Oil crisis and the ‘Nepali Drama’
In his book, ‘Asian Drama’ (1968), Swedish Nobel laureate, Gunnar Myrdal, talks about the ‘soft state syndrome’ to highlight tendencies where the governments announce decisions but fail to implement them. Last week’s government’s decision to hike the price of petroleum product and later to withdraw it within 48 hours in the wake of violent street protests in the capital fully fits into the Myrdal definition.
While announcing up to 25 percent hike in petroleum (POL) products last Friday, officials may have predicted political protests but not to the extent it was seen in the Kathmandu streets. After ruling coalition parties criticized the price hike in strong words, all sorts of criminal elements, regressive forces and ‘revolutionaries’ were out in the streets burning tyres, vandalizing public and private property and chanting slogans. Even the house of senior UML leader, Madhav Nepal, was targeted.
The ruling party alliance and the Maoists opposed the government decision but failed to give suggestions what can be the alternative to price hike.
Minister for Commerce, Industry and Supplies, Hridayesh Tripathi, said it was necessary to increase the price of the POL products since the NOC was no more capable of bearing losses, which had already reached around Rs 12 billion. Contrarily, the ruling parties argued that the price hike was out of the paying capacity of ordinary Nepalis. They said the government must arrange for subsidy in the petroleum products. Even Nepali Congress—a major constituent in the ruling coalition– protested the price hike and urged the government to ‘seek alternatives’ to it.
Experts say the episode not only exposed inherent weaknesses in the decision making system of the government, it has also brought to fore how vulnerable the ruling alliance is- that has already curtailed the royal powers, brought the army under the purview of the parliament and changed the name of the government itself, to name a few.
Prof Bishwombhar Pyakurel, a noted economist and president of Nepal Economic Association (NEA), says that main reasons for failing to implement the government decision were lack of enough homework, poor governance mechanism and administrative infrastructure. ” Many commissions and suggestion committees have recommended a number of measures in the past to deal with the petro crisis. But political parties and policy makers never took them seriously and continued the traditional governance system,” he added.
Former chief secretary Dr Bimal Prasad Koirala is worried that vandals and hooligans could take it as a precedent to thwart any government decision, which might not suit them. “Firmness in decision as well as in implementation is an important characteristic of good governance. We shouldn’t regret later after taking decisions in a hurry,” he added.
In his book, Myrdal suggests ‘modernization ideal,’ which means—among others – a message to get out of traditional ways of thinking, of taking timely decisions, of concrete and reasonable rationale of the decisions and their effective implementation. To achieve these objectives, Myrdal says countries must get rid of the ‘soft-state syndrome.’
According to Myrdal, any attempt for betterment in any field- be it power generation, population control, steps taken for rightsizing the government, and against populism, terrorism, secessionism, steps taken for educational, legal, economic reforms, etc. is mindlessly criticized and opposed making the government weaker to implement its decision in any way whatsoever when country is culminated with this ‘disease’. He stressed for consensus among stakeholders on any issue before decisions are taken as a solution to the problem at the same time strengthening the state mechanism to counter any retaliation against its decisions.
Prof Pyakurel too says there may be ‘cumulative causation’ or ‘multiplier effect’ after the government fails to take decision on any subject on time.
Said Dr Koirala, “It may be too early to judge whether the government would be a failure since it has been formed in a new situation. There are so many important decisions to be implemented that government and the House of Representatives have taken in the shorter period of taking over.”
What is important now is how to cope with the message that has already been conveyed. That is: you can make this government—that was installed in the aftermath of a successful jana andolan only four months ago—to withdraw its decisions by creating havoc in the streets.
As long as politicians shirk from their responsibilities and continue to compete for ‘populist measures’ – even if it is unsustainable and harmful to the country’s overall economic health and the administration fails to rein ‘anti-social elements,’ Nepal would continue to remain a ‘soft state.’
Published in Nepalnews.com