In prior entries, I wrote about how Nepal as a post-conflict country under Maoist rule is endeavoring to create a constitution focused on the peace process; how it should be building a constitutional assembly that rules by consensus and how the various parties and castes in the country harbor ideologies so disparate that coming together seems impossible. In many ways, the needs of a government body are much like a marriage - and, at the risk of taking too many liberties, there are two things that can make it work - (1) Stakeholders must want the same things in the end - i.e. a healthy population, a productive population, a population driven to innovate, to build infrastructure, to spread equality, etc., and (2) Stakeholders must be at the same intellectual level in order to facilitate communications that are clearly understood and respected.
In August, after considerable strife, internal conflict and public squabbling, Prime Minister Khanal resigned. Within a week, a new prime minister was selected. This was initially viewed as a 'must happen' event - albeit tragic since it appeared to result in a vacuum in leadership. When Prime Minister Bhattarai was elected, however, there was a renewed sense of hope as his academic credentials and personal image was one of a thoughtful leader despite being known as the architect of the Maoist insurgency that led to a war in which more than 12,000 were killed, shifting the course of history in Nepal.
I do not write this to offer a history lesson of which I know very little, only as background to what I see as a potential miscarriage of justice to the Nepali people and potentially a mechanism to hoodwink donor organizations around the globe. (Keep in mind that Bhattarai is the 4th Prime Minister in Nepal in 5 years).
Shortly after his election, Bhattarai, like those before him, shuffled the political deck by replacing many of the Ministerial posts, creating yet another leadership team. And with new ministers - including a Minister of Health (Nepal's 4th since the start of calendar year 2011) who would be soon under suspicion for bribery - a host of department leaders were appointed including Directors of many health ministry posts thereby bringing to a halt much of the progress our team had been making by establishing new systems, procedures and guidelines to bring transparency to governance structures in the health sector.

Back to what makes a marriage work: (1) Wanting the same things out of life. If the government of Nepal is truly vested in outcomes for the country, it should engage in honest dialog not only with donors who are making care and infrastructure possible, but the advocacy groups (another key stakeholder) should have a seat at the table. This makes a lot of sense given that when civil society groups in Nepal would rise up and let their voices be heard - typically in protest - the government would respond - with a 'too little' too late response, but it would create some form of action. And (2) suggests that these groups should be allowed to offer their insights and experience to affect change and to balance the power base - in the process this brings transparency to the table.
I conclude this blog today by removing myself from the madness that has become the reform of Nepal's healthcare system. Sadly, it is my opinion, that the government is not ready for reform that utilizes resources that have become increasingly scarce from developed countries like ours. Not only should the government set metrics for how it will utilize donor funds, it should - in good faith, and with the engagement of civil society - establish SMART objectives [Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time focused] as do the world's most successful private sector organizations.
Deja vu 2 is no longer a suitable endpoint. Donor governments need to act swiftly and with authority before the source of funds - people like you and I, stand up and interrupt the budgeting process.
It has been a pleasure to share my experience with you. Thank you for your interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment