The country's image in international forums regarding corruption control and good governance is deteriorating. State structures for investigating and prosecuting corruption are weakened by partisanship. The country's good governance indicator is in a negative position in the report of Transparency International.

Nepal has also been included in the 'grey list' in the money laundering case. In the manifesto focused on the upcoming election, the parties have prioritized corruption control. However, the trend of making commitments to good governance but not implementing them is old. In this context, Kantipur's Matrika Dahal and Durga Dulal spoke to Madan Krishna Sharma, President of Transparency International Nepal, about the election promises of the parties, the challenges seen in controlling corruption, and the measures for reform: Nepal's situation was seen as critical in Transparency International's recent public corruption and good governance index. How do you take this picture of the country shown by international forums? In Transparency's Corruption Perceptions Index, Nepal's situation is 110th out of 182 countries in terms of maintaining good governance and a score of 34. Last year, Nepal also got the same score, 34 out of 100 is extremely low. That is, a score of less than 50 out of 100 means being included in the list of countries where corruption is rampant. This survey conducted by international organizations shows how much corruption and irregularities are there in which sectors? How is it in business? How is the functioning of the government?

The government will not be permanent, but the politicians will be permanent? The same politicians, the same leadership for 30 years, but the government will not be stable. Due to this, the parliament could not work.

A kind of 'decline' in leadership means falling, deterioration. Leadership is supposed to be something that everyone accepts and respects, and when they speak, it must be true, but that is not the case. This situation has come about because of the belief that leaders say whatever they say, that they should not be believed, that they say one thing today and another tomorrow. This is an irony and a sad matter. What is the condition of service delivery? How are the functioning of the mechanisms under the executive, judiciary and legislature? It is said. Including this, there has been no significant improvement in the concept of 6 different institutions. The main reason for this is the lack of honesty in politics, the lack of political good governance and good conduct in maintaining honesty, and the lack of accountability.

No matter how many indicators of transparency come and go, is there any room to question these surveys?

It is possible to question, it is possible to question. But should we accept or reject the studies/reports of organizations recognized and trusted by the world, such as the World Bank, World Economic Forum, Variety of Democracy, Bertelsmann Foundation, and others? This is again a concept, if the concept did not match reality, then the calculations of those organizations would not match, but here it is matching reality. Sometimes it feels like the 34 points we got should not have been included. Saying that we do not accept this, raising questions is a lack of accountability. Instead of trying to see where my weaknesses are and correct them, there is no point in defending them. If we were doing well, would this be the state of the country?

What does it mean that Nepal has not been able to get an average score for two and a half decades?

What is surprising is that if you look at the government's plans and budgets, for example, the National Planning Commission's 'Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTAF)' is prepared every three years by the Planning Commission when preparing the budget. It includes an index to increase good governance and reduce corruption. It seems that only 0.5 percent of the index has been achieved. So, the target that it has set has not increased, but has decreased. It has decreased where it should have done better than it set. The report of the same organization under the Prime Minister has shown that it has done less than the target. Why is this happening? Basically, the country focused on political change and system change. Since the issue of system change was big, the issue of controlling corruption and maintaining good governance was given secondary importance. Whereas good governance should have been given priority over the system. Good governance is the way to build a country. Moving forward, developing. Good governance is the issue of equal opportunities for all Nepalis. It is not the system. If there is no good governance, nothing will happen.

We also saw it, when the 2047 constitution was brought, we called it the best. When it came in 2072, it was also called the best. But, the reality has been seen. The government will not be permanent, and the politicians will be permanent? The same politicians, the same leadership for 30 years, the government will not be stable. Because of this, the parliament could not work. The parliament is supposed to 'check and balance' those in the government. If there is no balance of power, if there is no monitoring of the actions of someone, especially those who gain power through politics and run the nation, and those who are in the organs of the nation, this is the situation that will occur.

Right now, we are in a situation of power grab. Look at the parliament – ​​the government is favored and look at the parliamentary committee – the government is favored. It is not known which opposition party will join hands with which party to form the ruling party. That is why the parliament itself has become like an opposition party. Who will listen to the agenda of national development and good governance if small parties have raised it? All bills will be passed by a majority.

