[This on-line version does not contain any charts, graphs, or tables. To receive a published
copy of this report, PN-ABY-218, contact DISC, 1611 N. Kent St., Suite 200, Rosslyn, VA
22209. Ph: 703-351-4006; fax 703-351-4039; internet docorder@disc.mhs.compuserve.com]


               CDIE
          Impact
                Evaluation




PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANCE  IN NEPAL


      The 1990 democracy movement and the introduction of
   multiparty democracy was a turning point for Nepal. Donors
   suddenly faced requests for immediate help to set the new
                  democratic system in place.
                                

Through the Democratic Pluralism Initiative, USAID made grants from a variety of funding
sources to support activities of different democratic institutions. It assisted Parliament by

--   Arranging observation tours to other Asian countries and the United States to expose
     legislators and support staff to other legislative systems and operations


Author: Jan Paul Emmert, foreign service officer, CDIE; team member Nadereh Chahmirzadi, Democracy
Governance Center and former U.S. Senate staffer. Keepak Tamang was local consultant, and Maya
Tuledar gave logistical support.

1996, Number 7                                    (PN-ABY-218)     
--   Enhancing legislative support resources, services, and skills, including policy analysis,
     of the Parliament's support staff, the Secretariat
     
--   Supporting nonpartisan discussion of national issues among Members of Parliament
     (MPs) and informed citizens
     
--   Supporting a publication for MPs, the press, and the public on developments in the new
     Parliament and how legislatures in other countries function
     
     
SUMMARY

In 1990 Nepal was swept by a democratic revolution that established a new constitution and
multiparty democracy, limited the king's power, recognized the people as sovereign, set up a
directly elected parliament, brought the major parties out from underground, and guaranteed
human rights.

The U.S. and other donors attempted to give international recognition to this change and help
sustain the democratic opening. This evaluation examines the assistance provided in the
legislative arena, describes its major features, assesses its impact, draws lessons for legislative
assistance in other countries, and examines the extent to which Nepal's Parliament fills the
roles of a democratic legislature. 

USAID's primary objective was to help Nepal establish the new parliament as a functioning
democratic institution. The main strategies were supporting observation tours to Asian
countries and the United States to expose staff and members of parliament (MPs) to
legislatures in other countries, developing Secretariat support services, fostering nonpartisan
discussion among MPs and citizen groups on national issues, and informing MPs and citizens
about parliamentary developments in Nepal and abroad.

Specific grants supported 1) an orientation program for new MPs, 2) intermittent visits by an
Asia Foundation consultant to develop a needs assessment and long-range development plan,
3) an internship program for recent university graduates, 4) assistance to the parliamentary
library, 5) a modest computer capacity, and 6) support of a nongovernmental organization that
held seminars and produced a monthly publication about parliament.

At a very broad level, the goals of the Nepal government and donors have been achieved.
Parliament is functioning and at the center of political life. Multiparty democracy is becoming
institutionalized, and few seek to undo the democratic changes. Peaceful transitions of
government have occurred, with opposing parties acceding to controversial Supreme Court
decisions.  

Though the credit for these accomplishments goes to Nepalis, donor assistance had important
identifiable impacts. 

1.   As a result of observation tours, Nepal adopted a committee system that is already
     helping Parliament function more effectively.
     
2.   A surprisingly strong and popular oversight role has developed in the Public Accounts
     Committee, injecting a degree of accountability previously unknown in government
     agencies. 
     
3.   The Secretariat has gained a sense of professionalism. Computerization has greatly
     increased efficiency in tracking bills, maintaining current versions of bills, and
     producing documents needed by parliament to be effective and transparent.
     
This is a rich case for lessons about assistance to parliamentary systems, low-cost
interventions, interagency cooperation, external actors in the legislative arena, and managing
legislative assistance. 


BACKGROUND

For Nepal, 1990 was a watershed year. That year revolution arose in the Kathmandu Valley.
Police responded forcefully to demonstrations of the Movement for Restoration of Democracy.
Many people were arrested and more than 50 were killed. But support for change spread
quickly throughout the country. Today, in any political discussion, people still emphasize the
significance of that year, when the King and the Government acceded to popular demand,
ending 30 years of "partyless government."

Political parties resurfaced that had remained underground since King Birendra's father, King
Mahendra, summarily terminated the country's previous experiment with parliamentary
democracy in the 1950s.

An interim government was set up--a coalition of Nepal's two dominant parties, the Nepal
Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal/United Marxist-Leninist. Its mandate was to draft
a new constitution and hold popular elections.

After months of uncertainty and upheaval, the constitution was completed. Ironically, it was
never ratified by referendum or by any elected body; rather, the King promulgated it. Five
years later, despite turbulent politics in the Parliament and on the street, Nepal's constitution
remains virtually unquestioned, a symbol of democracy and a source of national pride. 

The new constitution established several democratic changes. Most important, although the
monarchy remains, the people are sovereign, and the power of government is vested in their
representatives in Parliament. Interestingly, respect for the King and the monarchy appears to
have increased now that his position is constitutionally less powerful. The constitution also
guarantees human rights and basic freedoms. In the past, someone criticizing the King or his
government risked life and limb. Today, even the strongest government critics acknowledge
there is freedom of speech and of the press. In contrast to the handful of newspapers
previously controlled, if not owned, by the government, several hundred registered
newspapers and magazines now publish without restraint. In some remote areas, however,
respect for such human rights as freedom from arbitrary arrest and torture has not caught up
with the constitutional change.

Though modeled on the British system, the new bicameral Parliament has a committee system
intentionally patterned after the U.S. Congress and state legislatures. Members of the lower
house (House of Representatives) are elected directly, one member representing each district.
A more complex selection process determines membership of the less powerful upper chamber
(National Assembly).

