By Our Reporter
The government’s decision to introduce an “Immediate Public Service Improvement Action Plan” is a welcome move. For a government that has promised better governance through faster and more responsive service delivery, the plan sends the right message: citizens should not have to spend days moving from one desk to another just to obtain a basic government service.
The plan focuses on practical problems. It asks government offices to provide clear information, reduce unnecessary paperwork, cut waiting times, improve complaint handling and make better use of technology. It also sets a 30-day window for visible improvements in areas such as passports, driving licences, land registration, drinking water, telecommunications and public transport.
Nepal has no shortage of rules, directives, committees and reform plans. What it lacks is consistent implementation. A government can instruct an office to reduce waiting times, but that does not automatically make the counter more efficient. It can order officials to respond to complaints, but citizens will continue to suffer if nobody is held responsible when complaints disappear into the system.
The recent shortage of cooking gas offers a useful reminder of this wider problem. Gas is an essential household service, yet consumers were recently forced to stand in long queues, search from one outlet to another and sometimes return home empty handed. The government even stepped in to sell gas directly in Kathmandu. That response may have provided temporary relief, but it also exposed weaknesses in supply management, coordination and communication.
If the government struggles to ensure a steady supply of something as basic as cooking gas, citizens have every reason to ask whether another administrative reform plan will actually change their daily experience.
The same frustration appears in other sectors. Passport applicants have long complained about queues and confusing procedures. People seeking driving licences often face delays. Land related services can involve multiple visits and lengthy paperwork. Public transport remains poorly regulated in many places. Water supply is unpredictable in many communities, while complaints about poor telecommunications services often take too long to resolve.
These are not necessarily problems that require major structural reforms. Many can be fixed through better management, clearer information and someone being held responsible for results.
That is where the government’s “quick fix” approach could prove useful. The plan rightly says offices should identify problems that can be solved immediately instead of waiting for new laws or major institutional reforms. A citizen should know before reaching an office exactly where to go, what documents to bring, how much to pay and how long the process should take. If that information can be provided online, through a notice board or by a help desk, there is little reason to make people find out by going from counter to counter.
But the government should avoid turning the quick fix plan into another paperwork exercise. The danger is that officials may produce reports showing that reforms have been “implemented” while citizens experience little change.
Instead of asking whether an office has appointed a focal person, the government should ask whether waiting time has fallen. Instead of counting how many complaint forms were registered, it should track how many were actually resolved and how quickly. Instead of checking whether information boards have been installed, it should ask whether citizens still have to make repeated visits.
The government should also publish performance data. Citizens should be able to see which offices are meeting service standards and which are failing. Poor performance should have consequences for office chiefs, while officials who consistently improve services should be recognised.
Technology can help, but digitisation should not become another source of frustration. A government website is useful only if the information is accurate and updated. Online applications are useful only if they actually reduce physical visits. A QR code on a wall means little if citizens still have to queue for hours at the same counter.
Most importantly, ministers and senior officials need to stay focused after the initial publicity fades. Quick fixes require regular follow up. The government should review progress after 30 days, then again after three and six months. It should identify what worked, what failed and why.
A citizen who spends an entire day obtaining a document has paid a hidden cost even if the government service itself is free. A family that spends hours searching for cooking gas pays another kind of cost. These everyday frustrations shape people’s view of government far more than speeches about good governance.
The quick fix plan is therefore a good start. But it will matter only if the government turns instructions into results. Nepal does not need another reform document that looks impressive on paper. It needs government offices where services work when citizens actually need them.
Login to add a comment