When big issues come up, the ruling party and the opposition all stand together. Look at the matter of amending the act, today they have opposed it, tomorrow those who opposed it will become allies of the ruling party. And they say – the day has come when support for the constitution and democracy has come. That is why the parliament has reached a state where there is no balance of power and no opposition. Autocracy has been imposed in the name of democracy. This is unfortunate for the democratic system and good governance.

Only those who can serve their own interests, who believe what they say, who benefit themselves or do not harm themselves, are appointed/distributed.

Like a sensitive place like the authority, which should make all decisions fairly and promptly within the time limit and demonstrate cleanliness, and those who commit misdeeds should be investigated and taken action from place to place, but should the issue of the appointment of commissioners of such a place be stuck in the court? The court kept prolonging the process without making a decision. If the appointment was correct, then the decision should have been made accordingly, if not, then it should have been said accordingly. Is that what happened? That is why there was no improvement. Similarly, what happens after the distribution and distribution of appointments in government regulatory bodies such as the judiciary, constitutional or government institutions that look after corruption and good governance, the Governor of the National Bank, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Board, the Insurance Authority, the Electricity Regulatory Commission? It is okay to distribute, but what about the ability and competence? Only those who can serve their own interests, who believe what they say directly, who benefit themselves or do not harm themselves on any day, are appointed/distributed. They remained in their original place.

The court, parliament and government have their own responsibilities and roles. But is the issue of maintaining good governance only the government's responsibility or does it also fall to others?

The first responsibility to reduce corruption lies with the government. It is the decision-maker in the government. No matter who the office-bearer or employee is. The decision-maker first has to distinguish whether the decision he makes is in the interest of the nation and the people or in the interest of vested interests. If we only make a decision that is in the interest of the nation and the people based on that, is it corruption? Therefore, the first responsibility to control corruption lies with the decision-maker. The first accountable person should be the decision-maker. Now, only if the decision-maker makes a mistake, will we go to court. Who decides/appoints the state's resources, means, property, and everything else? Isn't it the government?

Appointments to the judiciary are made by the whims of those in the government. Therefore, the first responsibility lies with the government. The government is blamed here from the beginning, the employees. Yes, employees should also improve. They should be corrected. But they are also in ruins. Who did this? Isn't it the same politicians? From the lowest level to the highest, everyone has become party-oriented. There is no one who is not close to the party. Voting in politics is a matter of conscience. But, where will the person who lives in the government show political character, where will the person who lives in the government become clean and transparent? Therefore, the root of the problem lies with the decision-makers.

Even when the country is so shabby, haven't the people in the government, parliament, and judiciary tried to improve? Are they unable to contemplate the problem or are they neglecting the country?

No matter what democracy, democracy, republic, they are allowed to speak to some extent. But those who should be listened to are also allowed not to listen. Is this the governance system we are trying to bring? If we are not listened to, what is the point of speaking? The media has brought out so many corruption and injustice scandals, so many voices have been raised at the civil level. Organizations that advocate good governance have spoken and spoken, but those who should be listened to do not listen. There should be an uproar in parliament over the issues spoken and written for good governance.

Such a report has come, the parliament should seek answers from the government as to what this is. We should look at it with a sense of responsibility, listen and correct. But instead, they blamed him, formed groups and abused him, if he was not satisfied with something in the power alliance with one, he would form an alliance with another overnight. In this situation, the country has been run till today. How many days, how many years, how many decades will the country be run like this?

Who will improve it now?

Now it is the people who will improve it. While searching, the responsibility of improving it has now fallen into the hands of the people. The democratic process is the only way to improve the situation, it is the people. This means that the tainted should be defeated in the elections. In countries with high good governance indicators, we see leaders who have become prime ministers riding bicycles. After the prime minister's post is over, they embrace a separate profession to make a living.

Just look at the vehicles of those who are currently campaigning during the election, shouldn't the investigating agency catch them and ask them? Shouldn't we ask who gave us this car?

