|
Impact of Conflict on Public Policy in Nepal
Organised by Nepal Foundation for Advanced
Studies (NEFAS)
21-22 September 2006
Nepal Foundation for Advanced Studies organized
a seminar in Kathmandu to discuss the effect of the Nepalese armed
conflict on public policy on September 21 and 22, 2006. The seminar
was part of the series of discussions held by NEFAS on the impact
of the conflict on different aspects of governance that the country
has had to live up with. Several earlier discussions had focused
on assessing the costs of conflict, its various dimensions and
ways to resolve them. Another, earlier, discussion was solely
focused on the hurdles imposed by the armed conflict on public
service delivery. This one however aimed to focus solely on the
impact it has had on government policies.
For the purpose, the two day seminar brought
together university teachers, researchers, policymakers and
journalists to share their views regarding how policies have
had to adapt to the conflict. It kicked off without much fanfare
after some welcoming remarks by Ananda Srestha, the NEFAS executive
director and another comment by Dev Raj Dahal, the representative
of Friedrich Ebert Stiftung of Germany, based in Nepal. The
seminar was a cooperation venture between NEFAS and FES.
NEFAS Executive Director Srestha introduced
the theme of the seminar saying that he sought enlightened discussion
to centre on the policy changes brought about by the conflict
while FES Representative Dahal tried to lay down the scope of
the areas for the discussion. Then the working sessions began
with Bharat B Karki's presentation on the "Impact of Conflict
on the Dispensation of Justice". The session was chaired
by Kanak Bikram Thapa. The paper deals with the judicial system,
its efforts to deliver justice to the people, the hurdles it
faces and the impact that the conflict has had in meeting its
objectives.
The floor discussions were mainly focused
on seeking clarifications from the author about the points he
raised in his paper, except that some wanted the justice system
to enforce social justice by adding the social dimension under
its jurisdiction while others thought that enforcement itself
was a problem and not the system per se.
The second session chaired by Gokul Pokhrel
discussed the presentation by Lal Deosa Rai on the "Impact
of Conflict on Media Policy in Nepal". The central thesis
that Rai propounded was that although the media sector itself
was undergoing tumultuous change because of technological and
political changes, there was no visible change in policy effected
by the conflict itself. Floor comments had more to do with the
bias in reporting rather than anything to do with policy as
such.
The second day's deliberations began with
Prithvi Raj Ligal's paper on "Impact of Conflict on Economic
Development". It was chaired by Guna Nidhi Sharma. The
presenter listed the plans and programmes necessitated by the
conflict to suit the emerging security situation and wondered
if they were all followed through. But he did vouch for an effective
package to deal with relief and rehabilitation along with other
development works as a recommendation. The discussants criticized
the economic and development policies as a whole rather than
just focusing on the impact of the conflict on development policies.
Some even wanted to pin the reason for the conflict on development,
thus momentarily diverting the attention towards finding out
the reason for the conflict rather than the impact of the conflict.
The final session was supposed to be chaired
by Bhim Neupane but he could only attend the seminar momentarily
citing other engagements. He was however given the chance to
tell his story, that the government was working on an interim
plan of sorts, by his replacement, Vidyanath Nepal. The paper
presented during the session was authored by Pradip Upadhya.
In it, he discusses the impact that the conflict has had on
governance as a whole and recommends good governance as a way
out of the conflict. Quite a number of participants at the discussions
wanted to dwell on the attributes of good governance coming
forth with the diverse literature they had been acquainted with.
The seminar ended with a vote of thanks by
Ananda Srestha.
|
