The term of Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) Governor Maha Prasad Adhikari is set to end in the second week of April. Consequently, a three-member committee chaired by the finance minister has already been formed to recommend the new governor.
Writing an editorial about the appointment of NRB governor is hardly a necessity. Setopati has never directly or indirectly lobbied for or against any individual regarding appointments to public positions made by the government, nor does it do so. We firmly believe that such actions fall beyond the dignity of a news organization.
This time, too, we have no opinion on whether this or that person is suitable for the governor’s post.
However, the issues that have surfaced regarding this governor’s appointment have left us concerned. The trends observed earlier in the appointments of heads of two regulatory bodies have also brought us to this point.
A talented young individual working at an international bank was prepared to work at the leadership of the Nepal Stock Exchange (NEPSE). This appointment was seen as a fresh start, and lobbying for it was carried out by knowledgeable individuals from the teams of both the finance minister and the prime minister. Yet, it was rejected.
Our desire, both yesterday and today, is straightforward: the appointments to regulatory bodies and key public positions should reflect the government’s commitment to good governance, allowing people to feel that something different is happening. Even a small spark of hope would suffice.
However, the pervasive ‘cronyism’ often reflected in appointments and the image of ‘misgovernance’ visible on the faces of those appointed have left everyone frustrated and fed up. We have now reached a point where even many people working alongside the ruling political parties and their top leaders have started saying, "Our leaders won’t change." This has deepened our concern.
The primary reason for the widespread despair among people today is the vicious cycle of ‘cronyism’ and ‘misgovernance’ prevailing in the country. It is becoming increasingly clear that at the heart of this are top leaders who never step down from their lofty positions or seem to have sworn to never reform themselves.
The demand for monarchy emerging on the streets has been strongly opposed by media outlets, enlightened citizens, and honest individuals within the political parties who believe in the grand framework of democracy. However, the same level of resistance has not been seen against the bad governance perpetuated by political leadership and the cronyism they sustain. We all need to be clear about this and engage in self-criticism.
Without holding the core leadership accountable and responsible, the current malpractises and misgovernance will not improve. We have long seen and experienced that reform will not happen without pointing fingers at them and speaking out. Without such reform, the public will grow even more disillusioned, and those seeking to dismantle democracy will, sooner or later, raise their heads again.
Therefore, it is essential for everyone to collectively increase pressure for reform. It is no longer enough for those around the top leadership to say, "I’ve given suggestions behind closed doors," nor will whispering in our ears suffice.
At a time when the system and the future of Nepalis are at stake, if necessary, public opposition to the top leaders must take place. In this critical moment, we hope for at least that much courage and awareness from those surrounding the top leadership.
Just because a decision or action by the top leaders faces public opposition doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong. If you believe their actions are right, defend them publicly. But also preserve your rights to publicly oppose them.
Tell the top leaders clearly from the outset: "From now on, I will defend you publicly when needed and criticize you publicly when warranted." This will put pressure on them, make them more cautious, and encourage them to correct themselves.
Though this editorial is being written in the context of the governor’s appointment, it has a broader backdrop—how to effectively create pressure to end misgovernance and pave the way for good governance, a challenge we all face today. When monarchy tries to rear its head, we all opposed it strongly because we believe we can strengthen democracy by significantly improving governance.
This time, the governor’s appointment is also a test of that belief.
The reason our ears are perked up regarding the governor’s appointment this time is clear. As the time to select a new governor approaches, the government has amended the criteria for appointments, including that of the governor. Previously, individuals appointed to such positions had to be at least 30 years old and not exceed 65. This time, the 65-year age limit has been removed.
It’s not necessarily true that someone over 65 is unfit to be governor. However, when such a criterion is amended just a month before the appointment, and the government fails to clearly justify it, questions arise.
If this amendment was made with a specific individual in mind, it suggests a corruption of intent. Surely, there is no shortage of capable people between the ages of 30 and 65 in this country who could serve as governor.
As we’ve already stated, we have no bias or prejudice toward any individual aspiring to be governor this time. However, we are clear that if a person backed by a vested interest group becomes governor, it will tarnish the dignity of the central bank. The negative consequences of this will be far-reaching.
The NRB is an autonomous institution. The responsibility of its governor is no less than that of the finance minister. In fact, because the governor’s tenure is fixed for five years, their role in ensuring economic stability is even greater. Globally, governors’ primary responsibilities include keeping market prices under control, maintaining stability in the financial sector, and balancing foreign exchange reserves. To fulfill these duties, a governor must sometimes withstand pressures from the government and make autonomous decisions.
Typically, officials who have worked at the central bank for a long time are both capable and accustomed to fulfilling this responsibility. Therefore, if we establish a tradition of selecting governors from among capable and honest NRB officials whenever possible, it will consistently generate less controversy.
This doesn’t mean a governor cannot be appointed from outside the NRB. But that individual should be someone about whom everyone can say, "The government made the right decision." Such people do exist.
However, the government should not further damage its credibility by appointing the wrong person as governor. It should not further disillusion those who believe reform is possible in a democracy. At the very least, the appointment of governor this time should not become yet another link in the chain of misgovernance.
