Whenever in a different country where your mother tongue is not the native language there are many things that are subject to interpretation - the turn of the head, the wave of the hand, shuffling of papers, a bare foot pointed in the direction of the host, etc., so knowing the meaning of these subtle gestures can only help to assess a situation that can be somewhat tenuous.
Government politics is a lot like the interpretation of subtle gestures...but on steroids. Every nation is built on a history of actions and reactions to events and while people form their opinions, cultures formulate their mores or, what is culturally acceptable. Take the custom of bakshish, for example. Who said it's wrong to pay off an official because he was kind enough to award you with a lucrative contract? It is after all, just a gesture of appreciation, is it not? When do acceptable cultural norms become inappropriate, distracting and potentially dangerous? Who's to say?
One's frame of reference underlies the decisions s/he makes and influences what s/he tolerates from others, so when a government is comprised of an interconnected network of cultures, castes and political ideologies, it's little wonder that the tension behind the decision making process is so strong it leads to deadlock.
This is, in essence, what has happened in Nepal in the post conflict error. It's a contradiction in a way; the country claims that it is working hard to bring gender equality and social inclusion to its operations, yet people are careful to point out when they have been raised Brahmin (the top echelon of the caste system) or when they disapprove of someone who accepted an inter-caste marriage between say a Dalite and a member of a higher order caste.
Nepal has established a minimal healthcare package for its public health facilities - an honorable and rather difficult task whereby the health ministry must consider the greater good. In the process of weighing the economic situation, burden of disease and potential health risks of the population, it determines what it can (and must) provide as basic services. Once defined, all other goods and services are incremental to the basic plan.
In addition to the basic plan of essential drugs and medical services offered by the government, the health ministry, comprised of a number of divisions run by physicians who lead different healthcare programs, offers a variety of goods and services on a national basis. These divisions include; maternal health and safe motherhood, family health division, child health division, emergency and disaster relief, national center for aids control services, the leprosy unit, etc.
Historically, each of these programs defined, forecasted and procured medicines and services for their own health initiatives - sometimes (quite often in fact) with the support of various donor agencies, they determine what they can offer and they make arrangements to deliver these items nationally with the support of the logistics management division which does general forecasting, planning and procurement for the bulk of the public goods for health.
What goes on behind closed doors of division leaders and those who work directly with suppliers outside of the logistics management division (and even within the LMD), has been the subject of ample controversy over the years. Some say that because procurement of goods can be so lucrative (for those of a particular moral persuasion), that centralized procurement under the careful watch of international consultants with the interest of the donors in mind, must replace all decentralized efforts.
If you read between the lines, this means that someone needs to aggregate and harmonize the national need and foster transparent practices that lead to more efficient, cost effective and streamlined outcomes.
If you were asked to step in to change such practices in a culture on the other side of the globe, would you accept?
Government politics is a lot like the interpretation of subtle gestures...but on steroids. Every nation is built on a history of actions and reactions to events and while people form their opinions, cultures formulate their mores or, what is culturally acceptable. Take the custom of bakshish, for example. Who said it's wrong to pay off an official because he was kind enough to award you with a lucrative contract? It is after all, just a gesture of appreciation, is it not? When do acceptable cultural norms become inappropriate, distracting and potentially dangerous? Who's to say?
One's frame of reference underlies the decisions s/he makes and influences what s/he tolerates from others, so when a government is comprised of an interconnected network of cultures, castes and political ideologies, it's little wonder that the tension behind the decision making process is so strong it leads to deadlock.
This is, in essence, what has happened in Nepal in the post conflict error. It's a contradiction in a way; the country claims that it is working hard to bring gender equality and social inclusion to its operations, yet people are careful to point out when they have been raised Brahmin (the top echelon of the caste system) or when they disapprove of someone who accepted an inter-caste marriage between say a Dalite and a member of a higher order caste.
Nepal has established a minimal healthcare package for its public health facilities - an honorable and rather difficult task whereby the health ministry must consider the greater good. In the process of weighing the economic situation, burden of disease and potential health risks of the population, it determines what it can (and must) provide as basic services. Once defined, all other goods and services are incremental to the basic plan.
In addition to the basic plan of essential drugs and medical services offered by the government, the health ministry, comprised of a number of divisions run by physicians who lead different healthcare programs, offers a variety of goods and services on a national basis. These divisions include; maternal health and safe motherhood, family health division, child health division, emergency and disaster relief, national center for aids control services, the leprosy unit, etc.
Historically, each of these programs defined, forecasted and procured medicines and services for their own health initiatives - sometimes (quite often in fact) with the support of various donor agencies, they determine what they can offer and they make arrangements to deliver these items nationally with the support of the logistics management division which does general forecasting, planning and procurement for the bulk of the public goods for health.
What goes on behind closed doors of division leaders and those who work directly with suppliers outside of the logistics management division (and even within the LMD), has been the subject of ample controversy over the years. Some say that because procurement of goods can be so lucrative (for those of a particular moral persuasion), that centralized procurement under the careful watch of international consultants with the interest of the donors in mind, must replace all decentralized efforts.
If you read between the lines, this means that someone needs to aggregate and harmonize the national need and foster transparent practices that lead to more efficient, cost effective and streamlined outcomes.
If you were asked to step in to change such practices in a culture on the other side of the globe, would you accept?