ImpactCDIE

United States Agency for International DevelopmentEvaluation

1996, Number 7PN–ABY–218

PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANCE IN NEPAL

The 1990 democracy movement and the introduction of multipartydemocracy 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 fundingsources to support activities of different democratic institutions. It assisted Parliament by

■ Arranging observation tours to other Asian countries and the United States to exposelegislators and support staff to other legislative systems and operations

■ Enhancing legislative support resources, services, and skills, including policy analysis, ofthe Parliament’s support staff, the Secretariat

■ Supporting nonpartisan discussion ofnational issues among Members of Par-liament (MPs) and informed citizens

■ Supporting a publication for MPs, thepress, and the public on developmentsin the new Parliament and how legisla-tures in other countries function

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

CONTENTSBackground . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

CDIE Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Donor Strategies. . . . . . . . . . 5

Parliament. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . .18

2SUMMARY

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

The U.S. and other donors attempted to give international recognition to this change and helpsustain the democratic opening. This evaluation examines the assistance provided in the legisla-tive arena, describes its major features, assesses its impact, draws lessons for legislative assis-tance in other countries, and examines the extent to which Nepal’s Parliament fills the roles of ademocratic legislature.

USAID’s primary objective was to help Nepal establish the new parliament as a functioningdemocratic institution. The main strategies were supporting observation tours to Asian coun-tries and the United States to expose staff and members of parliament (MPs) to legislatures inother countries, developing Secretariat support services, fostering nonpartisan discussion amongMPs and citizen groups on national issues, and informing MPs and citizens about parliamentarydevelopments in Nepal and abroad.

Specific grants supported 1) an orientation program for new MPs, 2) intermittent visits by anAsia 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 heldseminars and produced a monthly publication about parliament.

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

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

1. As a result of observation tours, Nepal adopted a committee system that is already help-ing Parliament function more effectively.

2. A surprisingly strong and popular oversight role has developed in the Public AccountsCommittee, injecting a degree of accountability previously unknown in government agen-cies.

3. The Secretariat has gained a sense of professionalism. Computerization has greatly in-creased efficiency in tracking bills, maintaining current versions of bills, and producingdocuments 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 assis-tance.

3BACKGROUND

For Nepal, 1990 was a watershed year. Thatyear revolution arose in the Kathmandu Val-ley. Police responded forcefully to demonstra-tions of the Movement for Restoration of De-mocracy. Many people were arrested and morethan 50 were killed. But support for changespread quickly throughout the country. Today,in any political discussion, people still empha-size the significance of that year, when the Kingand the Government acceded to popular de-mand, ending 30 years of “partyless govern-ment.”

Political parties resurfaced that had remainedunderground since King Birendra’s father, KingMahendra, summarily terminated thecountry’s previous experiment with parliamen-tary democracy in the 1950s.

An interim government was set up—a coali-tion of Nepal’s two dominant parties, the NepalCongress and the Communist Party of Nepal/United Marxist–Leninist. Its mandate was todraft a new constitution and hold popular elec-tions.

After months of uncertainty and upheaval,the constitution was completed. Ironically,it was never ratified by referendum or byany elected body; rather, the King promul-gated it. Five years later, despite turbulentpolitics in the Parliament and on the street,Nepal’s constitution remains virtually un-questioned, a symbol of democracy and asource of national pride.

The new constitution established severaldemocratic changes. Most important, al-though the monarchy remains, the peopleare sovereign, and the power of govern-ment is vested in their representatives inParliament. Interestingly, respect for theKing and the monarchy appears to have in-creased now that his position is constitu-tionally less powerful. The constitution alsoguarantees human rights and basic free-doms. In the past, someone criticizing the

King or his government risked life and limb.Today, even the strongest government criticsacknowledge there is freedom of speech andof the press. In contrast to the handful of news-papers previously controlled, if not owned, bythe government, several hundred registerednewspapers and magazines now publish with-out restraint. In some remote areas, however,respect for such human rights as freedom fromarbitrary arrest and torture has not caught upwith the constitutional change.

Though modeled on the British system, the newbicameral Parliament has a committee systemintentionally patterned after the U.S. Congressand state legislatures. Members of the lowerhouse (House of Representatives) are electeddirectly, one member representing each district.A more complex selection process determinesmembership of the less powerful upper cham-ber (National Assembly).

The Government is formed and headed by aprime minister, an MP who, with the member’sparty or in coalition, can command a majorityvote of confidence in the lower house. The Gov-ernment falls when the prime minister can no

Party Representation in Lower House*1991 1994

Party Election Election

Nepal Congress (NC) 110 83

Communist Party/United Marxist–Leninist (UML) 69 88

National Democratic (RPP) 4 20

Nepal Workers & Peasants 2 4

United People’s Front 9 0

Nepal Sadvhawana 6 3

Independents/Others 5 7——————————— ——— ———TOTAL 205 205

*In the 60-member upper house, owing to staggered terms andindirect election and selection, party composition changesannually, independent of whether the Government changes.

4longer win a vote of confidence. National par-liamentary elections were conducted relativelypeacefully in 1991 and in 1994 (see box on partyrepresentation); a third peaceful change ofgovernment occurred in 1995 after a controver-sial Supreme Court decision and a no-confi-dence vote only days before the start of field-

Key Political Events

1-5/90 Movement for Restoration ofDemocracy

5/90- Interim government: coalition of5/91 Congress and UML, K.P. Bhattarai as

Prime Minister

11/90 New constitution promulgated

5/91 First parliamentary elections under newconstitution. Congress (NC) majority,G.P. Koirala as Prime Minister (PM)

7/94 R 34 dissident NC MPs challengePM’s programR PM asks King to dissolveParliament, call electionsR PM Koirala forms caretakergovernment

11/94 R Second parliamentary electionsR No party wins majority or can formcoalitionR NC stands aside for UML to formminority government,M.M. Adhikari as PM

6/95 R 25 percent of NC MPs ask King tocall Parliament into session forno-confidence voteR PM asks King to dissolveParliament for new elections before itcould return to session.Parliament is dissolvedR Congress challenges dissolutionin Supreme Court

8/95 R Court rescinds dissolution

9/95 R Parliament is reinstatedR UML loses no-confidence voteR Congress in coalition with RPP formsnew government,Sher Bahadur Deuba as PM

UML-Communist Party/United Marxist–LeninistNC-Nepal CongressRPP-National Democratic party

work for this evaluation (see box on key politi-cal events). The parties’ acceptance of the Courtruling to resolve this crisis augurs well forpeaceful transitions of power.

