The outbreak of COVID-19 has had devastating consequences on the economy and the lives of people around the world and, Nepal too hasn’t been able to escape the fate. Although nations with more mature political systems and proper infrastructures in place than Nepal have also failed to keep things under control, it is of general consensus that the government of Nepal could have had better luck in controlling the pandemics, if it had acted proactively in a more co-ordinated manner. As countries throughout the world have had varied levels of success in controlling the pandemic, depending upon their political systems, culture and the awareness of the people of the country, Nepal’s low levels of success in containing the pandemic is indicative of Nepal’s governance problem.
It’s been more than two years since federalism was implemented in the country. But, during this period, Nepal hasn’t been able to foster a strong coordination between different levels of government, such that different entities of government become capable of working in the most organized and coherent manner. It can be argued that two years since implementation of federalism may not have been a sufficient time period for the governance processes to mature but Nepal has not even managed to make basic reforms in matters related to governance and development under the new system. Disaster preparedness and responses during monsoon landslides and the recent fiasco regarding the unavailability of fertilizers for farmers are relevant examples of the same. How can Nepali people still be struggling for something so basic in a system that the leaders have deemed and claimed to be the most superior and suitable to Nepal? This is because, regardless of the system, Nepal has a culture of taking reactive steps for solving a problem only after it is too late. When we begin to solve a development related problem after it occurs, the problems may evolve into a more severe form by the time the solutions are effectively put in place. The same is true for policy making. If we take a look at how Nepal handled the outbreak of CoVID-19, we can see the same pattern of reactivity repeating. If the government of Nepal had acted slightly proactively, there would have coordinated attempts between different levels of governments to empower the local government, particularly of bordering areas, for making provisions of proper quarantine to people entering the nation and imposing higher restrictions in mobility of the entrants. But, as we all know, that did not happen which led us to where we are now.
The culture of reactivity is so compelling that, in fact, it can cripple Nepal’s hard earned federal system and every prospect that it may have for Nepal. So, until we find a way around this reactivity which is innate to our political culture and promote proactivity in matters related to policy, emergency responses and development, federalism may not lead us anywhere. To begin incorporating proactivity in our political culture, managing the population can be a good place to start with.
Around the world, places with higher population density have seen worse outbreak of noble coronavirus. Kathmandu is also seeing a significant spike in COVID-19 cases and one of the reasons is certainly the density of population. But population being disproportionately accumulated in Kathmandu valley is not a threat just because it’s aiding the growth of infection. In fact, such huge concentration of population at one place can lead to disparities which creates a challenge for the federalism itself.
Running a federal system requires skilled human resources in every level of formal and informal governance throughout the country. However, owing to the economic and political situation of the country of the past decades, there has been an increased growth of population inside Kathmandu valley. To cope up with the surging demand, the transportation infrastructures have been augmented but at a very heavy price. But, the best and brightest of the population of the country continue to pour into the valley. Those people are mostly young individuals who aspire to have a stable job by 25 and desire owning a car by 30. In response to the growing population and traffic, the roads should keep widening and bridges and flyovers need to keep on being made but the traffic jam will not stop. In an attempt to reactively fulfil the need of the people, the environment, cultural heritage and personal liberty will continue to be violated. Stress of growing population will not just be limited to transportation, it will also be visible in sectors such as education, health, energy, food supply and more. So, a scenario where reactive political decision making is continued, Kathmandu will struggles to keep up with the demand, while other places shall lack the cream human resources which could help those regions overcome the disparity caused by the centralize rule of the past times.
But it’s not just Kathmandu valley that requires people to be taken out of. Relocating people from scattered villages in Nepal and containing the population within a properly planned, disaster resilient and preferably smart city with all necessary infrastructure is all the more important. In one or another way, people in villages are making their ways into cities and instead of letting the process be haphazard, the government can proactively guide the process. Such action will have two-fold advantages – it will spares the burden of having to conduct development activities in remote, scattered location, which is inefficient and it will also prevent many fatalities caused by recurring natural disasters. The landslide of Lidi, Sindhupalchowk is a recent reminder of why proactive action of government in matters related to strategic relocation and distribution of population is necessary. But, given the strong sentiment of Nepali people regarding culture and tradition, the displacement may not be exactly easy but government can easily expedite the processes through various incentives.
Despite the urgency of the matter, punitive approaches simply won’t do and the state should consider incentivizing people for such relocation. Most important reason why people migrate into newer places is the pursuit of employment, education and health facilities. Since, the government is basically accountable for these facilities anyway, incentivizing people may not require all that extra effort. Additionally, tax incentives, subsidies, and reliability of utilities like electricity and drinking water, etc. can be other important incentives in this process.
To sum up, the current COVID-19 situation has shed light on Nepal’s years’ old problem of reactive governance. Federalism too, is struggling to keep up with people’s expectation because the underlying political culture of Nepal is still reactive. The government’s job is not just to solve intermediate and long term problems, but also to reduce the possibility of occurrence of problem and to minimize the impact of the problem if it’s unavoidable. Proactive management of population is a good place to start inviting proactivity in governance primarily because managing how population is distributed or centralized will spontaneously take care of many problems. But it should not be limited there, proactivity should manifest in decision making, emergency response and development activities if Nepal hopes of achieving prosperity through federalism.
Comments
Post a Comment