Ramesh Singh, Chief Executive, ActionAid International

One of the few Nepalis who have made it big internationally, Ramesh Singh is the Chief Executive of the ActionAid International, which works in 47 countries in Africa, Americas, Asia and Europe to eradicate poverty and injustice, Ramesh Singh has worked in Gambia, Ethiopia, Nepal, Vietnam, Thailand, United Kingdom and South Africa in a range of roles from programme officer and country director to regional director and operations director of the ActionAid. Trained as an agronomist- seed technologist at the University of Edinburgh in the UK, Ramesh’s recent interest and work have been focused on poverty analysis, rights based and participatory approaches, governance, south-south alliances and NGO strategic management and governance. During his recent visit to Kathmandu, Singh spoke to Bhagirath Yogi and Indra Adhikari on a number of contemporary issues. Excerpts:

You have been quoted as saying that democracy is indispensable for development. Does international experience support this thesis?

Yes, everywhere, because development is about people, it is about citizens. It is the voice of citizens, even the rights of the citizens and through the fulfillment of those human rights that makes development work. We know that everywhere, how freedom of people, freedom from fear, freedom from want and access to decision making it is all about people. Since democracy is of the people, for the people and by the people, it is more important for us to recognize that development, which is must for social justice, is impossible without democracy. Development would progress in active participation of the people, which is possible only in democracy.

Nepal is trying to undergo a significant change and political transformation. How do you analyse the challenges that Nepalis can face for resolution of armed conflict as well as achieving socio-economic progress?

I must say what I have seen from international scene I was very proud of the ground swell of the people’s movement. It was very inspiring not only for Nepal but for many other countries. My colleagues in Zimbabwe, France and Kenya are asking how did it happen and how could we do in our own country. As a Nepali I was very pleased by the way people took over the political process here and were able to bring about this big change. There are many challenges, which we had faced before as well. We have much more hopeful environment now. We had the unity of purpose to bring democracy back to people. Therefore, it is important for us to keep this unity of purpose to give democracy back to people, more specifically in order to sustain democracy. Obviously, it does mean accommodating differences. I very much believe that the Maoists, who have been on the fringes, outside the mainstream politics, should have enough space and we need to have them back into the political discourse. That will bring us out from the situation of conflict. We need to accommodate them into the process and let people decide.

You are based in South Africa that has recently gone through big political and constitutional changes. How could Nepal learn from such experiences?

“In this transition, the international community should allow Nepalis to talk to each other first. A genuine Nepali discourse is possible now and that’s likely to happen. There is no need to rush or hurry.”
We have several examples from across the world of bringing armed conflict into people’s discourse and making sure that we can actually bring democracy. South Africa is very good example where at the end of the day the minority had to give in to the majority. Giving the political process back to the people and recognizing the plurality is very important. We are very pleased with the way transition was managed in South Africa. There were compromises but justice was delivered. We have to really find a workable ground to reconcile differences and there has to be reconciliation but that reconciliation must have elements of justice and negotiations in it. There are other cases, in Sierra Leone, for example, where there was armed conflict the warring factions were able to come back. Massive demobilization is necessary, great deal of reconciliation is necessary and justice has to prevail. Indeed, we have to ensure that justice has been delivered to the people in the process of negotiation and we need to be practical about it.

Action Aid has been in the forefront of the global fight against poverty. What experiences have you learnt which could be relevant in the Nepali context?

The major lesson we have learnt in our fight against poverty is that poverty and injustice are very deeply linked. In addition to that it is the violation of human rights what makes people poor. Therefore, it has to be ensured that human rights of the people are protected, promoted and fulfilled and justice delivered to the people. In the end, we believe that it is the primacy of the agencies and action of poor people themselves that actually brings sustainable changes. Civil society like us can help and be part of that solidarity movement. But in fact it is the poor people’s own action that will bring about changes. And, we have seen that here. In the end the democratic process is the agency of the people that actually matters.

The theme of this year’s World Press Freedom Day (May 3) was media, development and poverty eradication. In this context, how do you see the role of media in poverty eradication?

In Nepal, media played a phenomenal role and have been the foundation of the democratic movement in difficult period in the country. I am very proud of that and am very pleased. Media connects people, connects issues, brings discourse into public domain, opens things for us and allows diversity and dissent to be brought out. That actually refines agenda and gives voices to issues, voices to the people. Indeed, we need to be worried that international media has been hugely corporatised and therefore monopolized. More specifically, I don’t think that it is media houses that have brought out phenomenal difference in the democratic process. It is the individual journalists, the professionals who actually are the catalysts. I think our job would not have become so significant without the impartial media support. Media takes side but it has to be on the side of justice, plurality and human rights. I don’t necessarily believe in neutrality. Media has been the consciences in many circumstances. It actually gives profile to the issues, gives voices to the people and makes the whole fight against injustice and poverty much more influential. Our task would have been much harder without media.

Nepal has been implementing the Tenth Plan as the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). But the long-drawn conflict and political instability have had adverse impact on these endeavours. How should Nepal move ahead in such a context?

Quite clearly, we need to rethink our development strategies again. We are likely to come out of ten years of very entrenched conflict. We are just coming out of the period of absence of democracy. This is a good time for us to re-think, re-strategise much more equitably the poverty issues and agenda. They need to be considered in terms of regional disparity, making sure that all parts of country really benefits, especially the marginalized section of the society. It should not be urban centered and (focused on) those already getting benefits. We have an opportunity now to open up and use this space that has been created with optimism. There is a lot of reconciliation, reconstruction (of infrastructure) and rehabilitation of people to be done. Development and political process here and structural changes in the political process need to go hand in hand. We cannot let the political process remain as it was and look for development that is equitable. Nepalis need to discuss this. There is a need for real Nepali discourse: pro-development and on human rights. The space for discussion has been created. Of course, we need international help, it will be our entitlement, we should claim for that. There is the need for money and ideas but I think the international community should pause for a moment instead of pouring in money, their advisors and their model of development. Nepal needs to begin new discourse on development that should go hand in hand with political restructuring.

What role do you think the international community and donor agencies need to play in such a transitional period?

I hope in this transition the international community will allow Nepalis to talk to each other first. A genuine Nepali discourse is possible now and that’s likely to happen. There is no need to rush or hurry. I also suggest that the international community has dedicated resource for Nepal. We need much more money, much more support than we have had. The political transition, reconciliation and reconstruction all costs money. When the Nepali politics is sorted out of restructuring changes, when development in Nepal has begun, when the Nepali discourse is there, then we need money, we need technical assistance. The international support for development would need to ensure that people’s voices are heard, their sentiments for democracy supported and political process allowed to mature, at the same time humanitarian and development assistance delivered. The international community should come forward and cancel the debt many of which was accumulated during the course of undemocratic governments. The change is here. Now, the government and the people of Nepal should come up with their own agenda for development