CDIE STUDY

This evaluation of the impact of legislative as-sistance provided by the U.S. Agency for Inter-national Development and other donors is oneof five USAID’s Center for Development Infor-mation and Evaluation (CDIE) is conducting.The others look at legislative assistance in Bo-livia, El Salvador, the Philippines, and Poland.The resulting reports offer the Agency’s firstanalysis of the impact of legislative assistance.In the past 10 years, USAID has increasinglybecome involved in programs that supportdemocratic institutions. Those few experiencesthat involve legislative assistance are the gristfor the series.

The reports assess the types of impacts donorassistance has had on developing-country leg-islatures and identify the analytical processesnecessary to implement effective legislative as-sistance. The series will conclude with a reportsynthesizing findings from all five countries,drawing cross-country conclusions and analyz-ing whether, when, and how legislative assis-tance should be provided.

To evaluate the impact of legislative assistancein Nepal, in September 1995 a CDIE team in-terviewed 54 people, individually or in groups,including 14 MPs representing the three majorparties (roughly in proportion to their repre-sentation in Parliament) two former prime min-isters and one deputy prime minister, and thecurrent and former Speaker of the House (seebox on evaluation questions). The team alsotalked with representatives of the Secretariat(which provides staff support to the Parlia-ment), USAID/Nepal (including four formerUSAID/Nepal staff members and consultants),The Asia Foundation, the Danish internationalaid agency DANIDA, USIS, the U.S. Embassy,nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), andthe press. The team examined program docu-

5

ments and evaluations and tracked newspapercoverage of Parliament for several months.

DONOR STRATEGIES

Legislative assistance in Nepal grew directlyout of the 1990 Movement for Restoration ofDemocracy and the unexpected changes itbrought about. The United States and othercountries wanted to give immediate interna-tional recognition to Nepal’s steps to democ-racy. With longstanding restrictions on the ex-istence of private organizations lifted, new or-ganizations with interesting ideas appeared.Donors were suddenly faced with many newproposals and opportunities in support ofdemocratic change.

There had been no rationale for more than to-ken assistance to the former NationalPanchayat, 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 rarelycovered the Panchayat. Two fundamentalchanges justified donor support to the new Par-liament: it, and not the King, would be the lo-cus of power. And it would be accountable tothe people rather than the King, through com-petitive multiparty elections.

U.S. efforts to help “sustain the democraticopening” in Nepal involved an unusual degreeof coordination among three agencies: theEmbassy, USIS, and USAID. Lacking a projector single pot of funds to fund an immediateresponse adequately, USAID made small grantsfrom any funding source it could locate. It alsoprovided a larger PVO (private voluntary or-ganization) co-financing grant to The AsiaFoundation, which managed some activitiesand made further subgrants. These dealt withParliament, the judiciary, local government, thepress, NGOs, and human rights, supportingsuch activities as constitution drafting, regionalmeetings to seek public input into the consti-tution, public opinion polling, and elections.

This broad Mission response to the 1990changes in Nepal was called the DemocraticPluralism Initiative, or DPI. The Missionadopted the name and principal themes thencurrent in USAID’s Asia and Private EnterpriseBureau.1

Though this evaluation looks only at the DPIassistance related to Parliament, neither USAIDnor DANIDA, the other major bilateral democ-racy donor, had a separate comprehensiveproject for Parliament. Some of their manygrants and activies in support of democracyinvolved the legislative arena, most did not.

USAID/Nepal never defined separate institu-tional objectives for the long term developmentof the new Parliament in the initiative. Withhindsight, we can characterize USAID’s legis-lative development objectives as fairly modest

1The themes are 1) voice—improving the number and quality of channels for popular influence on government and for free dissemination ofinformation 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 pervasive corruption.

Evaluation ExploresFive Questions

■ What role has the Parliamentplayed in democratic change inNepal?

■ What are the essential features ofthe legislative process in Nepal?

■ What types of assistance haveUSAID and other donors given tolegislative functioning in Nepal?

■ What impact has that assistancehad?

■ What lessons have been learnedin Nepal that may be applicableto legislative assistance else-where?

6and short-term: helping Nepal establish its newlegislature and encouraging its democratic function-ing.

The Mission’s main strategies were to support

■ Short observation tours to other Asiancountries and the United States to ex-pose legislators, Secretariat staff, andconstitution drafters to legislative sys-tems and operations

■ The Secretariat’s development of legis-lative support services, resources, andskills, including its ability to retrieveinformation and analyze policies

■ Nonpartisan discussion among MPs andcitizen groups on national issues beforeParliament

■ Means to inform MPs and the generalpublic about developments in the newParliament and how legislatures in othercountries function

USAID shared and coordinated the first twostrategies with The Asia Foundation, DANIDA,and Germany’s Freidrich Naumann Founda-tion. DANIDA and the Finnish InternationalDevelopment Agency had an additional strat-egy that was not part of U.S. assistance: estab-lishing the basic physical infrastructure re-quired by Parliament.

USAID channeled its legislative funding inthree main ways: in cooperation with USIS;through The Asia Foundation; and in a grantto the Society for Constitutional and Parliamen-tary Exercises (SCOPE), a Nepalese NGO con-cerned primarily with developing Nepal’s Par-liament.

Observation tours were emphasized becausenone of the MPs elected from the two mainparties (Congress and UML) had previously

served in a legislature. USAID and USIS jointlyimplemented and funded the observation toursto the United States. Groups of four to six MPs,balanced by party and interest, visited the U.S.Congress and several state legislatures.2 Simi-lar visits to legislatures of other Asian coun-tries were arranged by The Asia Foundation,using its regional network of offices. Prominentamong these were a tour for the three seniorSecretariat officials to examine logistic supportin parliaments of India, Pakistan, and Thailandand a tour for Public Account Committee mem-bers to examine the workings of similar parlia-mentary committees in five South Asian coun-tries.

USAID’s assistance to Parliament for buildingup support services and resources was chan-neled through The Asia Foundation, whichadded substantially from its own funds andworked with the Secretariat. These mini-projects and grants included

■ an orientation program for new MPs

■ Secretariat staff training

■ intermittent visits by an Asia Founda-tion consultant to conduct a needs as-sessment for the Secretariat and help itput together a long range developmentplan

■ an internship program for graduates ofTribhuvan University to serve as re-searchers in the Secretariat

■ resources to build up a parliamentarylibrary

■ development of a modest computer ca-pacity

■ help in establishing a parliamentarywomen’s caucus, speakers forums withoutside resource people, and workshopsin legislative drafting

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

7The bulk of USAID support to external actorsin the legislative arena went to SCOPE for itsseminars and workshops for MPs and outsideprofessionals and for its monthly magazine,Parliamentary Affairs. The Asia Foundation alsosupported a subgrant to the Nepal Press Insti-tute, in part to help the emergent press coverparliament.

