Who's afraid of the Nepalese government?

The powerful aftershock on Tuesday unsettled even the most hardy survivors, swinging wary Nepalis from hope to despair. The quakes have made relief and recovery a protracted process, requiring a historic partnership between the people and the state to rise again from the destruction and despondency. Yet, they offer us an opportunity to create something new and meaningful: history has offered us a critical juncture at which we can convert the devastation into creative destruction.

 

Sovereignty and cholera

The scale of devastation unleashed by the April 25 earthquake generated a swift response from countries like India, China, and the US. The US, in particular, has been driving Nepal’s disaster-resistance efforts for a long time. However, in recent weeks, there has been a mismatch between Nepal’s needs and donors’ insistence on providing military and aircraft for the relief efforts. Neighbouring China has expressed concern over the penetration of foreign military forces in Nepal. Thus, forging a balance between geo-strategic sensitivities and sovereignty on the one hand and humanitarian assistance on the other requires confident but careful handling by Nepal’s government.

With the monsoon imminent, Nepal’s efforts at relief, reconstruction, and rehabilitation need to move ahead swiftly.

One thing for which Nepal is notorious is cholera. Here, the spectre of Haiti looms large. The New York Times has cited the Haitian epidemic in the wake of the 2010 quake there, quoting a Unicef official as saying that there will be outbreaks of cholera and other diseases in Nepal.

Last week, NBC tweeted a photograph with the caption: “Cholera fear: Will Haiti’s hell come to Nepal after #earthquake?”

Nepal needs to prevent a repetition of Haiti, both in terms of the failed reconstruction and the outbreak of the cholera epidemic.

 

‘Creative destruction’

The problem with Haiti was that its poverty was largely a result of extractive political institutions, and its society was already vulnerable to natural disasters. Nepal’s case is similar, yet we want to show the world that our society is more resilient, that we can still salvage democracy from the post-quake devastation, and that we can rebound.

Every crisis is an opportunity. Critical junctures like a natural disaster can also become vehicles for “creative destruction” that can help a country embark on a path of institutional reforms and growth.

Underdevelopment is largely a result of extractive institutions. Although factors like geography play a significant role, poverty in countries like Nepal is explained by the presence of institutions controlled by a small number of people who extract incomes, wealth and power from the majority who remain poor and powerless.

The recent relief efforts have demonstrated the entrenched and exclusive nature of Nepal’s political institutions. 

There is now an intense competition among politicians to provide relief to the people in “their” constituencies. This is in line with political players’ longstanding practice of distributing resources appropriated from the state, to “their own people”. 

It is in this context that political parties are beginning to talk of a national coalition government. The idea was first floated by Prime Minister Sushil Koirala himself. The issue most pertinent to relief and reconstruction is efficiency, transparency and accountability. A national government will serve none. Instead, we need a strong opposition to maintain an oversight mechanism and make the government accountable.

The political parties should strengthen the state’s ability to carry out relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction. In order to be equitable and reach every affected person, the post-quake response should be politically neutral. The experience of recent weeks has been that when political players from the centre are involved, relief efforts have been skewed in favour of certain groups and constituencies.

Instead of focusing on forming a national government, which will only increase partisan interventions and weaken the government’s focus, the parties should focus on forming non-partisan mechanisms at the district and local level that can ensure equitable distribution of relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction services to all affected people.

 

Trust the govt

Another question is who should lead the long-term relief and reconstruction efforts.

It is not easy to trust the Nepali government. Pervasive corruption and extractive institutions have made the state weak and ineffective in delivering public services. However, after this disaster we have the potential to forge much-needed change.

International donors are reluctant to donate to the PM’s Disaster Relief Fund. The fund has so far collected about Rs 5 billion (Bt1.6 billion), but most of it has come from Nepal’s own finance ministry.  Major international donors include the UN – particularly its Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs – and NGOs from countries like the US and the UK.

Among these three mechanisms, the Nepal government’s efforts at reconstruction will be more cost effective than the interventions of international NGOs and the UN system. It will also be easier to maintain oversight of Nepali institutions.

The Nepali government estimates at least Rs 200 billion (US2 billion) is needed for its relief and recovery efforts and it has set up a reconstruction fund. The UN, has similarly, estimated $400 million (Bt13.3 billion) for its own humanitarian mission. A huge gap remains between what is required and what has been offered. A cost-effective response to the disaster is therefore of vital importance.

Although international NGOs have systems in place to handle large amounts of money and implement the strategic intentions of donors, they are not very cost effective. Similarly, the UN system is very costly and its internal oversight mechanisms are weak. The UN has failed to arrest growth in employment, salaries and benefits. Personnel costs account for over 70 per cent of UN spending, according to the UN’s Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions.

The UN’s internal oversight mechanisms have also come under criticism recently, with news agencies like the Associated Press saying that the world body is still struggling to hold itself accountable.

International agencies and local donors trying to help Nepal should, therefore, work directly through the government. Such a huge humanitarian effort will also encourage sustainable national oversight mechanisms that can keep an eye on both the national government and international agencies like the UN. Out of death and destruction we can forge a different future for Nepal, one in which a new generation of journalists, politicians and institutions performs as watchdogs against the extractive and exploitative actions of the powerful few.