Krishna Devkota provides a history of numerous attempts to reform Nepal’s civil service since the 1950s. All of them, including the most recent donor-instigated initiative, have either not been implemented, or only partially implemented. As a contracted consultant to international donors funding the most recent effort, Devkota describes both the aim and design of the reform effort and his opinion about why implementation of most of the reform efforts failed.  He cites political and civil conflict and tensions in the country, a lack of political will or commitment to the reforms by top leaders, the short time horizons of donors, corruption that diverted donor funds from their intended use and resistance to change by civil servants because they did not sense any possibility for reward or promotion.    

Dwarika Dhungel describes Nepal’s experience with civil service reform as it transitioned from a unitary state ruled by a monarchy to a multi-party parliamentary state evolving toward a decentralized federal system. At the start of this transition, an Administrative Reforms Commission chaired by the prime minister was established. It prepared 116 recommendations to right-size and rationalize the civil service and the organization and functions of government. However, while the commission did its work a large number of civil servants were fired, throwing the reform process into turmoil and the commission chairman resigned. Officials from the political parties then began to politicize the civil service, removing long-time employees and elevating party supporters. At the time of the interview, the Asian Development Bank pressed for some reform and anti-corruption efforts and a new “good governance” law had been enacted, but whether it would be implemented was unknown.  

Bhojraj Pokharel, who served as Chief Election Commissioner of the Election Commission of Nepal between 2006 and 2008, speaks about his experiences in developing procedures for, and overseeing the conduct of, the historic 2008 national elections. Pokharel, who had a long career in public service in Nepal prior to being appointed Chief Election Commissioner, explains in this interview that at the time of his appointment, “there was…nothing in place technically, legally or conceptually.” Only the most basic parameters as to how the elections were to be conducted were set forth in Nepal’s governing constitution; every other detail was left to Pokharel, and Nepal’s government, to resolve. At the time of Pokharel’s appointment, the constitutionally-mandated election day was only months away and the challenges were enormous. For example,  before any planning could occur, an interim parliament had to pass laws giving basic guidance as to election procedures. Yet the political leaders were unable to reach timely agreements on important points in the legislation. Also immediate, and critical, was the need to bring the Maoists, who had been actively involved in civil strife for the previous ten years and who had never before been involved in conventional politics, into the election process. Pokharel managed to persuade the Maoists to participate fully in the election process, and to stay involved through a host of challenges that, at many points, threatened to make any sort of representative election impossible. Next, the methodology of preparing voter lists had to be decided upon, and eligibility determined. Staff willing to work in remote, strife-torn areas had to be found and trained, and their security assured. Ballot forms and voter education materials had to be developed and printed. Once printed, these materials had to be disseminated, so reliable means of transporting them to, and ensuring their integrity in, remote, strife-torn areas and areas that lacked electricity, transport, and other essentials had to be arranged. Pokharel describes his frustrations as these challenges prevented the conduct of the election on the first, constitutionally-mandated date in June 2007, and as still more challenges forced another postponement of the rescheduled date in November of that year. At one point, he recalls, he actually prepared his resignation, though ultimately he chose to withdraw it. Finally, he describes his pride, and the pride of the Nepalese people, as the election ultimately occurs in 2008, in an atmosphere largely free of violence and other disruptions.

Case Study: Managing the Political and Practical: Nepal's Constituent Assembly Elections, 2006-2008