PARLIAMENT,THE CENTRAL INSTITUTIONOF A DEMOCRACY

To understand how the Nepalese Parliamenthas developed since 1990 and as backgroundto examining the impact of donor assistance,the team probed the extent to which Parliamentassumes various roles of a legislature in a de-mocracy. Six questions guided this inquiry.While the implied objectives were not clearlyspelled out by the government or in any donorproject documents, they were most certainly indonors’ minds. These same questions wouldbe important to ask if long-range institutionalassistance to Parliament were being considered.

1. Is Parliament a key forum for debate onnational issues?

2. Does Parliament play an oversight rolewith the ministries and agencies thatimplement laws?

3. Does it effectively carry out its lawmak-ing responsibilities?

4. Does Parliament seek and receive pub-lic input to its deliberations, for exampleregarding proposed legislation or re-view of the performance of governmentagencies?

5. Is Parliament functioning in a transpar-ent manner?

6. Do members represent and serve theirconstituencies?

The answers paint a mixed picture. ThoughParliament has developed more than might rea-sonably be expected in its first few years, manyinterviewees hope for improvement in someareas.

Debate

Vigorous debate on key national issues occurson the floor of Parliament, particularly in theHouse of Representatives. The public has greatinterest in such debate and a sense that Parlia-ment is where the debate should occur. How-ever, MPs are under strong pressure to toe theparty line during debates on the floor, as wellas in voting. They sometimes vigorously de-fend party positions on matters with whichthey have little familiarity, according to MPsof both parties. The most substantive discus-sion of issues in Parliament does not occur indebates on the floor; it typically occurs in theless formal committee meetings, which are not,for all practical purposes, open to the public.In those meetings, MPs apparently feel littlepressure to defend party positions, so they candiscuss issues on their merit.

Oversight

A parliamentary oversight function is emerg-ing, particularly in the Public Accounts Com-mittee of the House of Representatives. Thecommittee scrutinizes government bureaucra-cies that previously were accountable to no one.This committee is the only one the press fol-lows closely, and it is the only committee thatmeets regularly during the long periods be-tween parliamentary sessions. It reviews re-ports of the auditor general and has probedmany irregularities in the use of governmentresources. In press reports, Public AccountsCommittee investigations seem less partisanthan other parliamentary activities.

None of the other seven standing committeesregularly takes such an activist oversight role.Though the rules empower committees to callministers or other officials to appear before

8them, many committee chairs and members donot fully understand their committee’s role andhow it can be exercised, according to severalMPs who participated in USAID-sponsoredtours of the U.S. Congress and state legislatures.

Furthermore, there may be disincentives tocommittee oversight of ministers and the Gov-ernment—ministers and committee chairs areall MPs of the government party or coalition;ministers are often senior to committee chairs;and committee chairs (and members) dependon their party for resources in elections.3

Lawmaking

Parliament’s record as a lawmaking body ismixed. There were short periods when manylaws passed. For example, 1992–93 was a pro-ductive period—68 bills were enacted. How-ever, there also have been long periods whenvirtually no legislation passed. Much work re-mains to rewrite old laws to be consistent withthe new constitution4 (see box on inheritancelaw and other legislation affecting women).

Parliament has considered few bills drafted byMPs or Parliament staff. Rather, as in manycountries, civil servants of various ministriesdraft bills; the relevant minister or the PrimeMinister then presents them as Governmentbills. Parliament and its committees are respon-sible for reviewing those bills, amending ormodifying them if needed (or returning themto the ministry with revision instructions), andultimately passing or defeating them. Commit-tees do not generally have staff to conduct rig-orous review or independent background re-

3Incentives almost certainly function differently than in presidential systems where legislative and executive branches provide checks and bal-ances. 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 theparty, Prime Minister, or parliamentary leadership, but by fellow committee members; and prime ministers have not necessarily been the leadersof their party.

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

Inheritance Law IsTop Priority for Change

Nepal’s new constitution bestows equal politi-cal rights on men and women. However, muchexisting law—regarding citizenship, divorce, andinheritance, for example—has not yet been re-vised to be consistent with the new constitution.Furthermore, existing legal protections such asthose against sex trafficking, polygamy, and childmarriage are often not enforced.

Nepal’s increased political freedom has spurreda great increase in the number of NGOs and hu-man rights organizations concentrating at leastpartly on this situation. The highest priority ofthese groups is to revise the laws of inheritance.Currently a daughter has no birthright to her par-ents’ property unless she is over 35 years old andunmarried. If she marries after inheriting prop-erty, her inheritance is rescinded.

Though the major parties do not seem to dis-agree on the need for change of the law, theyhesitate to support legislation introduced by anopposing party. Thus, no change has occurred.

Women’s and human rights advocacy NGOs ap-peared not to have a clear sense of how to en-gage parliament: of tracking action in parliamentand its committees; of who in Parliament (or theexecutive agencies) is responsible at differentstages of the legislative process; and of strategiesto keep the legislation moving and achieve agree-ment among parties.

9search.5 In some cases when a reviewing com-mittee needs outside advice, it calls in expertsfrom a ministry or university.

Though the rules of both houses permit mem-bers to introduce private bills, intervieweesclaimed Parliament has yet to enact any pri-vate bill introduced by an MP. MPs face seri-ous constraints in initiating legislation and re-viewing proposed bills. Many legislators lackthe skills and time to draft legislation them-selves or conduct background research, evenwhen they have a clear idea for legislation theywish to propose. Individual MPs do not haveany staff, let alone staff capable of conductingdetailed reviews. They must, therefore, rely online ministries to draft legislation. Some MPsresent their resulting loss of control over thedevelopment of a bill. Several MPs and advo-cacy groups cited instances where draft legis-lation prepared by a ministry at Parliament’srequest effectively undermined the constitu-tional intent.

To get a bill enacted, an MP from the Govern-ment party has to persuade the relevant minis-ter to introduce it as a Government bill. An-tagonism between parties is so strong there isapparently no chance of enacting a bill intro-duced by an opposition MP, even if there is nosubstantive disagreement on it. MPs cited anexample of a bill introduced by an oppositionMP that was enacted only after it was with-drawn and reintroduced as a Government bill.