The Government is formed and headed by a prime minister, an MP who, with the member's
party or in coalition, can command a majority vote of confidence in the lower house. The
Government falls when the prime minister can no longer win a vote of confidence. National
parliamentary elections were conducted relatively peacefully in 1991 and in 1994 (see box on
party representation); a third peaceful change of government occurred in 1995 after a
controversial Supreme Court decision and a no-confidence vote only days before the start of
fieldwork for this evaluation (see box on key political events). The parties' acceptance of the
Court ruling to resolve this crisis augurs well for peaceful transitions of power.


CDIE STUDY

This evaluation of the impact of legislative assistance provided by the U.S. Agency for
International Development and other donors is one of five USAID's Center for Development
Information and Evaluation (CDIE) is conducting. The others look at legislative assistance in
Bolivia, El Salvador, the Philippines, and Poland. The resulting reports offer the Agency's
first analysis of the impact of legislative assistance. In the past 10 years, USAID has
increasingly become involved in programs that support democratic institutions. Those few
experiences that involve legislative assistance are the grist for the series.

The reports assess the types of impacts donor assistance has had on developing-country
legislatures and identify the analytical processes necessary to implement effective legislative
assistance. The series will conclude with a report synthesizing findings from all five countries,
drawing cross-country conclusions and analyzing whether, when, and how legislative
assistance should be provided.
  
To evaluate the impact of legislative assistance in Nepal, in September 1995 a CDIE team
interviewed 54 people, individually or in groups, including 14 MPs representing the three
major parties (roughly in proportion to their representation in Parliament) two former prime
ministers and one deputy prime minister, and the current and former Speaker of the House
(see box on evaluation questions). The team also talked with representatives of the Secretariat
(which provides staff support to the Parliament), USAID/Nepal (including four former
USAID/Nepal staff members and consultants), The Asia Foundation, the Danish international
aid agency DANIDA, USIS, the U.S. Embassy, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and
the press. The team examined program documents and evaluations and tracked newspaper
coverage of Parliament for several months.


DONOR STRATEGIES

Legislative assistance in Nepal grew directly out of the 1990 Movement for Restoration of
Democracy and the unexpected changes it brought about. The United States and other
countries wanted  to give immediate international recognition to Nepal's steps to democracy.
With longstanding restrictions on the existence of private organizations lifted, new
organizations with interesting ideas appeared. Donors were suddenly faced with many new
proposals and opportunities in support of democratic change.

There had been no rationale for more than token assistance to the former National Panchayat,
a 100-member, indirectly elected, unicameral legislative body that had little real power and
was accountable largely to the King. Even the government-controlled press rarely covered the
Panchayat. Two fundamental changes justified donor support to the new Parliament: it, and
not the King, would be the locus of power.  And it would be accountable to the people rather
than the King, through competitive multiparty elections.
     
U.S. efforts to help "sustain the democratic opening" in Nepal involved an unusual degree of
coordination among three agencies:  the Embassy, USIS, and USAID.  Lacking a project or
single pot of funds to fund an immediate response adequately, USAID made small grants from
any funding source it could locate. It also provided a larger PVO (private voluntary
organization) co-financing grant to The Asia Foundation, which managed some activities and
made further subgrants. These dealt with Parliament, the judiciary, local government, the
press, NGOs, and human rights, supporting such activities as constitution drafting, regional
meetings to seek public input into the constitution, public opinion polling, and elections.  

This broad Mission response to the 1990 changes in Nepal was called the Democratic
Pluralism Initiative, or DPI. The Mission adopted the name and principal themes then current
in USAID's Asia and Private Enterprise Bureau.1 

Though this evaluation looks only at the DPI assistance related to Parliament, neither USAID
nor DANIDA, the other major bilateral democracy donor, had a separate comprehensive
project for Parliament. Some of their many grants and activies in support of democracy
involved the legislative arena, most did not.

USAID/Nepal never defined separate institutional objectives for the long term development of
the new Parliament in the initiative. With hindsight, we can characterize USAID's legislative
development objectives as fairly modest and short-term: helping Nepal establish its new
legislature and encouraging its democratic functioning. 

The Mission's main strategies were to support

--   Short observation tours to other Asian countries and the United States to expose
     legislators, Secretariat staff, and constitution drafters to legislative systems and
     operations
      
--   The Secretariat's development of legislative support services, resources, and skills,
     including its ability to retrieve information and analyze policies
     
--   Nonpartisan discussion among MPs and citizen groups on national issues before
     Parliament
     
--   Means to inform MPs and the general public about developments in the new Parliament
     and how legislatures in other countries function
     
USAID shared and coordinated the first two strategies with The Asia Foundation, DANIDA,
and Germany's Freidrich Naumann Foundation.  DANIDA and the Finnish International
Development Agency had an additional strategy that was not part of U.S. assistance:
establishing the basic physical infrastructure required by Parliament.

USAID channeled its legislative funding in three main ways:  in cooperation with USIS;
through The Asia Foundation; and in a grant to the Society for Constitutional and
Parliamentary Exercises (SCOPE), a Nepalese NGO concerned primarily with developing
Nepal's Parliament.

Observation tours were emphasized because none of the MPs elected from the two main
parties (Congress and UML) had previously served in a legislature. USAID and USIS jointly
implemented and funded the observation tours to the United States.  Groups of four to six
MPs, balanced by party and interest, visited the U.S. Congress and several state legislatures.2 
Similar visits to legislatures of other Asian countries were arranged by The Asia Foundation,
using its regional network of offices. Prominent among these were a tour for the three senior
Secretariat officials to examine logistic support in parliaments of India, Pakistan, and Thailand
and a tour for Public Account Committee members to examine the workings of similar
parliamentary committees in five South Asian countries.

