Good governance lies in speech, commitment and consensus, not in people's perception. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli often repeats that the government was formed for good governance. The first point of the seven-point agreement reached between the Congress and the UML before the formation of the government mentions 'controlling corruption and maintaining good governance in the country'.
Meanwhile, the cabinet meeting on 8 Baisakh 2082 also decided to form a 15-member high-level government reform commission under the leadership of the prime minister. However, two months after the formation of the commission, the first meeting was held last Wednesday, while Prime Minister Oli has yet to nominate 6 members to the commission. If the high-level commission formed under the leadership of the Prime Minister has such a move as the agenda proposed by the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers, it can be easily concluded that why good governance is not being achieved in Nepal. The tendency to centralize responsibility and decision-making power, to be indifferent to added or assigned responsibilities and not to be accountable has become a common problem of all organs and structures of the state. This trend needs to be corrected for good governance. The Prime Minister himself and his leadership commission are under examination.
There are/are established institutions/structures of the state to make the governance process transparent and accountable. The state of good governance can be felt by the answer to the question of how much they have fulfilled their assigned duties, duties and rights. From the leading institutions of the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary, the service delivery of all their structures should be people-oriented. Must be committed to the rule of law and be determined towards public service. There should be economic-moral discipline. There should be transparency. The stronger the capacity, credibility and respectability of institutions, the faster the realization of good governance. The government's efforts for good governance should be focused on this.
Prime Minister Oli, regardless of the purpose of forming the commission under his own leadership, it interferes with the existing institutions and structures. Because, there are powerful agencies such as Revenue Investigation Department, National Vigilance Center, and Money Laundering Investigation Department under the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers to maintain good governance by eliminating corruption, delay, and irregularities. If their effectiveness is not seen, the Prime Minister himself should be held accountable.
If the effectiveness is seen, the justification of the commission under the leadership of the Prime Minister is not established. On the other hand, the commission's tenure, functioning and scope are unclear. The answer to basic questions such as whether it will prepare a concrete report at a certain time, whether it will prepare a monthly-annual report, whether it will identify and implement the problem itself or recommend it to someone else, is not clear for two months. Such non-transparent decisions undermine good governance.
is another condition of good governance – a balance between public commitment and performance. Prime Minister Oli is proving to be weak here. The practice of publishing the property details of Prime Ministers and Ministers is linked to transparency. However, the property details of the prime minister and ministers of the Oli-led cabinet have not been made public for 11 months, and the reason for not being made public has not been stated. In violation of the 'National Project Bank Standard 2081', which was implemented by the federal government to not allocate budget for projects worth less than 3 crores, 20 projects including 1000 have been kept in the budget of the next financial year.
The bill that has reached the point of exercising the sovereign power of the Parliament is being interfered with by Baluwatar. As a result, the Civil Bill was removed from the agenda of the House of Representatives, the Bill related to authority is pending in the State System and Good Governance Committee, and the Water Resources Bill, which was discussed by the Infrastructure Committee of the Parliament for months, was suddenly withdrawn. The Home Administration has been questioned after the Authority started an investigation into the immigration situation at the Tribhuvan Airport, but the government has not considered it necessary to investigate or give a satisfactory answer to the citizens. For the first time, the university vice-chancellor appointed through competition was forced to resign. These are some of the contradictions, which expose the Prime Minister's own weak practical commitment to good governance.
The impression of good governance spreads downwards as effectively as the upper organs and bodies can. Therefore, the more good governance is felt in the functioning of the federal government and its structures, the same can be reflected in the state and local governments and the structures under them. Therefore, if the Prime Minister or anyone else is committed to ensuring good governance, they should first improve their working style. It is not a matter of giving orders to others and getting rewards. Efforts should be made to increase the capacity and credibility of the structures and organizations that are breaking stories. If the Prime Minister leads another structure under his own leadership while keeping dozens of branches under the office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, there will be duplication of work. This again undermines good governance. Since the federal system of government has been adopted, our rulers should be liberal in the distribution of powers and responsibilities. We have a tendency to centralize work and authority. It needs to end. Otherwise, good governance is like 'Veerbal's Khichadi'.