Practical considerations also hinder privatebills. Both houses require distribution of cop-ies of proposed bills and summary informationto all members two days before the bills are in-troduced on the floor. Yet, for lack of budget,the Secretariat does not copy private bills fordistribution. Some MPs complained they canintroduce a private bill only if they are able tobear this expense personally. Many cannot.

Public Input

Norms for seeking and receiving public inputon legislative proposals are not yet clearly es-tablished. Public hearings have not been fullyadopted, though some have been held. TheEnvironment Committee held highly publi-cized hearings in the early 1990s on the ArunIII project, a controversial proposed dam for hy-droelectric power and irrigation. Parliamentrules do not hinder either house from holdingpublic hearings, but many MPs believe thepractice is not yet institutionalized. For some,public hearings were the most desirable singlefeature of American legislatures. Although Par-liament does not actively resist public input, itrarely seeks it, aside from expert witnesses.NGOs interviewed seemed unsure of the leg-islative process and how they could engage init.

Transparency

Parliament and its actions seem moderatelyopen. Full sessions are open to the press. Mostcommittee meetings in practice are closed tojournalists, unless special permission is given.(Journalists are excluded primarily on thegrounds that the meeting rooms are too small.)General information on agendas, decisions, andactions taken by Parliament and committees ispublished in the daily Journal, produced by theSecretariat and made available to the press.Verbatim transcripts, however, are long de-layed, have limited distribution, and requiresome digging to obtain. Despite considerablepublic interest in press coverage of Parliament,the media have limited resources to cover it indetail. Press coverage seldom extends to ana-lyzing bills or following them through the leg-islative process (see box on parliamentary pro-ceedings).

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

10

Representation

Many MPs report difficulty effectively repre-senting and serving constituents. MPs fromremote constituencies (some as many as eightdays’ travel from Kathmandu) say they havegreat difficulty keeping in touch with constitu-ents and finding out about problems in theirdistrict. Travel costs to and from districts arereimbursed only at the beginning and end ofsessions. Phone communication, where pos-sible, is expensive and not reimbursed. SomeMPs advocate a parliamentary (or even party)allowance to maintain a district office with onestaff member and an allowance for regularphone communications. MPs from districtscloser to the capital may experience greaterconstituent pressure for patronage benefits—to help find government jobs, deal with familyeconomic crises, or intervene with governmentagencies, for example.

IMPACT

The team assessed the impact of donor assis-tance on four levels: the continuation of multi-party democracy, the legislature and how itfunctions, the physical infrastructure and staff

support for the legislature, and support to ex-ternal actors.

Impact on Multiparty Democracy

The goal of the series of USAID and USIS in-terventions, only some of which dealt with Par-liament, was “to help sustain the democraticopening.” The more specific legislative objec-tive was to get Parliament up and running.USAID/Nepal initiated DPI under pressure torespond immediately to momentous changes.The new Parliament was viewed as the focalpoint for multiparty democracy, although thenew constitution had not yet been drafted andfinal decisions on Parliament’s structure hadnot yet been made.

In the attempt to take and hold power, themajor parties have, internally and in their rela-tionship with each other, experienced alternat-ing periods of accommodation and acrimony.Unrealistic popular expectations for rapid im-provement of Nepal’s economy have not beenachieved. Political parties put forth platitudesrather than clear ideologies or solutions to prob-lems. And there have been four governmentsin five years,6 raising concern about stabilityand continuity.

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

Parliament Publishes Proceedings

The reporting section of the Secretariat regularly prepares two key reports: a verbatim report of theproceedings of each full chamber and the Journal, a summary of major activities, bills, speeches,and actions. The Journal is published in one day and distributed to all MPs.

Preparing the verbatim report is laborious; before it is typed, it is transcribed and checked by handfrom tape recordings. Because the proceedings are generally in Nepali, which is not the nativelanguage of all MPs, minor editing is done to correct errors. Though the verbatim report is notwidely distributed to members, some make copies of the tape recordings of their own speeches toplay back to their constituents.

The Danish government aid agency DANIDA plans to help the Secretariat computerize the report-ing and publication process. But Secretariat officials believe the laborious step of transcribing byhand may have to continue.

11However, striking accomplishments givegrounds for optimism that a framework fororderly succession of governments is takingroot:

■ Elections were held and the new Parlia-ment was established.

■ The experiment with multiparty democ-racy continues. Neither the King nor anyruling party seems inclined to terminateit.

■ Three transitions of government haveoccurred, peacefully and according toconstitutional prescriptions, eventhough the transitions were betweenparties that are bitter antagonists.

■ All parties acceded to Supreme Courtverdicts during two controversial tran-sitions that required constitutional inter-pretation.

■ Nepal’s constitution is still popular anda source of public pride. Few advocatechanging it, except on the most minorof points.

We will not know for many years whethermultiparty parliamentary democracy is firmlyinstitutionalized in Nepal. But at the end of fiveyears, Nepal seems well along the path to thatgoal.

To suggest this movement toward institution-alizing multiparty democracy is the result offoreign donors and their programs would slightthe actors in the Nepal polity and greatly over-state the impact of donor assistance. The out-come may have been the same without any for-eign assistance. But a case can be made thatdonor assistance helped. Nepal’s key politi-cians are sensitive to international opinion.Whether each element of donor assistance waseffective or contributed directly to institution-alizing multiparty democracy, assistance for de-mocratization, and for Parliament in particu-lar, expressed international support for Nepal’snew directions at a critical period in its history.

Impact on Parliamentary Effectiveness

The core evaluation question is: Did donorassistance have any impact (positive or nega-tive) on how Parliament functions? The shortanswer is yes. USAID and other donors tookreasonable steps to respond quickly to an un-expected situation. The assistance they pro-vided had several positive effects on the func-tioning of Nepal’s parliament. The overall im-pact was modest, but so were the donor inputs.While no negative impact was observed, therewas at least one objective the Mission did notaccomplish.

A look at the specific impacts provides a moredetailed answer.

The committee system. Establishment of commit-tees within the parliamentary system is a ma-jor impact of USAID assistance. Most MPs in-terviewed said the decision to incorporate com-mittees was influenced by tours of U.S. legisla-tures; the structure was consciously based onAmerican-style committees. This is strikingbecause a well-developed committee structureis not generally part of parliaments modeledon the British system.

Many interviewees in and outside Parliamentsaid most committees do not yet function ef-fectively enough. Yet the committee system isbeginning to contribute to several democraticends. Some legislation is being examined criti-cally and revised; a structure is being estab-lished for oversight; and informal interpartydialog is facilitated.

