The horrific collapse three weeks ago of an eight-story garment factory building in Savar, just outside of Bangladesh’s capital, Dhaka, took the lives of more than 1,100 people, and was followed just last week by a deadly fire in another garment factory that left at least eight dead.

The garment sector in Bangladesh accounts for about 80 percent of the country’s exports and employs more than 3 million people. Photo/Conor Ashleigh

The tragedies have left a nation in mourning, shining a spotlight on the lack of safety for garment sector workers in Bangladesh. These incidents have drawn international attention on the urgent need for better working conditions for workers, starting with safer, more secure buildings.

While these events may serve as an immediate eye opener for consumers and manufacturers in the west, the critical need to improve factory safety in the readymade garment sector in Bangladesh should not come as a surprise. The country has long been under scrutiny because of recurrent industrial accidents that point to poor working conditions and poor safety standards in some of the country’s factories. Voices from within (including international buyers and local factory owners) and outside of the industry (international donors and civil society) have repeatedly called for measures to be taken to improve factory safety.

The death toll of what is one of the largest industrial accidents in Bangladesh fully justifies national and international outcries and the ire of the customers and business community, demanding that strong commitments and measures are taken. However, the worst thing that could happen to the readymade sector in Bangladesh, and to the millions of workers whose livelihoods depend on exports to western countries, is to see the label “made in Bangladesh” boycotted by consumers.

After China, Bangladesh is the world’s second-largest apparel exporter. The garment sector accounts for about 80 percent of the country’s exports and employs more than 3 million people, mostly women. If it is true that cheap labor is the main driver of the sector’s growth, it is also fair to say that this growth has provided economic opportunities to millions of women who would have very few other options to escape extreme poverty. The garment sector, despite what seems like an extremely-low paying industry in western standards, has positively transformed the lives of many women in Bangladesh.

Maintaining the livelihood of the workers and their families should, however, never be to the detriment of their safety. Strong commitments need to be made and measures implemented not only to improve safety, but to make safety and decent working conditions the heart of the industry’s competitive advantage. This is not only the responsibility of the employers; it is the responsibility of each of the players in the value-chain: consumers, international buyers, leaders of the garment sector and professional associations, Bangladesh’s government, the international community, the civil society, and the workers themselves.

Consumers have an essential role to play in requesting information on the conditions in which their clothes are produced and in putting pressure on brands to better control the working conditions in the factories they are sourcing from. Western retailers are, of course, well positioned to press for reform, and to impose good working conditions as a prerequisite for their orders, before considering the price. Many world-famous brands have already called for more stringent labour safety standards. On May 8, the U.S. Department of Labor and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative convened a conference call with U.S. buyers in Bangladesh’s garment industry to discuss U.S. government engagement to improve workers’ rights and working conditions, and to review how the private sector can assist in these vital ongoing efforts.

The question now is whether these “good words” will translate into effective action with real and sustainable results.

The different parties have already put forward some suggestions and resolutions, including the need for independent safety and fire inspectors, the requirement that factories are certified by a group of engineers, and the establishment of a “Corrective Action Plan” (CAP) which the manufacturer will have to fulfill, among others. Nobel Peace Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus also suggested in an op-ed in the Dhaka Tribune on May 9, the establishment of a Garment Workers Welfare Trust and of a “good compliance label” that consumers could reference as a guarantee for labor compliance. On Monday, Bangladesh’s cabinet approved changes to the nation’s labor laws that are expected to increase the benefits for garment workers and make it easier to form trade unions.

Another recommendation is to draw from the experience of Better Factories Cambodia, a program managed by the International Labour Organization, in close collaboration with the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC), the Garment Manufacturers Association in Cambodia (GMAC) and the country’s trade unions. The program aims to improve working conditions in Cambodia’s export garment factories and combines independent monitoring with finding solutions, through suggestions to management, training, advice, and information. In Bangladesh, the implementation of such a program would require four key elements:

• that international buyers join forces with the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) to advocate for the immediate passage of labour law amendments to lay the basis for the establishment of such a program;

• that Bangladesh’s government shows a strong political will to enforce the labour laws and a strong commitment to international labour compliance;

• that workers are more organized (which implies greater freedom of association), better informed and included in the design and implementation of the program, and;

• that the BGMEA, the government, civil society, and labour groups coordinate efforts with each other and with the international community.

