Dipendra Kandel



Dipendra Kandel

Political Developments in the World:

In the modern period, the world progressed a lot bringing some significant development in the fields such as science, politics, warfare, and technology. Even this time has been taken as an age of scientific discovery and globalization. During this period, in the first hand, the Europeans gained powers, and later formed their colonies having a political, economic, and cultural colonization of the rest of the world.

By the late 19th and 20th centuries, the domination of modernist art, politics and culture Western Europe and North America came into existence. This trend also spread almost every civilized area on the globe. The modern era is directly linked with the development of individualism, capitalism, urbanization and a faith in the potentialities of progress in technology and politics. This era started from 1500 c. and lasted to around 1800 c. (most often 1815).

The specific paradigms of early modernity include: The American Revolution, The French Revolution, The Revolutions of 1848, The Russian Revolution, The First World War, and the Second World War. As the result of the industrialization in Britain, many other countries started industrialization in their nations. Because of the Industrial Revolution and the changes in earlier politics, different worldviews of Modernism came into practice. During the period of late modernity, the main aspects combine: Increase in the role of science and technology, Mass literacy and proliferation of mass media, extension of social movements, Institutionalization of representative democracy, Individualism, Industrialization, Urbanization, and so on.

With the end of these aforementioned revolutions, Modern Times—our most current era starts that mainly includes, firstly, the World Wars era (encompassing World War I and World War II). Secondly, after World War II, it resulted the rise of socialist countries that led to the Cold War creation tension between the powers in the Eastern Bloc and the powers in the Western Bloc. After the explosion of research and progress in the knowledge (information age), this contemporary era is on practice in the late 20th and the early 21st century. At present, Postmodern era is seen widespread everywhere digitalism in the form of E-Government, E-governance, M Government and Smart Government.

Public Administration Paradigms:
When Politics and Public Administration go hand in hand, then a country develops in every sector. We have different paradigm shifts carried out globally in different time periods.

Paradigm 1: Politics / Administration Dichotomy (1900 – 1926)
Beginning with Politics / Administration Dichotomy (Dichotomy means a division or contrast between two things) introduced and being used between 1900 – 1926 AD by Frank J. Goodnow and D. White. Woodrow Wilson, in his essay ‘Study of Administration’ and Frank Goodnow in his book ‘Politics and administration’, have mentioned clearly about Politics / Administration Dichotomy. During this era public administration received first serious attention as a separate discipline and dichotomy between politics and public administration became the first identified theory of public administration.

Paradigm 2: The Principles of Administration (1927 – 1937)
During the periods between 1927-1937, some Principles of Administration by / F. W. Willoughby, Luther H. Gulick, Lyndall Urwick had been proposed. In this paradigm, certain principles of administration which overlap as principles of management from where they were essentially borrowed, started being visualised as ‘ready-made aids’ for efficiency in administration. Such Principles of Administration have sub paradigms. The first sub category is the Period of Orthodoxy. This is Scientific Management or Taylorism as it was proposed by Frederick Winslow Taylor in 1911. Further, Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick brought the concept of POSDCORB in Public Administration in 1937. And by 1938, the function of the Executive was defined by Chester Barnard, and further, Administrative Behavior in 1947 was done by Herbert Alexander Simon.

In Nepal, currently, Bureaucracy (1922) by Max Weber is being in practice which is a Traditional Bureaucratic Model. Then we can assume the main reason behind our backwardness.

Paradigm 3: Public Administration as a Political Science (1950 – 1970)
The period between 1950 – 1970 AD in Public Administration, was taken as a Political Science and Paul Appleby and Waldo were the main contributors on it. During this era, PA re-established its links with Political Science. In this context, Martin Landau observed in 1962 “Public Administration is neither a subfield of Political Science nor does it comprehend it. It only becomes a synonym. On a similar wavelength, William Siffin had also noted in ‘1956 “the study of Public Administration in US is characterized by the absence of any fully comprehensive intellectual framework”. And also Roscot Marin had called for in 1952, continued domination of Political Science over Public Administration. Thus in this era, many Political Scientists gave to Public Administrations what Dwight Waldo termed as a second class citizenship.

Paradigm 4: Public Administration as Administrative Science or Management (1956 – 1970)
Between 1956 – 1970 AD, Public Administration as Administrative Science or Management that it highly influenced by Organization Theory and Management Science. In this period, Public Management Model of Administration was established. Thus during this period, the broad theme that emerged was “alikeness of administration of all organizations whether public, for profit or non-profit”. In other words, the action part or the operative part of any organization whether public or private was described as similar. Within this time period, between 1965-70, public administration got pressure of separatism. Henry presents this as the development of a separate identity among ‘public administrationists’, both academics and practitioners. In the US, systematic thinking about public administration had its origins in political science.

Paradigm 5: Public Administration as Public Administration (1970 – Present)
The concept of Public Administration as Public Administration existed in 1970 and is in use till today. The term “Public Affairs” became popularized, and it was concerned on: Why and how organization works? How and why people in them behave? How and Why decisions are made?

And the public administrationists became increasingly concerned on the areas of Policy Science Not The Political Science, Political Economy, Public Policy Making Process and its Analysis; and Measurement of Policy Outputs. The popular models include: New Public Administration, Reinventing Government, New Public Management, New Public Service and Postmodernism.

Paradigm 6: Public Administration as Governance (1990 – Present)

Since 1990 to Present, we have Public Administration as Governance as mentioned ‘Good Governance’ by Leftwich (19940) and Weiss (2001), ‘Governance as good enough governance’ by Grindle(2002) and ‘Collaborative, Partnership, Network Governance’ by Ansell & Gash (2008).

The Future Digital Governance
In the future, most of the countries will have Digital Governance. This is the same as E – Government proposed by Jeong (2007). And such E-government will be highly facilitated with Digital interactions between Community to Government (C2G), Government to Government (G2G), Government to Community, Government to Education and Government to Business. Even there seem the chances of applying Mobile Governance, Smart Government and Automation / Collaboration Governance.

 Political Developments in Modern Nepal:

Nepal has been in this position after facing many ups and downs politically. The particular changes took place when the king Prithvi Narayan Shah reunited Nepal (1723–1775). However, Rana regime existed when Jung Bahadur Rana started autocracy ruling the Kingdom of Nepal in 1846 A.D and continued until 1951A.D, reducing the Shah monarch to a figurehead and making Prime Minister and other government positions hereditary.

Since the common people had been deprived from their fundamental rights and suppressed with autocracy, the voice against Ranas (1993-2007 BS) began to come out. The voice formally went on the floor when Nepal Praja Parishad (formed in 1939 AD) started anti-Rana movements in Nepal. Later, Nepali Congress (Formed in 19 April 1939), with the support of civilians, became able to overthrow Rana regime. So Ranarchy officially came to end in 1951 AD and democracy was declared in Nepal on 7th Falgun 2007 BS.

Even though Nepalese people had been facilitated with democracy, the ambitious king Mahendra captured and declared non-party system in 2017 BS. Consequently, political agitations went one after another. To solve the issue, a referendum was announced on 10th Jeshtha 2036 on whether people would have reformed Panchayat System (non-party system) or the Multiparty System. The panchayat system was chosen with a majority of 54.7 %. However, Nepali Congress and United Liberation Front launched a joint revolution against Panchayat System for the restoration of democracy and Nepalese people regained democracy in 2047 BS. So the time between 2036–2046, was the time of movement against monarch.

By the year 2052, UCPN (Maoist) armed revolution started on 1st Falgun 2052 B.S. against Westminster System in Nepal. The Narayanhiti Massacre occurred on 19th Jestha 2058 B.S and on 19th of Magh 2061 B.S., King Gyanendra detained all political leaders including Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and formed the government under his chairmanship that boosted the Maoist revolution to reach in extreme height.

With all these events, all the political parties allied to go against Monarchy of former King Gyanendra. The mass movement was of seven party alliances (SPA) and Maoist led the movement 2062-63. On 21 November 2006, Government of Nepal and the Communist Party Nepal (Maoist) concluded comprehensive peace accord. As the main achievement, interim constitution of Nepal 2063 was promulgated on 1st Magh 2063 B.S. Ultimately, the nation came under Federal Democratic Republic System from Constitutional Assembly. In 2064 BS, Madhesh Movement (Andolan) rose demanding “One Madhesh, One State”, and actually it is not fulfilled till now.

Comparison of Political and Administrative Paradigms with Nepal

The modern world got success from one stage to another stage. It is true that the world progressed in the fields of science, politics, warfare, and technology (scientific discovery and globalization). The modernism in art, politics and culture in Western Europe and North America developed of individualism, capitalism, urbanization and a belief in the potentialities of progress in technology and politics. Even the American Revolution, The French Revolution, The Revolutions of 1848, The Russian Revolution, The First World War, and the Second World War prompted for heading towards peace and progress. The Industrialization in Britain pushed the whole world into institutionalization of representative democracy, Individualism, Industrialization, Urbanization, and so on. Finally, dramatic progress in research and knowledge (information age) changed the Postmodern era into digitality. So in global context, there come positive changes one after another that certainly is going to change this human world into digitalization.

In contrast, Nepal got achievements from Rana regime to the present context, still most of the shifts could not obtain the main objectives, though obtained, could not institutionalize longer. Since the date the democracy was declared in 2007 BS, declaration of non-party system from the king Mahendra, a referendum in 2036, joint revolution of Nepali Congress and United Liberation Front against Panchayat System and restoration of democracy, UCPN (Maoist) armed revolution in 2052 BS to the mass movement of seven party alliance (SPA), finally, led the promulgation of interim constitution of Nepal 2063 and the nation into Federal Democratic Republic System from Constitutional Assembly.

In conclusion, from the literature, we can say that the political paradigms that occured in Nepal came with some achievements except some weaknesses or failures. Few countries like Spain have already initiated digital governance, yet we are applying traditional model of bureaucracy. For the backwardness of the nation, whom to blame: the politics or politicians, or the public administration? Thus it is clear that the Nepalese politics is on a right track either politically or administratively even though we have a lot to change the administration in both.