USAID's assistance to Parliament for building up support services and resources was
channeled through The Asia Foundation, which added substantially from its own funds and
worked with the Secretariat. These mini-projects and grants included

--   an orientation program for new MPs
     
--   Secretariat staff training
     
--   intermittent visits by an Asia Foundation consultant to conduct a needs assessment for
     the Secretariat and help it put together a long range development plan
     
--   an internship program for graduates of Tribhuvan University to serve as researchers in
     the Secretariat
     
--   resources to build up a parliamentary library
     
--   development of a modest computer capacity
     
--   help in establishing a parliamentary women's caucus, speakers forums with outside
     resource people, and workshops in legislative drafting  
     
The bulk of USAID support to external actors in the legislative arena went to SCOPE for its
seminars and workshops for MPs and outside professionals and for its monthly magazine,
Parliamentary Affairs. The Asia Foundation also supported a subgrant to the Nepal Press
Institute, in part to help the emergent press cover parliament. 


Parliament,  the Central Institution of a Democracy

To understand how the Nepalese Parliament has developed since 1990 and as background to
examining the impact of donor assistance, the team probed the extent to which Parliament
assumes various roles of a legislature in a democracy. Six questions guided this inquiry. While
the implied objectives were not clearly spelled out by the government or in any donor project
documents, they were most certainly in donors' minds. These same questions would be
important to ask if long-range institutional assistance to Parliament were being considered.

1.   Is Parliament a key forum for debate on national issues?
     
2.   Does Parliament play an  oversight role with the ministries and agencies that implement
     laws?
     
3.   Does it effectively carry out its lawmaking responsibilities?
     
4.   Does Parliament seek and receive public input to its deliberations, for example
     regarding proposed legislation or review of the performance of government agencies?
     
5.   Is Parliament functioning in a transparent manner?
     
6.   Do members represent and serve their constituencies?
     
The answers paint a mixed picture. Though Parliament has developed more than might
reasonably be expected in its first few years, many interviewees hope for improvement in
some areas. 

Debate

Vigorous debate on key national issues occurs on the floor of Parliament, particularly in the
House of Representatives. The public has great interest in such debate and a sense that
Parliament is where the debate should occur. However, MPs are under strong pressure to toe
the party line during debates on the floor, as well as in voting. They sometimes vigorously
defend party positions on matters with which they have little familiarity, according to MPs of
both parties. The most substantive discussion of issues in Parliament does not occur in debates
on the floor; it typically occurs in the less formal committee meetings, which are not, for all
practical purposes, open to the public. In those meetings, MPs apparently feel little pressure to
defend party positions, so they can discuss issues on their merit.



Oversight

A parliamentary oversight function is emerging, particularly in the Public Accounts Committee
of the House of Representatives. The committee scrutinizes government bureaucracies that
previously were accountable to no one. This committee is the only one the press follows
closely, and it is the only committee that meets regularly during the long periods between
parliamentary sessions. It reviews reports of the auditor general and has probed many
irregularities in the use of government resources. In press reports, Public Accounts Committee
investigations seem less partisan than other parliamentary activities.

None of the other seven standing committees regularly takes such an activist oversight role.
Though the rules empower committees to call ministers or other officials to appear before
them, many committee chairs and members do not fully understand their committee's role and
how it can be exercised, according to several MPs who participated in USAID-sponsored tours
of the U.S. Congress and state legislatures.

Furthermore, there may be disincentives to committee oversight of ministers and the
Government--ministers and committee chairs are all MPs of the government party or coalition;
ministers are often senior to committee chairs; and committee chairs (and members) depend on
their party for resources in elections.3 

Lawmaking

Parliament's record as a lawmaking body is mixed. There were short periods when many laws
passed. For example, 1992-93 was a productive period--68 bills were enacted. However, there
also have been long periods when virtually no legislation passed. Much work remains to
rewrite old laws to be consistent with the new constitution4  (see box on inheritance law and
other legislation affecting women).

Parliament has considered few bills drafted by MPs or Parliament staff. Rather, as in many
countries, civil servants of various ministries draft bills; the relevant minister or the Prime
Minister then presents them as Government bills. Parliament and its committees are
responsible for reviewing those bills, amending or modifying them if needed (or returning
them to the ministry with revision instructions), and ultimately passing or defeating them.
Committees do not generally have staff to conduct rigorous review or independent background
research.5 In some cases when a reviewing committee needs outside advice, it calls in experts
from a ministry or university. 

Though the rules of both houses permit members to introduce private bills, interviewees
claimed Parliament has yet to enact any private bill introduced by an MP. MPs face serious
constraints in initiating legislation and reviewing proposed bills. Many legislators lack the
skills and time to draft legislation themselves or conduct background research, even when they
have a clear idea for legislation they wish to propose. Individual MPs do not have any staff,
let alone staff capable of conducting detailed reviews. They must, therefore, rely on line
ministries to draft legislation. Some MPs resent their resulting loss of control over the
development of a bill. Several MPs and advocacy groups cited instances where draft legislation
prepared by a ministry at Parliament's request effectively undermined the constitutional intent.

To get a bill enacted, an MP from the Government party has to persuade the relevant minister
to introduce it as a Government bill. Antagonism between parties is so strong there is
apparently no chance of enacting a bill introduced by an opposition MP, even if there is no
substantive disagreement on it. MPs cited an example of a bill introduced by an opposition MP
that was enacted only after it was withdrawn and reintroduced as a Government bill. 

Practical considerations also hinder private bills. Both houses require distribution of copies of
proposed bills and summary information to all members two days before the bills are
introduced on the floor. Yet, for lack of budget, the Secretariat does not copy private bills for
distribution. Some MPs complained they can introduce a private bill only if they are able to
bear this expense personally. Many cannot. 

