A recent incident in the House of Representatives of Nepal and its parliamentary committee, the State Affairs and Good Governance, concerning the Federal Civil Service Bill has brought into surface the mess within and irresponsible behavior of its members, sheer negligence toward their duties and responsibilities, a place where the people’s representatives are expected to be accountable toward the people. Unfortunately, there has been dishonest, immoral and objectionable manipulation to tamper with this provision even after the House committee endorsed it unanimously.
The inefficiency of Nepal’s federal parliament has been exposed again after the plenary of the House of Representatives was found to have endorsed a bill whose provisions had been tampered with, altered, and a clause was inserted against the spirit of the bill. No doubt, this dreadful act was intentionally conducted with a purpose by the authorities involved in the process. Such a malicious act was so tactfully carried out that nobody smelled a rat until it reached the National Assembly. The issue has rocked the parliament and shocked experts in parliamentary practices.
It was about a draft bill on civil service where a provision commonly known as the cooling-off period, barring civil servants from opting for political appointments immediately after retirement, was widely debated, and its necessity was accepted with common understanding. The senior bureaucrats who may have been vying for political patronage for post-retirement were found disheartened and lobbying against such provision in the proposed civil service bill. And, many interested groups, secretaries, and individuals have attempted to convince the high echelon and change the bill in the course of its discussion and tabling in the respective committee and floor for voting. The Principal Secretary of the Government was also found leading the group and trying to convince the Prime Minister and opposition leaders against the provision.
In a long course of administrative practice, after the reinstatement of democracy and the republican order of governance, most of the appointments in the constitutional bodies are given not based on merit but on personal connections and party affiliations. Often, an intimacy between the cabinet secretary, secretaries of the key ministries and the Prime Minister could have been developed during the work through obeying and fulfilling his legitimate and illegitimate orders with the motives of pleasing him and bringing the Prime Minister into their fold, securing an intended appointment post-retirement. In such a scenario, in case the secretaries pursue their duties with vested interest and personal greed and pleasing the Prime Minister just to ensure the plum positions, appointments in constitutional bodies and much-desired representation as an envoy abroad, how can there be good governance?
The way the wrong provision was endorsed by the House plenary affirms that many have failed to carry out their duties responsibly. However, the committee chair, secretary and its members are mainly responsible, may try to make someone a scapegoat. Furthermore, there must be some more agencies involved in the drafting process, documentation, presentation and finalization must be booked and thoroughly investigated.
Since the decision of the majority validates, the committee and its members, including its chair, are the authoritative as well as responsible body to finalize a bill; the entire responsibility for the bill and the report submitted to the plenary lies with the committee. Therefore, the concern of this write-up is about the accountability and transparency of the conduct of the members of the House of Representatives, who claim to be people's representatives.
What happens if any provision against the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity or any clause that is against the national interest, is inserted quietly?
After watching this episode, the question arises whether in the past any such alteration in the bills was made. What happens if any provision against the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity or any clause that is against the national interest, is inserted quietly? Such a deliberate act of noncompliance is regrettable, and the culprit must be booked. If such a crime can happen in the parliament, where people’s representatives are expected to act transparently, responsibly and diligently, we can only imagine what happens elsewhere.
Some time back, we, the common people, observed that during the endorsement of the Bank and Financial Institutions Act (BAFIA) and the Medical Education Bill, the lobbyists and interest groups were very much active in the House Committee to insert provisions favorable to them. House Members, ignoring the conflict of interest, who were not committee members but held their interest in it, openly tried to influence the committee members and succeeded in their mission.
The parliament is the supreme and sovereign law-making body where it is expected that people’s representatives are freely, consciously, independently and deliberatively involved in policy formulation, representing people. But in practice, with the occurrence of such an incident, an unfair and manipulative practice degenerates the essence of democratic values and the rule of law. Such negligence could prove to be fatal to the national health.
Democracy often faces threats from the executive while delivering and exercising its sovereign powers, and there is a tendency of falling on majoritarian dictatorship. Even then, if the judiciary is independent, such a threat would be diluted, and the rule of law prevails. But the danger lies there when the supreme body, the House of Representatives, where the law has to be legislated and people’s representatives exercise sovereign powers, is manipulated and minimized, the real danger for democracy looms large. Such nefarious acts not only pose a danger to the survival and institutionalization of democracy, but also pose a threat to the survival of the nation.
Democracy gradually demoralizes and if the situation prolongs, dies itself when the interested groups, lobbyists, agents or elites of the governing class supersede in decision-making of the executive, legislative and judiciary in the end. When the bills are tampered with during the legislative process, who should be held accountable?
(Mr. Bartaula is a former Diplomatic Officer of the Government of Nepal.)
.