Committee operating norms are still evolving.Some MPs desire changes in chairing and man-aging committees, in assigning committee staffwho are experts in the subject matter, in mak-ing committee assignments based on expertise,and in regularly conducting public hearings onmajor legislation. Other MPs and party lead-ers, according to a recent article in theKathmandu Post, defend the committee systemas working satisfactorily.

12Oversight. Probably the most important singleimpact of USAID–Asia Foundation assistanceis the emergence of an activist Public AccountsCommittee. Its oversight of agencies and min-istries is a first for Nepal. Government bureau-cracy has long been viewed as arbitrary, pow-erful, and accountable to no one. Thiscommittee’s conception of an activist role foritself emerged during a tour The Asia Founda-tion arranged to raise the issue of effective over-sight by taking committee members to observehow similar committees function in five southAsian countries.

Meeting space. Even though Parliament’s facili-ties are inadequate, both houses now have aplace to meet, thanks to donor assistance. Anawkward initial constraint was that the twohouses of Parliament had to take turns meet-ing in the only room large enough for suchgatherings. DANIDA constructed a separatebuilding for the smaller upper chamber. It alsofinanced a modest remodelling of the assem-bly room for the House of Representatives, fur-niture and a public address system.

In the lower house, members are crowded, havelittle space for papers or reference materials at

their seats, and find it difficult to avoid hittingtheir microphones when they take or leave theirseats. Members at the back of the room cannotreadily see or be seen by the Speaker. Discus-sions were under way both in Parliament andwith donors for additional remodeling: floorrisers for seats at the back, more suitable mi-crophones, or even construction of a new build-ing.

Equally important, members of Parliament stillhave no offices where they can read, work, ormeet constituents. Their offices are the largeshared meeting areas on the Parliamentgrounds designated for each political party.

Orientation. An orientation program for newMPs appears to be institutionalized. The AsiaFoundation organized the first orientation in1991, a three-day session. After the 1994 elec-tions, the Secretariat organized an orientation,following that model. It concentrated on thecommittee system, the legislative process, Sec-retariat services, sources of information, rolesand responsibilities of MPs, the organizationand rules of procedure for the two houses, andother institutional matters. MPs interviewedappreciated the need for the orientation.

Women Are Underrepresented in Parliament

Though Nepalese women played an important role in the 1990 Movement for the Restoration ofDemocracy, they are not well represented in Parliament. Women hold only 10 of the 265 seats in thetwo houses combined. Though a woman once held a ministerial post, none was in any powerfulposition in Parliament or the Government when fieldwork was conducted.

The constitution requires that at least 5 percent of MP candidates for election from each party bewomen. No party has fielded more than the minimum, and parties have met the quota by fieldingwomen candidates in constituencies where they have little chance of getting elected.

One key UML MP said his party is strongly committed to increasing the number of women MPs, butit (like other parties) is constrained. Few women party members are politically experienced, and fewhave become well known locally by playing major roles on local councils. Without experience orname recognition, they do not have much chance of being elected. Thus, fielding a woman candi-date for a particular constituency can be an admission that the party does not expect to win that seat.The UML MP advocated that parties actively increase the number of women electable to nationaloffice by getting more women members elected to local development councils, where they willgarner the necessary popularity and recognition.

13Promotion of bipartisanship. The strict bipartisannature of MPs’ observation tours presented amodel that may be important for future civilrelations among the parties in Parliament.USAID, USIS, the Embassy, and The Asia Foun-dation put a lot of effort into ensuring biparti-sanship, and all participants interviewed com-mented on its significance. Although assessingimpact is difficult, some MPs volunteered thatthe tours cemented personal and working re-lationships they would not otherwise have de-veloped with members of opposing parties.U.S. Embassy staff also reported a payoff in de-veloping friendly, substantive relationshipswith members of majority and minority par-ties.

Women’s caucus. One objective assistance failedto achieve was establishment of a nonpartisanwomen’s caucus in Parliament that would takethe lead in articulating and advancing legisla-tive issues affecting women. A women’s cau-cus was eventually organized, with catalyticsupport from The Asia Foundation. But shortlyafter, Parliament was dissolved and electionscalled. Fewer women MPs were elected thanbefore, and they have not formed a new cau-cus. Meantime, Nepalese women’s organiza-tions are exploring how to work more effec-tively with parties to promote legislation andget it enacted (see box on women in Parlia-ment).

Summary. Nepal’s Parliament is still new andobviously in many areas has only begun todevelop effective, responsive, and democraticprocesses. Donors funded quite a few relativelysmall, economical interventions that helped getit up and running and had positive impacts.They provided opportunities for MPs to definetheir roles through interaction with counter-parts from other countries and their colleaguesin other parties. However, there should be noillusion about how much was accomplishedand what remains to be done. The financial andorganizational resources provided by USAID,other donors, and the Nepalese Parliament it-self were limited and did not add up to a com-prehensive, sustained program for the institu-tional 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 fargreater needs than the smaller, less powerfulPanchayat. The lower house alone has twice themembership of the Panchayat, and the Parlia-ment is more independent and more active.USAID and The Asia Foundation provided as-sistance in improving the services, efficiency,and logistic support of Parliament, workingclosely with the Secretariat (see box on Secre-tariat).

The Secretariat: How Is It Organized?

The nonpolitical Secretariat provides accounting, clerical, security, administrative, organizational, andother technical support services. In contrast to most bicameral legislatures, a combined Secretariatserves both chambers. Three positions are constitutionally prescribed: Secretary General, secretary ofthe House of Representatives, and Secretary of the National Assembly. They are appointed by the Kingfor five-year terms on recommendation of the Speaker of the House and the chairman of the NationalAssembly.

The Secretariat includes more than 350 staff members in several categories: 7 joint secretaries, 50–60senior officers, and 30 undersecretaries are members of the career, merit-based Parliamentary Serviceoverseen by the Public Service Commission. The balance of nonprofessional support staff includes 250mostly clerical staff, guards, and what are called “peons,” low-paid staff who serve as messengers andrun errands.

14Despite continuing constraints in human andmaterial resources, the team observed two ar-eas in the Secretariat where USAID assistancehad a positive impact (professionalism andcomputerization) and two other areas where ithad limited impact (legislative drafting andresearch support).

Professionalism. The assistance contributed to asense of direction and professionalism in theSecretariat. Those interviewed had a sense ofwhat support Parliament needs, what servicesneed to be developed, and what limitationsexist, generated in part by the observationtours, short-term training, and needs assess-ment and planning support of The Asia Foun-dation consultant.