Public Input

Norms for seeking and receiving public input on legislative proposals are not yet clearly
established. Public hearings have not been fully adopted, though some have been held. The
Environment Committee held highly publicized hearings in the early 1990s on the Arun III
project, a controversial proposed dam for hydroelectric power and irrigation. Parliament rules
do not hinder either house from holding public hearings, but many MPs believe the practice is
not yet institutionalized. For some, public hearings were the most desirable single feature of
American legislatures. Although Parliament does not actively resist public input, it rarely
seeks it, aside from expert witnesses. NGOs interviewed seemed unsure of the legislative
process and how they could engage in it. 

Transparency

Parliament and its actions seem moderately open. Full sessions are open to the press. Most
committee meetings in practice are closed to journalists, unless special permission is given.
(Journalists are excluded primarily on the grounds that the meeting rooms are too small.)
General information on agendas, decisions, and actions taken by Parliament and committees is
published in the daily Journal, produced by the Secretariat and made available to the press.
Verbatim transcripts, however, are long delayed, have limited distribution, and require some
digging to obtain. Despite considerable public interest in press coverage of Parliament, the
media have limited resources to cover it in detail. Press coverage seldom extends to analyzing
bills or following them through the legislative process (see box on parliamentary proceedings).

Representation

Many MPs report difficulty effectively representing and serving constituents. MPs from
remote constituencies (some as many as eight days' travel from Kathmandu) say they have
great difficulty keeping in touch with constituents and finding out about problems in their
district. Travel costs to and from districts are reimbursed only at the beginning and end of
sessions. Phone communication, where possible, is expensive and not reimbursed. Some MPs
advocate a parliamentary (or even party) allowance to maintain a district office with one staff
member and an allowance for regular phone communications. MPs from districts closer to the
capital may experience greater constituent pressure for patronage benefits--to help find
government jobs, deal with family economic crises, or intervene with government agencies,
for example.


IMPACT

The team assessed the impact of donor assistance on four levels: the continuation of multiparty
democracy, the legislature and how it functions, the physical infrastructure and staff support
for the legislature, and support to external actors. 

Impact on Multiparty Democracy

The goal of the series of USAID and USIS interventions, only some of which dealt with
Parliament, was "to help sustain the democratic opening." The more specific legislative
objective was to get Parliament up and running. USAID/Nepal initiated DPI under pressure to
respond immediately to momentous changes. The new Parliament was viewed as the focal
point for multiparty democracy, although the new constitution had not yet been drafted and
final decisions on Parliament's structure had not yet been made.

In the attempt to take and hold power, the major parties have, internally and in their
relationship with each other, experienced alternating periods of accommodation and acrimony.
Unrealistic popular expectations for rapid improvement of Nepal's economy have not been
achieved. Political parties put forth platitudes rather than clear ideologies or solutions to
problems. And there have been four governments in five years,6  raising concern about
stability and continuity.

However, striking accomplishments give grounds for optimism that a framework for orderly
succession of governments is taking root: 

--   Elections were held and the new Parliament was established.
     
--   The experiment with multiparty democracy continues. Neither the King nor any ruling
     party seems inclined to terminate it.
     
--   Three transitions of government have occurred, peacefully and according to
     constitutional prescriptions, even though the transitions were between parties that are
     bitter antagonists.
     
--   All parties acceded to Supreme Court verdicts during two controversial transitions that
     required constitutional interpretation.
     
--   Nepal's constitution is still popular and a source of public pride. Few advocate
     changing it, except on the most minor of points.
     
We will not know for many years whether multiparty parliamentary democracy is firmly
institutionalized in Nepal. But at the end of five years, Nepal seems well along the path to that
goal.

To suggest this movement toward institutionalizing multiparty democracy is the result of
foreign donors and their programs would slight the actors in the Nepal polity and greatly
overstate the impact of donor assistance. The outcome may have been the same without any
foreign assistance. But a case can be made that donor assistance helped. Nepal's key
politicians are sensitive to international opinion. Whether each element of donor assistance was
effective or contributed directly to institutionalizing multiparty democracy, assistance for
democratization, and for Parliament in particular, expressed international support for Nepal's
new directions at a critical period in its history.


Impact on Parliamentary Effectiveness

The core evaluation question is: Did  donor assistance have any impact (positive or negative)
on how Parliament functions? The short answer is yes. USAID and other donors took
reasonable steps to respond quickly to an unexpected situation. The assistance they provided
had several positive effects on the functioning of Nepal's parliament. The overall impact was
modest, but so were the donor inputs. While no negative impact was observed, there was at
least one objective the Mission did not accomplish. 

A look at the specific impacts provides a more detailed answer.

The committee system. Establishment of committees within the parliamentary system is a major
impact of USAID assistance. Most MPs interviewed said the decision to incorporate
committees was influenced by tours of U.S. legislatures; the structure was consciously based
on American-style committees. This is striking because a well-developed committee structure
is not generally part of parliaments modeled on the British system. 

Many interviewees in and outside Parliament said most committees do not yet function
effectively enough. Yet the committee system is beginning to contribute to several democratic
ends. Some legislation is being examined critically and revised; a structure is being established
for oversight; and informal interparty dialog is facilitated.

Committee operating norms are still evolving. Some MPs desire changes in chairing and
managing committees, in assigning committee staff who are experts in the subject matter, in
making committee assignments based on expertise, and in regularly conducting public hearings
on major legislation. Other MPs and party leaders, according to a recent article in the
Kathmandu Post, defend the committee system as working satisfactorily.

Oversight. Probably the most important single impact of USAID-Asia Foundation assistance is
the emergence of an activist Public Accounts Committee. Its oversight of agencies and
ministries is a first for Nepal. Government bureaucracy has long been viewed as arbitrary,
powerful, and accountable to no one. This committee's conception of an activist role for itself
emerged during a tour The Asia Foundation arranged to raise the issue of effective oversight
by taking committee members to observe how similar committees function in five south Asian
countries.