Only a large mobilization of all parties can help ensure that tragedies of this kind don’t happen again. All parties need to send a clear message to factory owners that decent working conditions is a prerequisite for sourcing products from Bangladesh, or from any other country in the world. In the near future, consumers need to buy “made in Bangladesh” clothes, not “despite” the bad working conditions of some of its factories, but “because” of a clear commitment of its whole industry to meet international standards.

Sadly, it is too late for the hundreds of workers who perished in the tragedy of Savar, but what better testimony to their memory than to learn from this tragedy and use it to drive safety standards and changes in attitude that will lead to a safer, more just garment industry.

Véronique Salze-Lozac’h is The Asia Foundation’s director for Economic Development Programs based in Bangkok. She can be reached at veronique.salze-lozach@asiafoundation.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

These were the elections which many did not expect to see in Pakistan. Despite persistent and widespread rumors right up until the actual day of elections that they would be cancelled or postponed, Pakistan’s General Elections took place as scheduled on May 11. Around 50 million citizens took part in this historical event: the first time (with the new federal government expected to assume office at the beginning of June) that a successful transition from one democratically elected government to another has taken place. The turnout was the highest since 1970, as millions defied terrorist threats of polling day violence, already the bloodiest election campaign in the country’s history, and bravely waited in line to vote. Violence did disrupt elections in a few parts of the country, notably in Karachi, and contests in some polling stations will be re-run. But in the great majority of constituencies, polling took place peacefully.

According to early figures, almost 60 percent of the 86 million registered voters cast their votes in the 2013 elections, and while detailed gender disaggregated data are not yet available, female participation in the electoral process is reportedly higher than in the past. Photo/DFID

According to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), almost 60 percent of the 86 million registered voters cast their votes in the 2013 General Elections, and while detailed gender disaggregated data are not yet available, female participation in the electoral process, both as candidates and voters, is reportedly higher than in the past. Overall, the elections attracted double the number of candidates compared to 2008, and although pre-poll violence targeted some parties more than others, hampering their campaigning and throwing the “level playing field” into doubt, the issues at stake in today’s Pakistan clearly galvanized an unexpectedly large number of citizens to cast their votes. Civil society organizations supplemented official efforts to register voters, particularly women, and spearheaded voter education.

A young Pakistani voter displays the distinct ink-mark that signifies she voted.

But the greater engagement of the electorate in the polls, the large participation of younger and other first-time voters, the official recognition, among the most marginalized of groups, of transgender voters and the many debates and discussions among friends, workmates and even family members, attest to the increasing interest among the citizens of Pakistan in the political process and to more serious efforts by the political parties to reach out to them. Of course, there are still improvements that can be made to ensure that future elections are run more smoothly and engage an even greater range and diversity of Pakistan’s population. For example, more needs to be done to enable and encourage women to vote – there are still polling stations where no female votes were recorded, reports that women were actively barred in a few areas, and the number of successful female candidates remains very small.

Allegations of poll rigging have been made, and at the time of writing, a large number of cases are before the ECP. It may take time to resolve these, but the evidence of the 41,000 observers deployed throughout the country by member organizations of the Free & Fair Elections Network (FAFEN), currently being sifted and collated, will be crucial in determining just how free and fair the elections have been. But as voters proudly display the indelible ink-mark on their thumbs which prove that they have voted, and many have their individual stories to tell about how they came to vote as they did, one voice lingers vividly in the mind:  “Today I am a proud Pakistani –in spite of all the difficulties, these elections did take place, and that gives ground for hope.”

Gareth Aicken is The Asia Foundation’s country representative in Pakistan and Ameena Ilahi is the deputy country representative there. They can be reached at gaicken@asiafound.org and ailahi@asiafound.org, respectively. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual authors and not those of The Asia Foundation.