Nepal is also on the 'grey list' in matters of money laundering. You yourself are a chartered accountant. How should we view this risk? Even if someone asks when we are the Prime Minister, we will go into agriculture later, and we will embrace this profession according to our expertise. Our leaders shamelessly say, 'I have been in politics all my life, that is why I am supported and should be supported.' It is the people who should break this tradition. We should vote not by appearances, but by deeds. We should not vote for those who have failed and are plunging the country into the swamp of corruption. Therefore, reform should be done through voting. Then the elected representatives should reflect on this. Not everyone may think like that, but we should come to the maximum. We should work considering the public interest.

Nepal has been placed on the 'Grey List' for supporting and covering up corruption and laundering the money earned from it. The fact that the country has been placed on the 'Grey List' also confirms that the issues pointed out by Transparency are based on truth. Committing corruption means doing something punishable by law. Laundering the money earned from corruption means turning black money into white and encouraging it. Either it should be burned like the leaders' houses were burned on 24 Bhadra, or it will remain as black money.

Now they are harassing the little ones, if you take more than 5 lakhs in cash to the bank, they will look for the check. If you take a check of 1 million, they ask where you got it from. But when there are crores, billions of rupees of black money transactions, is there a search policy? Those who have no financial status, no source of income, are driving around in vehicles worth crores, where did that come from? Is there an investigation? चुनावमै अहिले प्रचारप्रसारमा हिँडेकाहरूका गाडी हेर्नुस् त, अनुसन्धान गर्ने निकायले झ्यापझ्याप समाएर सोधे हुँदैन ? यो गाडी कसले दियो भनेर केरकार गरे हुँदैन ? निर्वाचन आयोगको हुति छ ? अर्काले चुनावलाई भनेर दियो रे ? यसरी दिन पाइन्छ ? अहिले दिएपछि भोलि त्यसको भरपाई लिनलाई होइन र ? त्यहाँ स्वार्थ बाझिएन ? स्वार्थ नहुने भए किन दिन्छ कसैले ? किन लगानी गर्छ ? त्यसको त ‘रिटर्न’ चाहिन्छ, प्रत्यक्ष/अप्रत्यक्ष । यसमा निर्वाचन आयोगले हेरेको खै ? आयोगले जारी गरेका आचारसंहिता नै हेरौं न, यति धेरै बुँदा छन् कि, त्यो बुँदा लागू गर्नलाई होइन, नगर्नलाई ल्याएको हो भन्ने अवस्था छ ।

हामी एकातिर व्याप्त भ्रष्टाचार हुने देशको सूचीमा र अर्कातिर सम्पत्ति शुद्धीकरणको ‘ग्रे लिस्ट’ मा छौं । यसबाट हामीले पार नपाउने नै भयौं अब ?

अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय संस्थाहरूका प्रतिवेदनको कुरै छाडौं । किनकि, अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय रिपोर्ट मात्र हेर्दा पक्ष लियो भन्ने विषय आउला । राष्ट्रिय प्रतिवेदन पनि हेरौं न । राष्ट्रिय योजना आयोगको प्रतिवेदन मात्रै हेरे पुग्छ । भनिएको छ, योजना तर्जुमा हुँदा, योजना कार्यान्वयन हुँदा र योजना मूल्यांकन हुँदा सिधै भ्रष्टाचार देखिन्छ । महालेखा प्रतिवेदनले त्यही भन्छ । अख्तियारकै वार्षिक प्रतिवेदन हेर्दा हुन्छ । अख्तियार दिवसकै दिन प्रमुख आयुक्तले राष्ट्रपति, उपराष्ट्रपति, प्रधानमन्त्री, प्रधानन्यायाधीश, राष्ट्रिय सभा अध्यक्ष, प्रशासन, प्रहरी, जंगीका प्रमुख र पदाधिकारी एकै ठाउँमा भएका बेला सार्वजनिक रूपमै भनिदिनुभयो– मन्त्री नियुक्ति, सरुवा–बढुवा, खरिद जताततै बिचौलिया शक्तिशाली बन्दै गए, हाबी भए । यो भनेको के हो भन्दा अख्तियारलाई निष्पक्ष रूपमा काम गर्न दिँदै दिइएन । कम्तीमा त्यो फोरममा प्रमुख आयुक्तकै मुखबाट सबैले सुन्ने मौका पाए, देश कुन हालतमा छ भनेर । 

