By Shaner Man Singh In America, ambassadors are appointed through two ways, career and political appointments. Political appointments — which represent about one-third of U.S. ambassadors — are usually given as patronage rewards to those who help the president. This can be through direct financial contributions or it can be through long-term work supporting the president's party. Sometimes, the president appoints a person who has a high reputation in a field. Shirley Temple Black, for example, was world-famous as a child actress. As an adult, he had his own political aspirations. In 1969, she was appointed as the US representative to the United Nations. The good work there later led to the appointment as ambassador to Ghana and Czechoslovakia. The name recognition played a significant role in the appointment. Career or political ambassadors are not clearly good or bad. The experience of other countries shows that the most successful ambassadors were political, but at the same time excellent. What they bring to the table is what career ambassadors typically don't. A political ambassador can pick up the phone and call the president directly, any time of the day or night, and the phone will be answered. Career ambassadors must wade through the bureaucracy of the State Department and all the delays that can cause. You can't imagine the harm that political appointees usually do. They have to put that line there, do not harm first, as part of their oath of office. In Nepal, ambassadors are usually appointed by the Government of Nepal on the recommendation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The MoFA identifies and recommends suitable persons to serve as ambassadors from the Nepalese civil service, political figures or diplomatic bodies. The recommended candidates are then approved by the Cabinet headed by the Prime Minister and comprising other senior ministers of the government. Must be present and approved by the Constitutional Recommendation Committee and appointed by the President. With the approval of the Parliamentary Hearing Committee, the President officially appoints a person to represent Nepal in a foreign country or international organization as an ambassador. Diplomatic experience, expertise in foreign affairs, language skills and understanding of the country or region to which they will be posted are considered in the selection of ambassadors. Ambassadors are responsible for representing Nepal's interests, promoting bilateral relations and advocating Nepal's policies and priorities in their host countries or institutions. Generally, there is a quota for foreign service officers in Nepal to become ambassadors after reaching the rank of joint secretary or above. Another is a political appointment. The problem in Nepal is that the people appointed as ambassadors are not completely qualified and usually political persons are appointed because they are relatives of the top leaders, only a few experts are appointed as ambassadors. This has created a big problem in our foreign policy. The Government issued the 'Ambassador Appointment Guideline-2075' for appointing ambassadors. And even after that, the guidelines became work rules, but they were not implemented. Although it was mentioned that capacity and inclusiveness would be prioritized while appointing ambassadors, the guidelines have been completely ignored by the governments since then. It is stated in section 3 of the guidelines made on the basis of the same, that, in view of the inclusive principle, the appointment of ambassadors will be recommended on the basis of diplomatic ability, specialized educational qualifications and experience in order to promote the nation's representation, reputation, and interests. But while appointing an ambassador, the Council of Ministers will take into consideration the recommendation of the ministry from among the gazetted special or first-class incumbent officers of the Nepal Foreign Service so that the total number of ambassadors does not decrease to 50 percent. In the past, the Parliamentary Hearing Committee under the Federal Parliament has repeatedly issued instructions to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Government of Nepal saying that the appointment of ambassadors was not in accordance with the constitutional provisions. However, it doesn't seem to apply. Recently, ambassadors have been recommended to 18 countries, including the reappointment of Shankar Sharma, Nepali ambassador to India. The government named Lokdarshan Regmi as ambassador to the USA, Krishna Prasad Oli to China, and Chandra Ghimire to London, among others. The names of Shivmaya Tumbahamfe and others have been recommended by the Council of Ministers, but they are yet to be confirmed. Remember, the previous government had recommended Regmi as ambassador for India and Ghimire for America. The government has upheld the previous government's decision to withdraw ambassadors other than Ambassador Sharma to India. The recent selection of ambassadors has raised questions about the candidate's qualifications and the overall selection process. The title of 'ambassador' is more politically oriented and the appointment is made according to national and international laws. In this way, due to the inadequacy of Nepal's laws, we have to look at the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Although not specified in domestic rules or procedures, an ambassador serving as head of mission must bear the primary responsibility of representing the sending state to the receiving state and protecting the interests of the sending state and its citizens. The government of the recipient state aims to promote friendly relations between the two states and develop economic, cultural and other relations. Appointing ambassadors based on political ideology or proximity to a candidate of a political party is not and never has been an issue anywhere in the world. According to the American Foreign Service Association, 69.95 percent of ambassadors appointed by the Obama administration were career diplomats and the rest were political figures. After a political party wins an election in Nepal, it follows a 'system' of giving government jobs to its supporters, friends and relatives as a reward for contributing to the victory and as an incentive to continue working for the party. It is also appropriate to consider the examples of the most developed nations. However, looking at the unstable government of Nepal, which is likely to change within a year, there is a possibility that with every change of government, the change of ambassadors will hurt the ambassadors appointed abroad. Some ambassadors have to work harder than others to protect the interests of Nepal based on where they live. The question is not so much whether the ambassador is a political appointee or a career diplomat, but whether the candidate is fit and proper for the job or not. Democracy and the rule of law are favorite subjects of politicians, but whether transparency and accountability are part of democracy and the rule of law is a big question mark. Another question is whether the government of Nepal will set a minimum threshold of qualifications and professionalism for potential ambassadors! The adoption of a proper legal framework for determining the qualifications and professional thresholds of potential diplomats can strengthen the appointment process to some extent. An old American tradition practised by both political parties in the United States. The results show the status of some US ambassadors abroad senior officials in the host state (embassy country) are sometimes reluctant, even risky, to share sensitive information with political appointees and are reluctant to share such information with the embassy's second-tier diplomats. This could have a detrimental effect on bilateral relations between the two countries and multilateral cooperation in the wider context. For a career diplomat with 15 or 20 years of experience and then to serve under an ambassador with no background in diplomacy, sometimes the skills of any individual on the entire embassy staff can be frustrating and damaging to morale. This is an old system in a world where professionalism is essential. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect People’s Review’s editorial stance.