In the lead up to the Philippine midterm elections on May 13, the Philippine National Police (PNP) identified 15 provinces as priority areas where there was a risk of election violence. These areas have a history of intense political contestations and recorded election-related violent incidents, which are further exacerbated by the presence of private armed groups, loose firearms, organized crime, and other threat groups. During the campaign period until the day of the elections, recorded incidents of election violence totaled 81, which involved shootings (67 of the 81 cases), explosions, ambush, grenade throwing, strafing, and harassment.

A police officer distributes pieces of paper containing verified names of voters at the Pagagawan Elementary School in Datu Montawal town, Maguindano Province on election day. MindaNews Photo by Ruby Thursday More

The PNP and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) heightened their presence in advance of elections, and also on the day of elections at polling stations and across towns in these areas to ensure peaceful, orderly, safe, and fair elections. They formed a Joint Security Coordinating Center to coordinate activities for the Secure and Fair Elections (SAFE) 2013 program. They sustained their campaign against private armed groups, intensified checkpoint operations, and strictly implemented the gun ban.

The PNP also conducted several peace caravans, a unity walk, media activities, and an information drive. Upon the orders of PNP Chief Director General, Alan Purisima, the PNP initiated peace covenants between rival parties. The Asia Foundation’s local partners were instrumental in facilitating peace covenants in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

To help strengthen the partnership between PNP and the local civil society groups in the ARMM ahead of the elections, The Asia Foundation convened top-level PNP officers with Mindanao-based NGOs in a conference to address election violence in Cotabato City in January 2013. The event was hailed as a milestone because it was the first time that civil society-PNP engagement had been this extensive in strategizing to prevent election violence in advance. Aside from a series of peace covenant signings, the PNP and civil society groups were able to identify and jointly implement feasible interventions in anticipation of election-related violence that may occur in their respective areas. Through the Foundation’s support, PNP-civil society engagements included the conduct of regional and provincial peace summits on election monitoring as well as trainings on early warning and early response which led to the formation of several ad hoc groups that were tasked to conduct preliminary and responsive actions to avert and reduce the incidents of election-related violence in close coordination with other deputized agencies of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) whose duties are to guarantee the security of the whole election proceedings.

This was followed by a Strategic Communication Workshop in February 2013 to assist the police force at the national and regional offices on how to effectively communicate the critical facets of SAFE 2013 and generate public support in safeguarding the electoral process.

Despite prevailing efforts, several issues created anxiety among both the PNP and the local partners as they worked together during the critical pre-election period. In addition to the problems related to the delay in the delivery or possible malfunctions of Precinct Count Optical Scan machines, other practical issues were cited to provoke violence during electoral contests. These included the limited capacity of the PNP to secure some areas where management of security is highly contested; technical problems in the polling process where some allies and supporters of families with rido (clan violence) meet each other in one polling precinct; and the tendency for criminality and lawlessness to ride on election hype that could eventually sabotage the election processes. The complexity of these localized conflicts combined with limited capacity in the state security apparatus accounts for the unpredictability of election-related violence incidence in ARMM, which may then be the reason for the discrepancy in the list of election hotspots provided by COMELEC during elections.

In Lanao del Sur province, for instance, where most towns are included in the list of election areas of concern due to rido, election watchdogs and security forces considered the May 13 Election Day as the most peaceful so far in the history of the province with only seven casualties involved, one of which resulted in death. It is important to recognize that while this particular achievement can be attributed to the strong presence of the civil society, security forces of the 103rd Philippine Army Brigade covering around 40 towns in the province had also acknowledged the contribution of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in the success. Lanao del Sur has several areas – prominent is the Camp Bushra in Butig – that are dominated by MILF. The signing of the guidelines for mutual understanding for ceasefire-related functions on May 13 between the government and MILF peace panels held in April 2013 have certainly defined the ground movement and behavior of each parties at the onset of Election Day, especially in extreme locations where lines between civilians and combatants can seem blurred.