सुशासनका लागि कानुनी र संवैधानिक संरचनाअन्तर्गतका निकायहरूलाई नै मजबुत गर्छौं भनेर दलहरूले भन्नुपर्छ ।

प्रधानमन्त्री र मन्त्रीहरू निवासबाट हेलिकोप्टर चढेर भाग्नुपर्‍यो । तर, अहिले तिनै मान्छेहरू ठूलो स्वर गर्दै छन् । नेपाली जनतालाई सजिलो के छ भने आफ्ना बदमासी छोप्नुपर्‍यो भने सबैभन्दा ठूलो स्वरमा एउटा ग्याङ बनाएर कराइसकेपछि सबैले पत्याइदिने रहेछन् । स्थिति त्यही हो अहिलेको । तर, सबैभन्दा बढ्दा विदेशी चलखेलमा चल्ने नै उनीहरू हुन् । जसले विदेशी चलखेल भयो भन्छन् नि, उनीहरू नै सबैभन्दा बढी पालितपोषित नेताहरू हुन् । अख्तियारले त कसुर गर्नेलाई कारबाही गर्नुपर्ने थियो नि त, ती बिचौलियाहरूलाई थुन्नुपर्ने थियो नि । तर सक्नु हुन्न । यद्यपि, भन्ने आँटचाहिँ गर्नुभयो । यसले स्पष्ट पार्दैन र ? हामीले किन ‘एफएटीएफ’ लाई हेर्नुपर्‍यो, किन ट्रान्सपरेन्सी हेर्न बर्लिन पुग्नुपर्‍यो ? यहीँ छ त सबै । त्यसैले बोल्न पाइने, सुन्नु नपर्ने, गर्नु नपर्ने डेमोक्रेसी ल्याएका छौं हामीले । यसलाई के अवस्था भन्ने ? विकराल । सिंहदरबार, संसद् भवन र अदालतमा आगो लाग्यो ।

जेन–जी आन्दोलनपछि बनेको सरकारचाहिँ सुशासनको मामिलामा ठीक छ त ?

देखिएकै छ त । गैरकानुनी रूपमा विदेशी कम्पनीलाई कर छुट दिलाउने सरकारको निर्णयमा अस्ति भर्खर सर्वोच्चले ‘स्टे अर्डर’ गरेर रोक लगाइदिएको छ । आफैं जोडिएको स्वार्थ बाझिने मुद्दा नचल्ने भनेर अहिलेकै सरकारका महान्यायाधिवक्ताबाट निर्णय गराइयो । विभिन्न अदालतमा विचाराधीन मुद्दा फिर्ता लिने निर्णय गराइयो । भलै सार्वजनिक वृत्तबाट दबाब बढेपछि र केही अदालतबाटै रोकिएपछि फिर्ताको निर्णय कार्यान्वयनमा जान पाएन । तर, चरित्र त उदांगियो नि । अलिकति पनि नैतिकता भन्ने चिज भइदिएको भए तिनै व्यक्तिहरूले हामी त निर्वाचन गराउन आएका हौं भने तर फटाफट राजीनामा दिएर चुनावमा उम्मेदवार बने । चुनावी सरकारले दीर्घकालीन निर्णय गर्ने ? फेरि पनि मौका पाए भने ती मानिसले भोलि के गर्लान् ?

अहिले पूर्वप्रधानन्यायाधीश नेतृत्वमा सरकार छ । तर उहाँहरूबाटै कानुनविपरीतका निर्णय हुन्छ भने दलहरूले मात्र गल्ती गर्ने होइन रहेछन् नि ?