Meeting space. Even though Parliament's facilities are inadequate, both houses now have a
place to meet, thanks to donor assistance. An awkward initial constraint was that the two
houses of Parliament had to take turns meeting in the only room large enough for such
gatherings. DANIDA constructed a separate building for the smaller upper chamber. It also
financed a modest remodelling of the assembly room for the House of Representatives,
furniture and a public address system.

In the lower house, members are crowded, have little space for papers or reference materials
at their seats, and find it difficult to avoid hitting their microphones when they take or leave
their seats. Members at the back of the room cannot readily see or be seen by the Speaker.
Discussions were under way both in Parliament and with donors for additional remodeling:
floor risers for seats at the back, more suitable microphones, or even construction of a new
building.
 
Equally important, members of Parliament still have no offices where they can read, work, or
meet constituents. Their offices are the large shared meeting areas on the Parliament grounds
designated for each political party.

Orientation. An orientation program for new MPs appears to be institutionalized. The Asia
Foundation organized the first orientation in 1991, a three-day session. After the 1994
elections, the Secretariat organized an orientation, following that model. It concentrated on the
committee system, the legislative process, Secretariat services, sources of information, roles
and responsibilities of MPs, the organization and rules of procedure for the two houses, and
other institutional matters. MPs interviewed appreciated the need for the orientation.

Promotion of bipartisanship. The strict bipartisan nature of MPs' observation tours presented a
model that may be important for future civil relations among the parties in Parliament.
USAID, USIS, the Embassy, and The Asia Foundation put a lot of effort into ensuring
bipartisanship, and all participants interviewed commented on its significance. Although
assessing impact is difficult, some MPs volunteered that the tours cemented personal and
working relationships they would not otherwise have developed with members of opposing
parties. U.S. Embassy staff also reported a payoff in developing friendly, substantive
relationships with members of majority and minority parties.

Women's caucus. One objective assistance failed to achieve was establishment of a nonpartisan
women's caucus in Parliament that would take the lead in articulating and advancing legislative
issues affecting women. A women's caucus was eventually organized, with catalytic support
from The Asia Foundation. But shortly after, Parliament was dissolved and elections called.
Fewer women MPs were elected than before, and they have not formed a new caucus.
Meantime, Nepalese women's organizations are exploring how to work more effectively with
parties to promote legislation and get it enacted (see box on women in Parliament).

Summary. Nepal's Parliament is still new and obviously in many areas has only begun to
develop effective, responsive, and democratic processes. Donors funded quite a few relatively
small, economical interventions that helped get it up and running and had positive impacts.
They provided opportunities for MPs to define their roles through interaction with
counterparts from other countries and their colleagues in other parties. However, there should
be no illusion about how much was accomplished and what remains to be done. The financial
and organizational resources provided by USAID, other donors, and the Nepalese Parliament
itself were limited and did not add up to a comprehensive, sustained program for the
institutional development of Parliament.


Impact on the Secretariat

Parliament inherited the core of its Secretariat, including some very capable civil servants,
from the former National Panchayat. However, the bicameral, multiparty Parliament has far
greater needs than the smaller, less powerful Panchayat. The lower house alone has twice the
membership of the Panchayat, and the Parliament is more independent and more active.
USAID and The Asia Foundation provided assistance in improving the services, efficiency,
and logistic support of Parliament, working closely with the Secretariat (see box on
Secretariat). 

Despite continuing constraints in human and material resources, the team observed two areas
in the Secretariat where USAID assistance had a positive impact (professionalism and
computerization) and two other areas where it had limited impact (legislative drafting and
research support).

Professionalism. The assistance contributed to a sense of direction and professionalism in the
Secretariat. Those interviewed had a sense of what support Parliament needs, what services
need to be developed, and what limitations exist, generated in part by the observation tours,
short-term training, and needs assessment and planning support of The Asia Foundation
consultant.

Computerization.The Secretariat seems to be increasingly efficient and professional in
producing materials important to the smooth functioning of Parliament. It has become more
efficient and more professional in tracking bills, maintaining up-to-date versions of bills, and
producing the daily Journal and other documents while Parliament is in session. Less visible is
progress in maintaining parliamentary accounts--in total disarray earlier and now well
organized and up to date. Also, through a closed-circuit audiovisual system supplied by
DANIDA, current schedules and announcements are immediately available within the
Parliament compound. 

Much of the credit for these advances goes to a computerization program of The Asia
Foundation. Initially, not one Secretariat staff member was computer-literate. The foundation
supplied 18 computers (DANIDA and South Korea provided others), and arranged local
computer training. It also had its consultant lead a phased introduction of hardware, training,
and applications, provide training, and plan an eventual network. Computerization took hold
slowly at first, but now the Secretariat depends on computers to complete many of its tasks.

Research support. Donor support for developing a stable system of legislative research support
for committees and individual MPs has had little impact. The small library expanded with help
from The Asia Foundation and book donations from India is used increasingly by members.
And the foundation, in one of its most expensive activities, underwrote a one-year
congressional fellowship in the U.S. Congress for a Secretariat staff member. Though that
fellow has dedication and a vision of what can be done, the Secretariat's professional staff is
still too small and the demands on them too great to take on substantive legislative research.
Until the Nepal government hires or dedicates the professional staff required for sustained
analytical support, further donor support to improve research services cannot be expected to
make much difference.

The Asia Foundation's one-year parliamentary internship program for recent graduates of
Tribhuvan University has helped make research skills available to Parliament on a temporary
basis, partially addressing the research need. But this program has also had its ups and downs.
Interns were demoralized by periods of underutilization (such as after elections were called in
1994), and Secretariat staff have questioned whether selection standards of the first two years
have slipped. A longer range institutional solution is needed.