Computerization.The Secretariat seems to be in-creasingly efficient and professional in produc-ing materials important to the smooth function-ing of Parliament. It has become more efficientand more professional in tracking bills, main-taining up-to-date versions of bills, and pro-ducing the daily Journal and other documentswhile Parliament is in session. Less visible isprogress in maintaining parliamentary ac-counts—in total disarray earlier and now wellorganized and up to date. Also, through aclosed-circuit audiovisual system supplied byDANIDA, current schedules and announce-ments are immediately available within theParliament compound.

Much of the credit for these advances goes to acomputerization program of The Asia Founda-tion. Initially, not one Secretariat staff memberwas computer-literate. The foundation sup-plied 18 computers (DANIDA and South Ko-rea provided others), and arranged local com-puter training. It also had its consultant lead aphased introduction of hardware, training, andapplications, provide training, and plan aneventual network. Computerization took holdslowly at first, but now the Secretariat dependson computers to complete many of its tasks.

Research support. Donor support for develop-ing a stable system of legislative research sup-

port for committees and individual MPs hashad little impact. The small library expandedwith help from The Asia Foundation and bookdonations from India is used increasingly bymembers. And the foundation, in one of itsmost expensive activities, underwrote a one-year congressional fellowship in the U.S. Con-gress for a Secretariat staff member. Thoughthat fellow has dedication and a vision of whatcan be done, the Secretariat’s professional staffis still too small and the demands on them toogreat to take on substantive legislative research.Until the Nepal government hires or dedicatesthe professional staff required for sustainedanalytical support, further donor support to im-prove research services cannot be expected tomake much difference.

The Asia Foundation’s one-year parliamentaryinternship program for recent graduates ofTribhuvan University has helped make re-search skills available to Parliament on a tem-porary basis, partially addressing the researchneed. But this program has also had its ups anddowns. Interns were demoralized by periodsof underutilization (such as after elections werecalled in 1994), and Secretariat staff have ques-tioned whether selection standards of the firsttwo years have slipped. A longer range insti-tutional solution is needed.

Legislative Drafting: The Asia Foundation at-tempted to improve legislative drafting skillsby organizing a workshop presented jointly byNepal’s foremost authority on legislative draft-ing and a foreign legislative drafting consult-ant. The foundation’s other efforts to developlegislative drafting skills encountered problemsof logistics and timing. The shortage of com-petent drafting skills available to Parliamentremains serious.

Contacts. The Asia Foundation worked rou-tinely with a counterpart in the Secretariat andhad access to the Secretary General and on oc-casion to the Speaker of the House of Repre-sentatives, who approved plans related to theSecretariat. The foundation might have elicitedbroader support for the changes it proposed

15

had it had available a lesson learned from otherlegislative-strengthening programs, (such asthe one in Bolivia7 ) and set up a steering com-mittee of MPs from the various parties. Thesteering committee could have concentrated onthe Secretariat and ensured donor assistancemet nonpartisan priorities, was fully utilized,and was consistent with Parliament’s plans forinstitutional development.

Impact on External Actors

In a democracy, an effective legislative processinvolves people outside the legislature. The as-sistance USAID, The Asia Foundation, andDANIDA provided addressed at least three

types of external actors involved with Parlia-ment or proposed legislation: an NGO centeredon Parliament itself (SCOPE), NGOs advocat-ing policies in particular sectors, and media andmedia-related associations.

Like the Center for Legislative Developmentin the Philippines,8 SCOPE is an NGO com-posed of professionals who work to developthe legislature (see box on SCOPE). However,the organization and the services it providesare quite different. The Philippine center con-ducts research and provides information pack-ets on legislative issues, similar to those theCongressional Research Service provides to theU.S. Congress. The center has taught such skills

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

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

SCOPE: Good Intentions...Mixed Results

USAID/Nepal made an interesting grant to an NGO dealing with Parliament—SCOPE, the Society forConstitutional and Parliamentary Exercises. The organization was formed by prominent academics andlawyers after the new constitution was drafted. SCOPE provided a neutral forum for monitoring anddiscussing the organization and functions of Parliament and the national issues coming before Parlia-ment.

SCOPE’s program had two main elements: seminars and workshops about major issues before theParliament, and a monthly magazine, Parliamentary Affairs. Most MPs interviewed (regardless of partyaffiliation) were aware of SCOPE and had attended some seminars. They identified the seminars asallowing open discussion on important issues without respect to formal party position. The more criti-cal MPs, however, thought SCOPE’s timing in selecting seminar topics was not optimal. Instead ofscheduling them earlier when issues could be discussed on their merits, they were often held afterissues reached Parliament, when party positions had already solidified.

Virtually all MPs interviewed were familiar with Parliamentary Affairs, which was published in bothEnglish and Nepalese. Some MPs of both major parties said they had been regular readers, found themagazine addressed a real need, and were disappointed when it stopped being published.

SCOPE continues to exist with a skeletal staff, but with much fewer resources and activities than itexpected. One of SCOPE’s principals acknowledged that it had attempted to do more than it wascapable of and had not developed a strong organization. Another felt SCOPE had dabbled in too manyactivities and seminars on too many national topics; members could not devote enough time on asustained basis to see these activities through. SCOPE members admitted they had not run the organi-zation in a way that prepared them for the day when donor funds would no longer be available.

16as drafting and analyzing bills and regulationsto legislative staff, regional legislators, andexecutive agency staff members who deal withlegislatures. It also consults with advocacy or-ganizations, businesses, and local governmentson legislative process and strategy.

By contrast, the two main activities of SCOPEare holding nonpartisan seminars and work-shops for MPs and outside experts on issues ofnational importance expected to come beforeParliament, and publishing news and informa-tion about Nepal and foreign legislatures. Sev-eral of its principals were involved in draftingthe new constitution in 1990, a process USAIDsupported with regional meetings to elicit opin-ions on the content of the constitution.

The SCOPE grant became something of a head-ache for USAID. First, some activities antici-pated in the grant agreement (objectives USAIDstaff considered important) materialized barely,if at all. These included drafting model legisla-tion on important national issues; helping de-velopment and advocacy NGOs understandthe parliamentary process, track legislation,and articulate and promote their legislativesuggestions; and helping form a parliamentarywomen’s caucus and promote legislativeawareness of issues affecting women. Second,regardless of the merits of its accomplishments,SCOPE failed to develop management and ac-counting systems adequate to report reliablyon its activities and expenditures. USAID even-tually allowed the SCOPE grant to lapse.

