A proxy war for 'attractive' appointments

The most risky aspect is that the chairman of the board, which is supposed to regulate and monitor the abnormal fluctuations of the stock market index that has been observed for some time, has not been appointed for such a long time.

The Accounts Committee of the Federal Parliament has instructed the government to 'quickly appoint' the Chairman of the Board. The finance minister of the government has given a statement in the parliament that there will be no political maneuvering in this appointment and it will be in accordance with the law. Last year, the government has issued the 'Procedures on Recommendations for Appointment to the Chairmanship of Nepal Securities Board, 2080'. A recommendation committee has been formed. In the case before the Supreme Court, on June 21, it has maintained the interim order to stop the appointment process, giving priority to the full hearing as it is not appropriate to keep an important position like the chairman of the board vacant for a long time.

How natural and methodical everything feels. On top of that, the selection process that the government wants to adopt, it seems that a person of amazing ability will be appointed to this position, he will solve and improve all the problems of the capital market in a pinch. On the surface, everything seems to be in order and it seems that the appointment was not made due to some procedural issues. But what is seen on the surface, the interior is completely different.

The next installment of the case given priority by two senior judges has been moved to Magh 30 after five months by the court administration. Supposedly, the Court of Nepal has no knowledge about the sensitivity of the Securities Board. Who filed the case and with what intention? Or, why are such cases filed and decided sooner or later according to one's convenience? There is fear of defamation of the court even by asking questions. One government after another does not want to appoint the previous office bearers to such posts. Why?

' systematic' randomness

Economists Darren Ejemolu and James Robinson mention here an example of the world famous book 'Why Nations Fail' (page 399). This is January 2000 in Harare, Zimbabwe. Celebrity television presenter Flot Chawawa was in charge of drawing the winning ticket for a national lottery sponsored by the Zimbabwe Banking Corporation, a semi-government bank. The lottery was opened in December 1999 to all customers with five thousand Zimbabwe dollars or more in their accounts. When Chawawa took out the ticket, he was shocked. The winner's name of one hundred thousand Zimbabwe dollars was drawn on the ticket - His Excellency RG Mugabe.

President Robert Mugabe, who has ruled Zimbabwe since 1980, won the lottery for 100,000 Zimbabwean dollars, which was five times the country's annual per capita income. What lucky person will be drawn from among thousands of eligible customers? Nothing illegal has happened in all this process. The most credible characters on the television screen were drawn to draw lots, like the Madankrishna/Harivamshas or the Rajesh Hamals in Nepal. After all, Mugabe was also a bank account holder. Shouldn't he have won? Can be answered. However, all the tickets kept there were probably only in his name.

The authors have explained about this - 'This lottery episode was just one more indicator that Zimbabwe's (state-controlled) institutions are becoming exploitative (extractive). One might call it corruption, but it is only a symptom of Zimbabwe's institutional decay. An attempt was made to show how the country is completely under the control of one person through the illustration that Mugabe can win the lottery at will. It gives an example to the world of the extent to which exploitative institutions can descend in a country.' But the state system and the economy of Zimbabwe, which he believed to have been corrupted by the exploitative institutions, are still in shambles.

'

attractive' appointment Even in the context of Nepal, the case of appointing the chairman of the Securities Board is only a symbolic example. In all the so-called attractive appointments, the interest and selfishness of the political leadership and the same slowness, vacillation and irregularity followed until they are completed are constantly coming out sporadically. Public appointments, transfers, promotions all have a specific definition of the word 'attractive'. It has become a tradition to classify the three as attractive or unattractive based on the extent to which those institutions are likely to provide direct benefits to the appointee through financial manipulation.

Aspirants do not hesitate at all to ask for an appointment or transfer to an 'attractive' place after the people within their reach become powerful. At the level of the political leadership, this game of "getting an attractive base" starts with the decision to choose an "attractive" ministry. It is equally extended from civil service peons to the rush of security agencies to show 'miraculous honesty' by going to the customs post, airport, cargo port, transport office or foreign employment department. State power brokers who claim to set a price of crores on every lucrative appointment are common these days. Such discussions seem to be established in sequence.

Apart from money manipulation, another reason for delay in appointment is the attempt to appoint a person close to a particular leader or a political worker of the ruling party. Any government will give immediate appointment to any character it wants. There is no need for selection process, merit test or transparency. Recently, the government has appointed a new Chief Executive Officer in the Board of Investments, leaving aside all other priorities for appointment. Whereas, many universities, board committees or regulatory institutions are stuck without appointing decisive officers on time.

First applications or applications (not letters of intent or expressions of interest) are being sought for the appointment of vice chancellors of universities, executives of important institutions, ambassadors or heads of constitutional bodies or members. It seems that they are trying to appoint the 'most qualified' in a transparent manner by conducting presentations, interviews, etc. without any political interference. But all these processes are in essence not very different from the method of 'transparent legitimacy' adopted by Mugabe to win the lottery in his name.

The characters who get appointment after extreme delay and long process have neither the personal profile of such grandeur, nor the authentic public knowledge, nor have they been able to prove their indispensability with such a miraculous performance. Even though JJ is staging a play, both the assignor and the assignee know the inside of it. All such appointments have proved to be nothing but 'another appointment' in the interest of the nation and the organization. It is not surprising that after being appointed, those who come in with money start raising investments and those who are sent to control the organization for other purposes indulge in non-commercial activities accordingly. The only result was that the important institutions of the state gradually became extremely extractive. That is why the country is going downhill.

Politics, merit and appointment

There is complete indifference in the commentary to keep high-level appointments free from political interference, make the selection process transparent and give responsibility to the most qualified. Commentary on politics in Nepal is wrong. Politics is not synonymous with fraud, deceit and gangsterism. Sacrifice of the highest level, strong thoughts, character ideals and service towards the country. This kind of politics should become a commentary on the demand to appoint qualified people by interfering.

The ruling political party should be able to appoint people in decision-making positions who are capable and confident in implementing their party's ideas and programs. The state ruling party should have such courage and vision. You should be able to take moral responsibility for its merits and demerits.

That party got public opinion as approval of its ideas, program and manifesto. The President of the United States appoints judges to the Supreme Court according to his party's opinion. It is natural for the Ministry of Finance, Central Bank or Capital Market to operate according to the government's ideology. If a right-wing government is elected, it is pointless to expect its economic, social and educational visions to be implemented by an institution headed by a highly qualified but left-wing thinker. An ambassador appointed abroad is also a political representative of the government. It is wrong to believe that a person is devoid of faith and ideology or that such a person is only professionally competent. The root problem is dishonesty and exploitative meanness.

Why is the opposite commentary and practice in the context of Nepal, the government itself has been transformed into an extractive institution of the unknown. Whatever the name of the government comes, it is devoid of ideas and integrity and while in power, it is to collect as much money as possible and enroll its supporters in some institutions. A transparent recruitment process has been promoted to cover up such corruption. As a result, the truly deserving with self-respect do not want to join the government's 'application' process. Judges involved in the selection process often engage in a self-indulgent ritual of less merit than the applicants, whose aim is to exploit the organization rather than its interests. At the time of appointment, there is an obligation to fulfill the contract.

Currently active political parties of Nepal should give up the character of 'eating ghee while wearing vinegar' in the name of fair selection of public institutions. Due to the intention of making all the small institutions and bodies that are supposed to work in the interest of the country to be only tools for selfish exploitation, the very existence of many institutions has reached a crisis. The dignity and credibility of the entire country as a modern state has been destroyed. The infighting of the parties, which have turned into interest groups at every appointment, has contributed nothing but accelerating institutional decay.