Political favoritism at its best
With the political transformation from absolute monarchy to a federal democratic republic, the citizens across the country believe that there will be an end to inequality, laying the foundation for a just and democratic society. They also hoped that meritocracy would florish ending political nepotism and favoritism. Contrary to their expectation, political favoritism and nepotism continue to thrive raising questions over the political transformation. Look at the recent episode in which the government recommends KP Oli’s sister-in-law, Dr Anjan Shakya, to the National Assembly member.
The Council of Ministers' meeting on March 30 recommended to President Paudel to nominate Dr Shakya as a member of the National Assembly. Article 86 of the Constitution of Nepal, Clause 2 (b) provides for nominating three people, including at least one woman, in the National Assembly on the recommendation of the government. President Paudel nominated Shakya as a member of the National Assembly in accordance with Clause (2) of Article 86 of the Constitution of Nepal.
Over the years, political favoritism and nepotism have become an accepted phenomenon in the country. Not so long ago, the government’s decision to appoint ambassadors for four countries—Australia, Qatar, Bangladesh and Spain courted widespread criticism. The people came down heavily on the government as meritocracy was blatantly ignored because four persons recommended were close to one or the other leader of the ruling party. Mahesh Dahal, recommended for Australia, was said to be a close relative of Maoist Center chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal. Mahesh Dahal apparently was a raw diplomat. Narad Bharadwaj, ambassador for Qatar, was a trusted colleague of then prime minister K.P. Sharma Oli. Dawa Phuti Sherpa, ambassador for Spain, came from a family of tourism entrepreneurs having no diplomatic qualifications. Banshidhar Mishra, ambassador for Bangladesh, was a former state minister for health. These were just examples of such political favoritism and nepotism. There are several others.
Be it state-owned institutions, private organization, or NGOs, political favoritism and nepotism have been institutionalized. One is appointed on the basis of political connection and not based on academic credentials and professional background. Given our history of deeprooted political nepotism and favoritism in every section of society, we should not be taken by surprise by the recent recommendation of Dr Anjan Shakya to be a Member of the National Assembly.
Just before Dr Shakya’s recommendation and nomination, PM Dahal's cousin, Narayan Dahal, was elected to the post of chairman of the National Assembly. It is generally believed that KP Oli, the leader of the major alliance partner in the government, reached out to the PM asking him to influence the cabinet of the minister to recommend his sisterin-law, Shakya.
Dr Shakya has been continuously awarded with different government appointments. Shakya was appointed as the Nepali Ambassador to Israel under the selection of the UML. The recommendation of Dr Shakya to the member of the National Assembly has created an uproar in the CPN-UML. Many senior leaders of the party have been expressing their dissatisfaction accusing Oli of promoting nepotism and favoritism within the party. They blamed the party is being run in an oligarchic manner where democratic norms, values, and principles are hardly taken into consideration. It is very difficult to believe that history will forgive the major political parties and their leaders for systematically purging the senior leaders within their respective parties. The parties’ senior leaders, who founded the party and built it brick by brick to let the party emerge as a political powerhouse, were reduced to the status of nonrelevance. Be it Dahal, Oli or Deuba, they have successfully promoted the culture of political favoritism and nepotism within their respective parties negating the unconditional sacrifice, support and contribution of senior leaders in taking the party to the new helm. This is not to say that the leaders of other parties do not promote political favoritism and nepotism.
They do.
This pen pusher is not against the recommendation of Dr Shakya to the member of the NA. The writer is very much mindful of the fact that this is not the first time that such a government appointment has hogged the attention of the people throughout the country. Over the years, there have been innumerable instances where government appointments based on political favoritism and nepotism have faced the wrath of the people. However, I will leave it to the excellent par expert to explain that how long such immoral and unethical practices will continue to hunt us.
Almost at all levels of Nepalese public service, favoritism is being practised based on proximity to political parties. Nepotism and kinship are the other instances that help to provide appointments while sidelining meritorious candidates. It is understandable that when ambassadors or other government appointments are made based on political favoritism and nepotism, they will always fail to deliver and uphold Nepal’s image abroad.
As things stand now, an ordinary Nepali citizen despite having all the required credentials, professionally and academically, cannot even imagine holding an affluent position in the country. This is the reason why thousands of Nepalese with great brains migrate to the US, Canada, UK and Australia seeking better opportunities every year.
For years, political leaders have appointed just about anyone for the most sensitive position in the country. It must stop right now. Meritocracy, rather than political affiliation, should be the standard for any government appointment process.