नागरिक सरकारले ६ महिनामा धेरै काम गर्न सक्ने थियो । कमसेकम सुरुवात त गर्न सक्थ्यो । तर जनताले त्यस्तो अनुभव गर्न सकेका छैनन् । निर्वाचन निर्वाचन मात्र भनिएको छ । निर्वाचन २०८४ बाट २०८२ फागुनमा सार्नका लागि देशमा यत्रो उपद्रो गर्न जरुरी थियो त ? निर्वाचन गर्नुपर्छ । तोकिएकै मितिमा गर्नुपर्छ । यो काम त निर्वाचन आयोगको हो नि । सरकारले त निर्वाचन आयोगलाई सहयोग गर्नुपर्ने हो, गरेकै छ । नागरिक सरकार त जेन–जी आन्दोलनको जगमा बनेकाले त्यसको म्यान्डेटअनुसार काम गर्नुपर्ने थियो ।

जाँचबुझ आयोगको प्रतिवेदन समयैमा आउनुपर्ने थियो । सुशासनको जग बसाउनुपर्ने थियो । विगतमा कति फाइलहरू तामेलीमा राखिएका थिए, ती निस्कनुपर्ने थियो नि । ती फाइल त निस्कन सकेन नि ? अख्तियार होस् वा सरकार तथा अन्य निकायमा रहेका फाइलहरू फटाफट निस्कनुपर्ने थियो । खै त ? खासै त्यस्तो केही आएन नि ? जनमानसले महसुस गर्ने केही न केही झिल्को देखिनुपर्ने थियो । यस्तो अवस्था किन आएन ? यो दुःखद अवस्था हो ।

निर्वाचन संघारमै आइसकेको छ, दलहरूले घाोषणापत्रमार्फत आफ्नो मार्गचित्र ल्याएका छन् । केही दलका घोषणापत्रमा २०४६ पछिका ठूला भ्रष्टाचारका काण्ड र सार्वजनिक पदमा रहेकाहरूको सम्पत्ति छानबिन गर्नुपर्छ भनेर स्वीकार गरेका छन् । आयोग बनाएर नै छानबिन हुनेमा विश्वास गर्नुहुन्छ ?

घोषणापत्रमा जे विषयमा जनतालाई आकर्षित गर्न सकिन्छ, त्यसैलाई राख्ने हो । त्यसबाट भोलि अप्ठ्यारो पर्न सक्नेबारे उनीहरूले सोचेका हुँदैनन् । दलहरूले यस्तो कुरा अघि सार्नु उनीहरूका लागि जायज होला । तर भ्रष्टाचारको छानबिन गर्ने निकायहरूमा यस्ता विषय नपुगेकै वा उनीहरूले नगरेकै हुन् त ? अख्तियारले यी विषय नसुनेकै हो त ? यदि सुनेको हो भने सरकारवादी भएर यी विषयमा मुद्दा हाल्नुपर्‍यो । तर छानबिन गर्ने निकायहरूले यी विषय सुनेका छन् वा उनीहरूलाई अवरोध गरियो ? गरिरहेका छन् भने उनीहरू दबाब र प्रभावबिना सक्रिय बनाउने होला नि ? 

जनतालाई फलानो राजनीतिक दलको सदस्य हुँ भनेर गर्व गर्ने अवस्था बनाइएको छ । जबकि सच्चा र इमान्दार छु भनेर गर्व गर्नुपर्ने थियो ।

त्यसैले सबैभन्दा पहिलो विषय सुशासनका लागि कानुनी र संवैधानिक संरचनाअन्तर्गतका निकायहरूलाई नै हामी मजबुत गर्छौं भनेर दलहरूले भन्नुपर्छ । यो भनेको ऐन कानुन, प्रणाली र विधिहरूलाई हामी ठीक ठाउँमा ल्याउँछौं भन्नुपर्छ । छानबिन गर्ने त ऐन/कानुन र संविधानअनुसार हो । पहिला खुब चलेको थियो नि, ‘फाइल खोल्छौं’ भन्ने । यो पनि त्यस्तै हो । भ्रष्टाचारको फाइल सरकारले चाहेर खोल्ने हो र ? यसका लागि अख्तियार र प्रहरी जस्ता अनुसन्धान गर्ने निकाय होलान् । संरचनाअनुसार पो काम हुनुपर्छ नि । यो स्वतःस्फूर्त गर्नुपर्ने काम हो । नत्र त भोलि राजनीतिक प्रतिशोधमा आएर गरिएको निर्णय भनेर भन्न पनि सकिन्छ वा आरोप लगाउन सकिन्छ नि । लहडमा यो गरियो भने त्यसलाई राजनीतिक रंग पनि दिइन्छ । सरकारमा नहुने पुराना राजनीतिज्ञहरू यो कारबाहीको सूचीमा परे भने उनीहरूको पहिलो भनाइ नै के हुन्छ भने राजनीतिक प्रतिशोध भयो । यसले कालान्तरमा अर्को विद्रोह वा अशान्तिको बाटो पनि समाउन सक्छ ?