Legislative Drafting: The Asia Foundation attempted to improve legislative drafting skills by
organizing a workshop presented jointly by Nepal's foremost authority on legislative drafting
and a foreign legislative drafting consultant. The foundation's other efforts to develop
legislative drafting skills encountered problems of logistics and timing. The shortage of
competent drafting skills available to Parliament remains serious.

Contacts. The Asia Foundation worked routinely with a counterpart in the Secretariat and had
access to the Secretary General and on occasion to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, who approved plans related to the Secretariat. The foundation might have
elicited broader support for the changes it proposed had it had available a lesson learned from
other legislative-strengthening programs, (such as the one in Bolivia7 ) and set up a steering
committee of MPs from the various parties. The steering committee could have concentrated
on the Secretariat and ensured donor assistance met nonpartisan priorities, was fully utilized,
and was consistent with Parliament's plans for institutional development.

Impact on External Actors

In a democracy, an effective legislative process involves people outside the legislature. The
assistance USAID, The Asia Foundation, and DANIDA provided addressed at least three types
of external actors involved with Parliament or proposed legislation: an NGO centered on
Parliament itself (SCOPE), NGOs advocating policies in particular sectors, and media and
media-related associations.

Like the Center for Legislative Development in the Philippines,8  SCOPE is an NGO
composed of professionals who work to develop the legislature (see box on SCOPE).
However, the organization and the services it provides are quite different. The Philippine
center conducts research and provides information packets on legislative issues, similar to
those the Congressional Research Service provides to the U.S. Congress. The center has
taught such skills as drafting and analyzing bills and regulations to legislative staff, regional
legislators, and executive agency staff members who deal with legislatures. It also consults
with advocacy organizations, businesses, and local governments on legislative process and
strategy.

By contrast, the two main activities of SCOPE are holding nonpartisan seminars and
workshops for MPs and outside experts on issues of national importance expected to come
before Parliament, and publishing news and information about Nepal and foreign legislatures.
Several of its principals were involved in drafting the new constitution in 1990, a process
USAID supported with regional meetings to elicit opinions on the content of the constitution.

The SCOPE grant became something of a headache for USAID. First, some activities
anticipated in the grant agreement (objectives USAID staff considered important) materialized
barely, if at all. These included drafting model legislation on important national issues; helping
development and advocacy NGOs understand the parliamentary process, track legislation, and
articulate and promote their legislative suggestions; and helping form a parliamentary women's
caucus and promote legislative awareness of issues affecting women. Second, regardless of the
merits of its accomplishments, SCOPE failed to develop management and accounting systems
adequate to report reliably on its activities and expenditures. USAID eventually allowed the
SCOPE grant to lapse.

Other Nepalese NGOs active in development work before 1990 received funding from
USAID, The Asia Foundation, DANIDA, or other foreign donors. The number and diversity
of active organizations increased dramatically after 1990. Though the goal in supporting these
organizations was not legislative strengthening, the team met with several organizations that
address women, children, and human rights to get a sense of how they promote legislative
priorities. In general, these organizations had a clear idea of the problems requiring legislation
and high interest in what is going on in Parliament. However, they do not know how to
promote legislation as it moves through that body.

The evaluation team came away with three impressions about the impact of assistance through
external actors:

1.   Many MPs participated in and appreciated the seminars and read some Parliamentary    Affairs articles. Press coverage of the seminars helped bring issues of national
                                                                                          importance to public awareness. However, SCOPE may not have held seminars
                                                                                          sufficiently in advance of issues coming before Parliament. The team did not identify
                                                                                          any direct effects SCOPE had on Parliament or specific legislation before Parliament. 
     
2.   Many advocacy NGOs do not know how to press their legislative concerns in
     Parliament. The democracy initiative did not successfully address this issue.
     
3.   The public is interested in coverage of Parliament, but the press in Nepal lacks the
     resources, both in money and skilled journalists. The minimal project contribution to
     improve newspaper coverage of Parliament was well conceived, but not sustained long
     enough to generate significant impact. Assistance did not address electronic media
     (especially radio, which reaches people in remote areas).
     

SUMMING UP 

This story is not complete without tying up some administrative loose ends: how
USAID/Nepal managed the assistance, changing internal Mission support for legislative
assistance, and reasons for discontinuing legislative assistance.


USAID/Nepal's Management

The Democratic Pluralism Initiative required intensive management by USAID/Nepal--particularly in the first three years as events were unfolding rapidly, funding sources were not
secure, and overseas observation tours were being planned. The high degree of coordination
among the Mission, USIS, and the Embassy was important to the initiative's success. 

Despite continued interagency coordination, USAID management and senior staff involvement
with assistance to Parliament diminished after the first two to three years. Though partly
caused by the near simultaneous turnover of key players in USAID and the Embassy in 1992-93, USAID's management structure for the democracy initiative was another factor. There was
no one in USAID/Nepal (direct hire, foreign service national, or personal services contractor)
who remained involved over the five years of legislative assistance, thus there was little
institutional memory about what had been done and why. No senior Nepalese staff member
had continuous responsibility for the program. A series of locally hired expatriate personal
services contractors working out of the USAID program office handled the day-to-day
management of grants and contacts with grantees. They and The Asia Foundation maintained
most of the subsequent program contact with Parliament, though earlier USAID senior staff
had maintained regular direct contact with Parliament's leadership while planning the
initiative.

Changing Internal Support

Over the five years, USAID/Nepal's internal support for legislative elements of the democracy
initiative waxed and waned, for three reasons. First, the Mission did not anticipate long-term
development support for Parliament. The focus of the initiative was expected to shift gradually
away from central government institutions. Perhaps for this reason, legislative assistance
objectives were not articulated as fully as for most projects. 

