, responsibility and accountability.

For Nepal, its greatest problem has been the abuse of authority by its high public officials—bureaucrats and politicians—who, regardless of their political beliefs and party affiliation, spend their time in office largely on amassing personal fortune.Reportedly, late Queen Aishwarya used to command the then RNAC (Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation) planes to fly her to London at short notices to see her son at school there, regardless of the fact that the airline was a public institution, had to run a regular service, care for its clientele and earn money to meet expenses. Such behavior of the royalty and of much of the upper echelon bigwigs exercising state authority had been practiced during the days of the Ranas when no difference existed between the ruler’s personal finance and state finance. In all respects, during the 100 years of Rana rule, Nepal State became personal property of the ruler and it continued to remain so during the Panchayat era and king’s rule for another half century, a period that fitted the characterization of State by King Louis the XIV of France, conveyed in his celebrated statement: L’etat C’est a Moi! [The State…it is me!].

Abuses continued

Unfortunately, the coming of democracy in the early 1990s did not make much difference to the practice of leaders and high-level bureaucrats taking advantage of their positions—amassing personal wealth far beyond they could justify with their modest salaries and other perks that come with official position. Public expectations at that time was that not only would the level of official corruption greatly diminish under a democratic government but also the new government would investigate the evidence of corruption of Panchayat regime, bring abusers to justice and confiscate their ill-gotten wealth for giving it back to the people.

Indeed, something called the Mallik Commission was established by the then interim government of KP Bhattarai in 1990, to assess the magnitude of corruption by high officials of the Panchayat era and document other abuses of authority involving human rights. Over the nine-month period that Mallik Commission worked on the report, it unearthed a plethora of evidence implicating hundreds of Panchayat government officials who had engaged in financial scandals and scams that earned them huge amounts of money and helped them amass phenomenal wealth, even for those who had served only for a brief period of time.

However, the Mallik Commission revelations were scuttled and the report did not see the light of the day. No explanation was given by the interim government why it chose to suppress the report but the general perception was that the report had surprised and shocked high officials of the new government, since it gave unshakable evidence of wrongdoing by many of the social and political luminaries of the Panchayat era who were likely to lose their properties and end up in jail if government decided to persecute them.

The other explanation given for the decision to scuttle the Mallik report was that it was not formed to scrutinize the actions of previous governments. Predictably, very few people of the Panchayat regime were tried for corruption and those few who were seldom faced jail term or were required to return stolen properties. Such laidback attitude towards official corruption helped turn the country’s politics into a sort of money-making business, which progressively has degenerated into what we may call goondacracy—a governance system owned and operated by crooks and thugs!

Sujata fits the mold

It beats my imagination how the Singapore trip by Foreign Minister Sujata Koirala supposedly to care for her ailing father can be characterized as official trip, to be paid from government coffers and borne by the country’s taxpayers! As a good daughter and having not-so-meager resources of her own, why didn’t she think it moral and dignified to fund the trip herself and not claim public subsidy? As widely reported, she squandered three million rupees ($40 thousand) in a week, a sum equivalent to a lifetime’s earning of an average Nepali! There should be no legal or moral grounds for the government to pay for her lavishness and, instead, Sujata can be persecuted for fraud and extortion.

Without denying the allegation of her misuse of public money during the Singapore trip, Sujata lashed back at the public media, which dared to expose her outrageous behavior, claiming that the media would have served national interest better by focusing on her ailing father and services she rendered to help speed-up his recovery. She may be right in saying this but the logical thing then would have been for her to take a guest room at the hospital and be near her father rather than booking an expensive suit at one of the most luxurious hotel in the city, spend money for limousine service, and promote herself as an emerging leader of the country. The expenses she incurred may be fitting for Sujata’s high government position but, ordinarily, such accommodation gets paid for by the host government for official visitors and time spent on such visits are not meant to be open-ended.

Another question concerns government’s responsibility to finance GP Koirala’s trip for treatment in Singapore. He is a party leader and a former prime minister but he is not in government service at present. As a pensioner, he should be entitled to some privileges but cannot claim the same status and recognition in retirement as when in active government service. The blurring of such distinction is tantamount to the creation of another brand of royalty, which should be unacceptable in a democratic society that claims to provide fair and equal treatment to all.

(Writer, an economist, is based in Washington DC.)

Source: http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=12357