‘फाइल खोल्छु’ भन्नु एक प्रकारको धम्की नै हैन र ?

म त्यही भनिरहेको छु । यो राजनीतिक दृष्टिकोण हो । संविधान र कानुनविपरीत जहाँसुकै अनियमितता भएको छ भने त्यहाँ त स्वतः नै अख्तियार जस्ता निकायहरूले अनुसन्धान गर्ने हो । कारबाही गर्दै जाने हो । हामीले यही विश्वसनीय प्रणाली विकास गर्दै जानुपर्छ । यतापट्टि हामीले ध्यान दिनुपर्छ । तर जनताले सहजै रूपमा विश्वास गरुन् भनेर शब्दमा फरक परेको पनि हुन सक्छ । तर अहिले जे भनेर जनताको ध्यानाकर्षण गर्न सकिन्छ वा मत तान्न सकिन्छ, त्यही भनिएको पनि हुन सक्छ ।

तर पनि प्रणालीमै विश्वास जगाउने काम गर्नुपर्छ । तर कैयौं निर्वाचनमा आएका घोषणापत्रमा भएका यस्ता विषय राम्रो सुनिन्छ । तर त्यसअनुसार कार्यान्वयन भए नभएको हेर्ने र कारबाही गर्ने कसले ? तिमीले निर्वाचनमा यस्तो घोषणापत्र ल्याएका थियौ । सरकार पनि आफ्नै नेतृत्वमा बनायौ तर यो किन कार्यान्वयन गरेनौ भनेर जवाफ माग्नुपर्छ । निर्वाचन ऐन नियममा सुधार गरेर यसलाई स्थान दिनुपर्छ । निर्वाचनमा आफूले घोषणा गरेको प्रतिबद्धता अव्यावहारिक छ कि छैन वा कति सक्ने काम र कति नसक्ने काम घोषणा गरेका छन्, त्यसलाई हेर्ने निकाय बनाउन जरुरी छ । यदि निर्वाचन घोषणापत्रअनुसार सत्तामा पुगेर त्यो काम गरिएन भने उहाँहरूको उम्मेदवारी खारेजीसम्म गर्ने हुनुपर्छ ।

यस्तो कारबाही गर्न सक्ने सामर्थ्य हाम्रो निर्वाचन आयोग वा विद्यमान निकायहरूले राख्छन् र ?

यो काम गर्छु भनेर भन्ने र कानुनी व्यवस्था गर्ने प्रतिबद्धता दलहरूले गर्नुपर्छ । घोषणापत्रअनुसार सरकारमा गएर काम गर्न नसके उम्मेदवारी खारेज गर्न तयार भएका छौं भनेर घोषणापत्रमा लेख्न सक्नुपर्छ । खै त यो त लेख्न सक्नु भएन ।

घोषणापत्र भनेको दलको मार्गचित्र हो । यसलाई नै हेरेर दल र उम्मेदवारलाई जनताले मत दिनुपर्ने हो । यस्तो किन हुन सकिरहेको छैन त ?

प्रजातान्त्रिक प्रणालीमा जनताले स्वतन्त्रतापूर्वक निर्णय गर्ने हो । तर कुनै पनि प्रभावमा आएर जनताले निर्णय गर्ने परिपाटी रहेसम्म प्रजातन्त्रको वास्तविक फल पाइँदैन । किनभने प्रभावमा पर्नेबित्तिकै स्वतन्त्रता हुँदैन । जनताले स्वतन्त्रतापूर्वक छानेको मान्न सकिँदैन । अब त्यस किसिमको शिक्षा दिन जरुरी छ । हामीकहाँ राजनीतिक सिद्धान्तलाई ठूलो मानिएको छ । म फलानो राजनीतिक दलको सदस्य हुँ भनेर गर्व गर्ने अवस्था बनाइएको छ । जबकि सच्चा र इमान्दार छु भनेर जनताले गर्व गर्नुपर्ने थियो ।

नेतृत्व परिवर्तनले मात्र सुशासन दिन्छ कि आमूल परिवर्तन हुनुपर्छ ?