Other Nepalese NGOs active in developmentwork before 1990 received funding fromUSAID, The Asia Foundation, DANIDA, orother foreign donors. The number and diver-sity of active organizations increased dramati-cally after 1990. Though the goal in supportingthese organizations was not legislativestrengthening, the team met with several or-ganizations that address women, children, andhuman rights to get a sense of how they pro-mote legislative priorities. In general, these or-ganizations had a clear idea of the problemsrequiring legislation and high interest in whatis going on in Parliament. However, they do

not know how to promote legislation as itmoves through that body.

The evaluation team came away with threeimpressions about the impact of assistancethrough external actors:

1. Many MPs participated in and appreci-ated the seminars and read some Parlia-mentary Affairs articles. Press coverageof the seminars helped bring issues ofnational importance to public aware-ness. However, SCOPE may not haveheld seminars sufficiently in advance ofissues coming before Parliament. Theteam did not identify any direct effectsSCOPE had on Parliament or specificlegislation before Parliament.

2. Many advocacy NGOs do not knowhow to press their legislative concernsin Parliament. The democracy initiativedid not successfully address this issue.

3. The public is interested in coverage ofParliament, but the press in Nepal lacksthe resources, both in money and skilledjournalists. The minimal project contri-bution to improve newspaper coverageof Parliament was well conceived, butnot sustained long enough to generatesignificant impact. Assistance did notaddress electronic media (especially ra-dio, which reaches people in remote ar-eas).

SUMMING UP

This story is not complete without tying upsome administrative loose ends: how USAID/Nepal managed the assistance, changing inter-nal Mission support for legislative assistance,and reasons for discontinuing legislative assis-tance.

USAID/Nepal’s Management

The Democratic Pluralism Initiative requiredintensive management by USAID/Nepal—particularly in the first three years as events

were unfolding rapidly, funding sources werenot secure, and overseas observation tours werebeing planned. The high degree of coordina-tion among the Mission, USIS, and the Embassywas important to the initiative’s success.

Despite continued interagency coordination,USAID management and senior staff involve-ment with assistance to Parliament diminishedafter the first two to three years. Though partlycaused by the near simultaneous turnover ofkey players in USAID and the Embassy in 1992–93, USAID’s management structure for the de-mocracy initiative was another factor. Therewas no one in USAID/Nepal (direct hire, for-eign service national, or personal services con-tractor) who remained involved over the fiveyears of legislative assistance, thus there waslittle institutional memory about what had beendone and why. No senior Nepalese staff mem-ber had continuous responsibility for the pro-gram. A series of locally hired expatriate per-sonal services contractors working out of theUSAID program office handled the day-to-daymanagement of grants and contacts with grant-ees. They and The Asia Foundation maintainedmost of the subsequent program contact withParliament, though earlier USAID senior staffhad maintained regular direct contact withParliament’s leadership while planning the ini-tiative.

Changing Internal Support

Over the five years, USAID/Nepal’s internalsupport for legislative elements of the democ-racy initiative waxed and waned, for three rea-sons. First, the Mission did not anticipate long-term development support for Parliament. Thefocus of the initiative was expected to shiftgradually away from central government in-stitutions. Perhaps for this reason, legislativeassistance objectives were not articulated asfully as for most projects.

Second, discussion at interagency coordinationmeetings often centered on whether and when

the initiative’s institutional emphasis shouldshift. There were articulate advocates for bothstrengthening and reducing support to elec-tions, civil society, human rights, the judiciary,local government, Parliament, polling, votereducation, and women’s organizations.USAID’s support for parliamentary develop-ment was controversial; some thought theAgency should emphasize democratic grass-roots support.

And third, turnover of those involved with theinitiative was high. In the five years, the Mis-sion had three each of directors, deputies, andprogram officers. There was also turnoveramong personal services contractors directlymanaging the initiative.9

New Democratic Programming

In its 1995 strategic plan, USAID/Nepal shiftedits support to the grass-roots level. Support fordemocratic institutions is subsumed under oneof the Mission’s three strategic objectives—empowering women. Among other elements,this includes improving the legal environmentfor women, educating women about legalrights and the statutory framework affectingthem, and increasing women’s participation inlocal government. The new strategy is craftedto maximize synergy among elements of theMission’s overall program, located almost en-tirely outside Kathmandu. DANIDA and TheAsia Foundation are shifting their democracyprogramming similarly, continuing only mini-mal assistance to Parliament. The team did notevaluate the new strategy.

The way the Mission viewed its small legisla-tive portfolio as it defined a new strategy maybe of interest to other Missions considering leg-islative assistance. The main reason the Mis-sion decided to discontinue its former strategywas broader trends in the Agency and the AsiaBureau: rapidly diminishing overall resources,the reengineering mandate to focus resources

17

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

18more narrowly, and the Mission’s apparent dif-ficulty in obtaining funds earmarked for de-mocracy.

Another reason the Mission allowed its legis-lative support to lapse was its doubt that itcould define a strategic objective for which itwas willing to be held accountable by USAID/Washington. The difficulty was in setting upan objective that would adequately capture sig-nificant institutional changes in Parliament,could be accomplished within a period whenfunding would be secure, and for whichprogress could be objectively measured.

Concluding Thoughts

If funding were available for major new legis-lative programming in Nepal, would the teamhave recommended it? Not without major re-structuring and a rethinking of the concept,which would not be realistic. The parliamen-tary assistance the Mission and The Asia Foun-dation supported under the Democracy Plural-ism Initiative was reasonable and, in somecases, creative in a rapidly changing situation.The overall impact was not overwhelming, butspecific significant impacts occurred, commen-surate with the level of funding.

The Nepal Parliament is still in the early stagesof development and has meager resources andfacilities with which to work. Had donor assis-tance aimed to have made a major qualitativechange in Parliament’s effectiveness as a demo-cratic institution, considerably more wouldhave been required than has been done andthan USAID can provide with resources it islikely to have available. It would be crucial forthe donor or an intermediary to work with acore multiparty group of MPs that engages therest of the Parliament in analyzing its own in-stitutional needs and priorities, defines itschange objectives, and is the internal engine forbringing about institutional changes. An agentor intermediary would need several years ofsupport to work with Parliament to achievesuch internally driven institutional changes.

LESSONS LEARNED

The Nepal case is a rich one for donors inter-ested in learning about legislative assistance.It offers useful lessons on providing assistancein the wake of national democratic revolution,assisting parliamentary systems (versus presi-dential systems), devising useful low-cost in-terventions, assisting external actors in thelegislative arena, working within a broadermultipronged democracy program versus afocused legislative-strengthening program, andstructuring legislative assistance.