Second, discussion at interagency coordination meetings often centered on whether and when
the initiative's institutional emphasis should shift. There were articulate advocates for both
strengthening and reducing support to elections, civil society, human rights, the judiciary,
local government, Parliament, polling, voter education, and women's organizations. USAID's
support for parliamentary development was controversial; some thought the Agency should
emphasize democratic grass-roots support. 

And third, turnover of those involved with the initiative was high. In the five years, the
Mission had three each of directors, deputies, and program officers. There was also turnover
among personal services contractors directly managing the initiative.9


New Democratic Programming

In its 1995 strategic plan, USAID/Nepal shifted its support to the grass-roots level. Support
for democratic institutions is subsumed under one of the Mission's three strategic objectives--empowering women. Among other elements, this includes improving the legal environment for
women, educating women about legal rights and the statutory framework affecting them, and
increasing women's participation in local government. The new strategy is crafted to maximize
synergy among elements of the Mission's overall program, located almost entirely outside
Kathmandu. DANIDA and The Asia Foundation are shifting their democracy programming
similarly, continuing only minimal assistance to Parliament. The team did not evaluate the new
strategy. 

The way the Mission viewed its small legislative portfolio as it defined a new strategy may be
of interest to other Missions considering legislative assistance. The main reason the Mission
decided to discontinue its former strategy was broader trends in the Agency and the Asia
Bureau: rapidly diminishing overall resources, the reengineering mandate to focus resources
more narrowly, and the Mission's apparent difficulty in obtaining funds earmarked for
democracy.

Another reason the Mission allowed its legislative support to lapse was its doubt that it could
define a strategic objective for which it was willing to be held accountable by
USAID/Washington. The difficulty was in setting up an objective that would adequately
capture significant institutional changes in Parliament, could be accomplished within a period
when funding would be secure, and for which progress could be objectively measured. 


Concluding Thoughts

If funding were available for major new legislative programming in Nepal, would the team
have recommended it? Not without major restructuring and a rethinking of the concept, which
would not be realistic. The parliamentary assistance the Mission and The Asia Foundation
supported under the Democracy Pluralism Initiative was reasonable and, in some cases,
creative in a rapidly changing situation. The overall impact was not overwhelming, but
specific significant impacts occurred, commensurate with the level of funding. 

The Nepal Parliament is still in the early stages of development and has meager resources and
facilities with which to work. Had donor assistance aimed to have made a major qualitative
change in Parliament's effectiveness as a democratic institution, considerably more would have
been required than has been done and than USAID can provide with resources it is likely to
have available. It would be crucial for the donor or an intermediary to work with a core
multiparty group of MPs that engages the rest of the Parliament in analyzing its own
institutional needs and priorities, defines its change objectives, and is the internal engine for
bringing about institutional changes. An agent or intermediary would need several years of
support to work with Parliament to achieve such internally driven institutional changes.
     

LESSONS LEARNED

The Nepal case is a rich one for donors interested in learning about legislative assistance. It
offers useful lessons on providing assistance in the wake of national democratic revolution,
assisting parliamentary systems (versus presidential systems), devising useful low-cost
interventions, assisting external actors in the legislative arena, working within a broader
multipronged democracy program versus a focused legislative-strengthening program, and
structuring legislative assistance.


Assistance in Parliamentary Systems

Many countries outside Latin America that receive USAID assistance have parliamentary
systems, rather than presidential systems with separate executive and legislative branches of
government. The Nepal case suggests several lessons that may be applicable to legislative
assistance in countries with a variant of the British parliamentary model.

--   "Snap elections," part of the democratic process in parliamentary systems, cause
     unpredictable downtime for assistance activities that require working with MPs
     directly. For example, The Asia Foundation and USAID incurred costs for consultants
     hired to conduct workshops even though the workshops had to be canceled when
     elections were called. Parliamentary interns felt demoralized by the long period of
     inactivity when Parliament was not in session in 1994 because of elections and again in
     1995 because of disagreements among the parties. 

--   Practices that appear inherently undemocratic in one system may serve democratic
     ends in another. The closed committee meetings in Nepal seem undemocratic, but
     provide a locus otherwise absent for MPs of opposing parties to discuss legislative
     issues informally without being bound to party positions.

--   Those working to improve legislative oversight must analyze the incentives acting
     on individual legislators or committee chairmen. In Nepal, there is no apparent bar
     to oversight of civil servants. By contrast, MPs may hesitate to review ministers who
     oversee those civil servants, because they are party and parliamentary colleagues and
     the MPs depend on them for party support at election time.

Useful Low-Cost Interventions

Most of the legislative interventions in Nepal were inexpensive and may be useful even in the
absence of a comprehensive legislative development program. Highlights include:

--   An NGO magazine or newsletter can effectively introduce ideas about how
     legislatures in other countries function and keep members, the press, and outside
     observers up to date about developments in Parliament. A publication such as
     SCOPE's Parliamentary Affairs may be particularly useful when press coverage of
     Parliament is limited or not well informed, or when members of a new legislature lack
     prior legislative experience. 
--   A parliamentary internship program for recent university graduates can have
     multiple benefits. Through the well-received internship program The Asia Foundation
     sponsored with Tribhuvan University, legislative research skills--otherwise unavailable
     to MPs and parliamentary committees--were temporarily available. University interest
     in the legislature was heightened. And a core of future professionals are familiar with
     how parliament functions.

--   An intermittent consultant may provide useful assistance in taking the lead on
     improving legislative functioning. In Nepal, on a series of visits The Asia Foundation
     consultant helped conduct a needs assessment for legislative support, analyze staff
     workloads, and plan for developing the Secretariat. A consultant with a different
     background could conceivably work with a legislative steering committee to address
     other functions of Parliament.


Managing Legislative Assistance

USAID management of legislative assistance may have requirements and opportunities that
differ from other projects.