परिवर्तनप्रति आमजनता र खासगरी युवाको चाहना देखिएको छ । जेन–जी आन्दोलन पनि यही हो । अब युवाहरू कसैको भुलभुलैयामा लाग्ने समय छैन । कसैले एकदुई वटा राम्रा कुरा गर्दैमा वा मीठा कुरा गर्दैमा पछि लाग्ने कि भविष्यको योजना हेरेर आफ्ना जनप्रतिनिधि छान्ने भन्ने निर्णय गर्ने बेला आएको छ । देशमा सुशासन ल्याउने हो भने देश हाँक्ने व्यक्तिले गुट र दल हेर्ने, सत्तामा रहन गुट र सम्पत्ति दुवै चाहिन्छ भनेर त्रासमा रहने हो भने कहिल्यै सुशासन आउँदैन । भ्रष्टाचार नियन्त्रण पनि हुँदैन । 

तीन तहको सरकारमा तीन खालकै बिचौलियाहरू देखिन थालेका छन् ।

निर्वाचनवाट कस्तो नेतृत्व आयो भने सुशासनको मुद्दालाई सम्बोधन गर्न सक्छ त ? राष्ट्रका लागि काम गर्छु भनेर सोच्न जरुरी छ । यस्तो अठोट लिएर काम गर्न जरुरी छ । तर अहिलेको अवस्था यस्तै छ त ? प्रश्न ठूलो छ । जुन प्रकारका नेतृत्वहरू अहिले अगाडि आउनुभएको छ, उहाँहरूको पूर्ण परीक्षण भएको त छैन, तर अलिअलि परीक्षण भएका आधारमा हेर्दा भरोसायोग्य र निखार देखिएको छैन । सुशासन हुनुपर्छ भनेर युवा विद्रोहमा पनि आउनुभयो, उहाँहरूको खबरदारी कायमै रहोस् । कतै हराउनु भएन । निर्वाचनले कस्तो परिणाम दिन्छ, बाकसको मतले थाहा होला । तर अहिलेको जस्तै गणितले चाहिँ देश चल्दैन ।

सबैभन्दा पहिला राष्ट्रको पहिचान गर्ने मानिस चाहिन्छ । नबिक्ने मानिस चाहिन्छ । कसैको इशारामा नचल्ने मानिस चाहिन्छ । भारत वा अमेरिका हेर्नुस्, देश पहिला भनेर अघि बढिरहेका छन् । हामीकहाँ पनि नेपाल फस्ट र नेपालको नीति फस्ट भनेको सुनिनुपर्छ । संस्कृति फस्ट भन्नुपर्छ । पुथ्वीनारायण शाहले ‘चार जात छत्तीस वर्ण’ को फूलबारी भनेका थिए । यो फूलबारीलाई बिगार्ने कोसिस भएको देखिन्छ । यदि यस्तो भयो भने गणित पनि त्यहीअनुसारको हुन्छ ।

सुशासनका कुरा हुन्छ । तर दागीहरूलाई सत्तामा पठाइन्छ । यस्तो हुनुमा जड के होला ?

हामी ६ महिनापछि त्यसअघिका सबै विषय बिर्सन्छौं । यो मानवीय गुण नै होला । दुःखको कुरा राजनीतिबाट देशलाई भएको हानि नोक्सानी, राजनीतिज्ञबाट भएको कमीकमजोरी र राष्ट्रघात पनि हामी चाँडै बिर्सन्छौं । उनीहरूले झुक्काएर गरेको व्याख्यामा हामी विश्वास गर्छौं । जसले बोलेका धेरैले सुन्छन्, त्यस्ता व्यक्तिहरू स्वतन्त्र हुनुपर्नेमा गुट र राजनीतिका मानिस भए । यो समाप्त नभएसम्म सुशासन सम्भव छैन ।