Our Know Alls

By Devendra Gautam

They don’t consult with us. And they don’t listen. They all are Know Alls. 

Who are they? And who are us?

‘They’ are the political leaders. The other party—us—is a body of experts of repute representing diverse fields such as the economy, geopolitics, geostrategy, national defence, homeland security, water resources, energy security and foreign affairs.Theyleave behind decades of experience in their respective fields and are still eager to contribute, but…   

Let’s first put things into context. 

The very first line in this writeup is a bitter response from experts and scholars to questions from this journalist in the course of video interviews with them: Do our leaders consult with you on your area of expertise (say water resources) before giving the green light to a certain project? What if a project puts the country and the people for successive generations at a great disadvantage? 

The first line is the gist of their responses.    

In any polity worth its name, the political leadership gives the nation a vision and the bureaucracy implements it. Governments come and go after periodic elections but the bureaucracy remains there to run the affairs of the state, come hell or high water. That is why bureaucracy is called the permanent government. What if the political vision itself is outdated? For example, what if a government has a vision to take a country back to the Stone Age? Will the bureaucracy begin implementing it right away or stand against it? Yours truly will come to this later. 

First, let’s try to understand what this thing called “bureaucracy” is. 

In French, “bureau” means desk and “bureaucracy” comes from the government structure that took shape after the French revolution. 

Another word that often comes with bureaucracy is meritocracy, a system where deserving people rule. Bureaucracy consists of people, who make it through certain exams that are considered quite hard to crack, like Public Service Commission (PSC) exams.  Before the advent of bureaucracy, if a subject wanted anything from the French government, that person had to appeal to the king or one of his regional representatives. Not much different from our system in place during the Ranarchy and before, isn’t it? 

However, not all societies believe that the cream of the cream join government services. If that hurts members of creme de la creme, then so be it.  

Under the spoils system, the political party that wins the election gives government jobs to supporters, friends (cronyism) and relatives (nepotism) in recognition of their role in the party’s win, and as an incentive to keep working for it. 

But in countries like India and Nepal, the predominant belief is that no one is more capable than those who crack state service exams, especially civil service exams. 

Despite the rule of the best minds, why have we been in such a pass, even decades after such exams began churning out such brilliant minds year after year after year? Is it because the best minds are not good enough? 

Or is this because, though selected on merit basis, our permanent government is not resolute enough? Is it because very senior members of this clique cannot call a spade a spade out of fear of transfer to unenviable positions? After all, there is life after retirement also, isn’t it? Do these minds fear losing the spoils that come after retirement in the form of ambassadorial assignments, appointments in constitutional bodies, lucrative projects, inquiry commission chiefs, so on and so forth? 

Granted that our political leaders spent decades behind bars for higher ideals like democracy and human rights. 

In turn, people elected them to higher offices and reshape their destiny and the destiny of the country. Apparently, they have got ample returns on their investment, haven’t they? 

An inquisitive mind asks, naturally: what did the people get in return for believing in our political leaders and giving them repeated mandates to rule? A rigged polity neck-deep in corruption? Nepotism? Poverty? Rule by law? Chronic instability? A political vision that is not in sync with the reality of this day and age?

For example, our political leadership plans to build/extend petroleum import pipelines in a country with reasonable hydropower potential despite the fact that increased petroleum consumption is one of the main reasons that’s been bleeding the economy dry for decades. Such outdated vision comes at a time when societies have already made a big switch to EVs and begun thinking seriously about a decisive switch to hydrogen-run vehicles. 

It talks about making big money by selling the green energy (hydropower) beyond the borders instead of making plans for electrification of our mass transit systems, boosting the consumption of the green energy at the household level and industrialisation.     

A conscious citizenry will surely ask these and several other difficult questions to the political leadership in the days to come. At this juncture, Nepal’s fast-aging leaders would do well to ask themselves: Are we mentally and physically fit to rule this country? We had a party all these years, should we not hang our boots now?

At the same time, the self-styled vanguards of meritocracy should not forget that their first and foremost responsibility is toward the taxpayer and the country. They should have the courage to ask themselves: Are we doing justice to our duties and responsibilities? 

If they don’t and let their conscience guide them, chances are that the citizenry may, one day, ask them questions tougher than those asked in Loksewa exams. They would do well to prepare for a test tougher than Loksewa exams.