--   Legislative projects provide opportunities for cooperation among U.S. government
     agencies, but this requires intensive staff effort. Two factors required this
     cooperation in Nepal: a) the overseas observations tours were organized jointly by
     USAID and USIS and, from the Embassy viewpoint, required strict political neutrality;
     and b) the rapidly unfolding development of Nepal's political system.

--   Contrary to conventional wisdom, USAID and USIS can jointly program and fund
     overseas visits. These visits were successful. However, because of the differing
     institutional requirements of the two agencies for U.S. visits, waivers were required
     from their respective headquarters.

--   Observation tours, which USAID usually considers "participant training," may not
     be acceptable to legislators if labeled "training." In Nepal, MPs accepted activities
     labeled "orientation" and "observation tour," but rejected participation in activities with
     names implying they were not fully qualified.

--   Legislative projects supported by USAID can create friction among U.S.
     government agencies, because they blur traditional areas of responsibility and
     expertise. In most assistance activities, USAID staff members have limited professional
     contact with political actors, particularly legislators, in contrast to Embassy political
     staff. Conversely, USAID staff members have considerable hands-on experience with
     institutional development, while Embassy staff usually have little.


External Actors 

Though assistance in Nepal centered less on external actors in the legislative arena than in the
Philippines, lessons learned in Nepal include:

--   Helping outside organizations, such as advocacy groups, understand the legislative
     process can be useful. Such programs were envisioned in Nepal, but not implemented.
     Outside organizations need to understand how to follow a bill's progress through
     Parliament, and recognize stages where public feedback and reaction are possible. 
 
--   Lack of sound management can undermine implementation of a sound idea.
     USAID ended its support to SCOPE for the same reasons it has curtailed funding of
     NGO projects in many parts of the world--the NGO failed to develop adequate
     management and accounting systems.


Postdemocratic Revolution Programming 

--   The openness to new ideas that may exist after a democratic revolution will not last
     indefinitely. Many countries would not accept a foreign development agency's
     involvement with the central democratic institution--the legislature. In the wake of
     Nepal's 1990 revolution the opposite occurred. The Nepalese actively sought outside
     ideas, models, and assistance in shaping the new Parliament. However, as Parliament
     establishes new traditions, its openness to foreign assistance in institutional
     development is diminishing.

--   An unanticipated "democratic moment" presents USAID Missions with
     programming challenges. These include a need to show concrete support for
     democratic change, a need to respond almost immediately to requests for assistance,
     uncertainty about priorities and next steps for assistance when the new democratic
     institutions have not been formed or fully defined, and a paucity of funding
     mechanisms that allow an immediate response.

--   A collection of reasonable, targeted interventions does not necessarily add up to
     comprehensive institutional development. Each of the varied elements of legislative
     assistance in the Nepal case were reasonable and well grounded; most, though not all,
     of the intended effects of grants and activities were at least partially achieved. Yet the
     donor assistance has not helped Parliament establish a dynamic internal process of self-examination and set  institutonal priorities for its development. Longer range project
     interventions do not seem to have evolved from a bipartisan vision (including both MPs
     and staff) about priority changes needed to become more effective and more
     democratic.


ENDNOTES

1 The themes are 1) voice--improving the number and quality of channels for popular influence
on government and for free dissemination of information and opinion; 2) choice--free, fair,
and meaningful elections; 3) governance--effective, open, and democratic administration; 4)
redress--full protection for individual and group rights; and 5) accountability--government
unencumbered by persuasive corruption.

2 The USIS-USAID collaboration on observation tours was unusual and difficult
bureaucratically, but successful. The agencies' different requirements for U.S. visits required
waivers from their respective headquarters. But with patience and frequent communication,
staff resolved the difficulties.

3 Incentives almost certainly function differently than in presidential systems where legislative
and executive branches provide checks and balances. Ministers (executive branch) are also
MPs (elected legislators) and ex officio members of parliamentary committees related to their
ministry. However, two factors may support committee independence from parties and the
Prime Minister: Nepal's committee chairs are not chosen by the party, Prime Minister, or
parliamentary leadership, but by fellow committee members; and prime ministers have not
necessarily been the leaders of the party.

4 At least 122 existing laws or administrative regulations have been identified as in conflict
with the constitution, including many affecting newly defined human or civil rights. The Nepal
Law Reform Commission, which has received financial assistance from DANIDA, is charged
with revising such laws and drafting implementing legislation for rights in the new
constitution. In part because of the shortage of lawyers skilled in legislative drafting, that
process still has far to go. USAID projects supported drafting legislation on several topics (a
companies act, a privatization act, and some human rights legislation) by the Nepal Law
Society and outside consultants, but none had been enacted when the CDIE evaluation team
arrived in September 1995.

5 Normally only one part-time Secretariat staff member is assigned to a committee while it is
actively meeting to provide administrative support and summarize committee decisions.
Though Secretariat leaders appear to want to accommodate special requests by committee
chairs or individual MPs to conduct background research, review draft bills, or do original
drafting, staff with such skills can be released for such assignments only for short periods. The
Secretariat does not have full-time subject matter specialists.

6 Many interviewees pointed out that Nepal experienced the full range of governments possible
under a parliamentary system in the first five years of the new system: an appointed multiparty
government with a specific mandate; a majority party government; a caretaker government; a
government formed by minority party; and a coalition government formed by two minority
parties.

7 See L. Marcia Bernbaum, et al., Modernizing Bolivia's Legislature, CDIE Impact Evaluation
No. 1, 1996.

8 See Michael Calavan, Strengthening the Legislature and Democracy in the Philippines, CDIE
Impact Evaluation No. 1, 1995.

9 During the evaluation in fall 1995, because of turnovers, not one staff member of
USAID/Nepal (direct hire, foreign service national, or personal services contractor) had been
regularly involved in assistance to Parliament.