Assistance in Parliamentary Systems

Many countries outside Latin America that re-ceive USAID assistance have parliamentarysystems, rather than presidential systems withseparate executive and legislative branches ofgovernment. The Nepal case suggests severallessons that may be applicable to legislativeassistance in countries with a variant of theBritish parliamentary model.

■ “Snap elections,” part of the democraticprocess in parliamentary systems, causeunpredictable downtime for assistanceactivities that require working with MPsdirectly. For example, The Asia Foundationand USAID incurred costs for consultantshired to conduct workshops even thoughthe workshops had to be canceled whenelections were called. Parliamentary internsfelt demoralized by the long period of inac-tivity when Parliament was not in sessionin 1994 because of elections and again in1995 because of disagreements among theparties.

■ Practices that appear inherently undemo-cratic in one system may serve democraticends in another. The closed committeemeetings in Nepal seem undemocratic, butprovide a locus otherwise absent for MPsof opposing parties to discuss legislativeissues informally without being bound toparty positions.

19■ Those working to improve legislative

oversight must analyze the incentives act-ing on individual legislators or commit-tee chairmen. In Nepal, there is no appar-ent bar to oversight of civil servants. By con-trast, MPs may hesitate to review ministerswho oversee those civil servants, becausethey are party and parliamentary colleaguesand the MPs depend on them for party sup-port at election time.

Useful Low-Cost Interventions

Most of the legislative interventions in Nepalwere inexpensive and may be useful even inthe absence of a comprehensive legislative de-velopment program. Highlights include:

■ An NGO magazine or newsletter can ef-fectively introduce ideas about how leg-islatures in other countries function andkeep members, the press, and outside ob-servers up to date about developments inParliament. A publication such as SCOPE’sParliamentary Affairs may be particularlyuseful when press coverage of Parliamentis limited or not well informed, or whenmembers of a new legislature lack prior leg-islative experience.

■ A parliamentary internship program forrecent university graduates can have mul-tiple benefits. Through the well-receivedinternship program The Asia Foundationsponsored with Tribhuvan University, leg-islative research skills—otherwise unavail-able to MPs and parliamentary commit-tees—were temporarily available. Univer-sity interest in the legislature was height-ened. And a core of future professionals arefamiliar with how parliament functions.

■ An intermittent consultant may provideuseful assistance in taking the lead on im-proving legislative functioning. In Nepal,on a series of visits The Asia Foundationconsultant helped conduct a needs assess-ment for legislative support, analyze staff

workloads, and plan for developing the Sec-retariat. A consultant with a different back-ground could conceivably work with a leg-islative steering committee to address otherfunctions of Parliament.

Managing Legislative Assistance

USAID management of legislative assistancemay have requirements and opportunities thatdiffer from other projects.

■ Legislative projects provide opportunitiesfor cooperation among U.S. governmentagencies, but this requires intensive staffeffort. Two factors required this coopera-tion in Nepal: a) the overseas observationstours were organized jointly by USAID andUSIS and, from the Embassy viewpoint, re-quired strict political neutrality; and b) therapidly unfolding development of Nepal’spolitical system.

■ Contrary to conventional wisdom, USAIDand USIS can jointly program and fundoverseas visits. These visits were success-ful. However, because of the differing in-stitutional requirements of the two agenciesfor U.S. visits, waivers were required fromtheir respective headquarters.

■ Observation tours, which USAID usuallyconsiders “participant training,” may notbe acceptable to legislators if labeled“training.” In Nepal, MPs accepted activi-ties labeled “orientation” and “observationtour,” but rejected participation in activitieswith names implying they were not fullyqualified.

■ Legislative projects supported by USAIDcan create friction among U.S. governmentagencies, because they blur traditional ar-eas of responsibility and expertise. In mostassistance activities, USAID staff membershave limited professional contact with po-litical actors, particularly legislators, in con-trast to Embassy political staff. Conversely,

U.S Agency for International Development Washington, D.C. 20523

To order paper copies of this report, number PN–ABY–218, please contact USAID’s DevelopmentInformation Services Clearinghouse, 1611 N. Kent Street, Arlington, VA 22209; by phone (703) 351–4006;fax (703) 351–4039; or Internet: docorder@disc.mhs.compuserve.com

To access electronically from the Internet, the address is gopher.info.usaid.gov. Look under Documents andPublications, then under USAID Publications and Reports, in the sector “Promoting Democracy.”

For those with access to the Agency’s Banyan local area network, select PPC File Access System, thenProgram Evaluation, then New Evaluation Reports.

20USAID staff members have considerablehands-on experience with institutional de-velopment, while Embassy staff usuallyhave little.

External Actors

Though assistance in Nepal centered less onexternal actors in the legislative arena than inthe Philippines, lessons learned in Nepal in-clude:

■ Helping outside organizations, such as ad-vocacy groups, understand the legislativeprocess can be useful. Such programs wereenvisioned in Nepal, but not implemented.Outside organizations need to understandhow to follow a bill’s progress through Par-liament, and recognize stages where publicfeedback and reaction are possible.

■ Lack of sound management can under-mine implementation of a sound idea.USAID ended its support to SCOPE for thesame reasons it has curtailed funding ofNGO projects in many parts of the world—the NGO failed to develop adequate man-agement and accounting systems.

Postdemocratic RevolutionProgramming

■ The openness to new ideas that may existafter a democratic revolution will not lastindefinitely. Many countries would not ac-cept a foreign development agency’s in-volvement with the central democratic in-stitution—the legislature. In the wake of

Nepal’s 1990 revolution the opposite oc-curred. The Nepalese actively sought out-side ideas, models, and assistance in shap-ing the new Parliament. However, as Par-liament establishes new traditions, its open-ness to foreign assistance in institutionaldevelopment is diminishing.

■ An unanticipated “democratic moment”presents USAID Missions with program-ming challenges. These include a need toshow concrete support for democraticchange, a need to respond almost immedi-ately to requests for assistance, uncertaintyabout priorities and next steps for assistancewhen the new democratic institutions havenot been formed or fully defined, and a pau-city of funding mechanisms that allow animmediate response.

■ A collection of reasonable, targeted inter-ventions does not necessarily add up tocomprehensive institutional development.Each of the varied elements of legislativeassistance in the Nepal case were reason-able and well grounded; most, though notall, of the intended effects of grants and ac-tivities were at least partially achieved. Yetthe donor assistance has not helped Parlia-ment establish a dynamic internal processof self-examination and set institutonal pri-orities for its development. Longer rangeproject interventions do not seem to haveevolved from a bipartisan vision (includingboth MPs and staff) about priority changesneeded to become more effective and moredemocratic.