The leadership of the PNP and AFP are one in saying that the midterm elections were generally peaceful. Civil society groups echo similar assessment. However, we do not want to be caught off guard. As much us we Filipinos value our right of suffrage, we put greater premium on the lives of people who have every right to live in peaceful communities. With the counting of final electoral results still underway and the election period still not over until June 12, 2013, the PNP and AFP, together with civil society, remain vigilant.

Nadine Ragonjan is a program officer and Haironesah Domado is an assistant program officer for The Asia Foundation in the Philippines. They can be reached at nragonjan@asiafound.org and hyro@asiafound.org, respectively. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual authors and not those of The Asia Foundation.

Last Wednesday night, in a ballroom packed with a who’s who of west coast movers and shakers at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, the Pacific Council on International Policy (PCIP) presented its inaugural Warren Christopher Public Service Award to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Warren Christopher’s family, who helped established the award, filled the table next to the one where I was seated, the Women’s Initiative Table, which is part of the Pacific Council’s effort to encourage women’s participation in foreign policy.

Hillary Clinton speaks at the Pacific Council on International Policy (PCIP) as the inaugural Warren Christopher Public Service Award recipient. Photo/Ken Pagliaro

The award honors the lifetime achievements of Warren Christopher, the longtime chair of the non-partisan Pacific Council’s Board of Directors, who died in 2011. Christopher’s life was devoted to public service, from a young naval officer to secretary of state to a counselor to presidents, and the head of the Christopher Commission in the wake of the Rodney King incident. As deputy secretary of state, he was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Jimmy Carter in 1981 for his role in negotiating the release of American hostages held in Iran for 444 days. The criteria for the Christopher Award include: commitment to international affairs, to the highest ethical standards, to promotion of the common good, to equality and fairness, and to government service as a noble pursuit.

Hillary Rodham Clinton served as the 67th Secretary of State of the United States from January 2009 until February 2013, after four decades in public service as an advocate, attorney, first lady, and senator. As first lady, Hillary Clinton traveled to more than 80 countries to represent the U.S., including her trip to the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, in September 1995, where she said, “However different we may be, there is far more that unites us than divides us. We share a common future. And we are here to find common ground so that we may help bring new dignity and respect to women and girls all over the world. There are some who question the reason for this conference. There are some who wonder whether the lives of women and girls matter to economic and political progress around the globe. Let them look at the women gathered here … It is conferences like this that compel governments and people everywhere to listen, look, and face the world’s most pressing problems.”

In 2000, she made history as the first first lady elected to the United States Senate. In 2007 and 2008, Clinton made her historic campaign for president. In her four years as secretary of state, Clinton presided over President Obama’s “pivot to Asia” in his Administration’s foreign policy.  And on Wednesday night she reminded the audience that: “Asia is home to half the world’s population. Future growth,” she said, “and our hopes for a less bloody century, depends on the Asia Pacific. The U.S. is an Asia Pacific power, and our alliances there are strong.” Clinton noted that Christopher “understood, profoundly, the growing importance of Asia,” and credited him with putting the U.S. alliance with Japan “back on firm footing,” bolstering South Korea in the face of provocations from North Korea, and putting the U.S.-China relationship “on a positive trajectory.”

Clinton told the story of how Warren “Chris” Christopher, as secretary of state, was one of the first diplomats to ever make it a priority to attend ASEAN meetings; one of the requirements was that he participate in a skit after the business meetings were adjourned. “Chris” dressed up famously as the Statue of Liberty and sang “Home on the Range.” Clinton said it was a gesture that went a very long way in demonstrating U.S. commitment to ASEAN, and to Asia, more broadly.

Amy Ovalle is The Asia Foundation’s senior director for Global Communications, based in San Francisco. She is also a member of the Pacific Council on International Policy. She can be reached at aovalle@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

Against a backdrop of heightened insecurity and increasing violence in the lead-up to Pakistan’s general elections, slated for this Saturday, more than 43,000 trained, non-partisan volunteers are gearing up to observe approximately 70,000 polling stations in all 272 constituencies across Pakistan. If general elections take place according to schedule, May 11 will prove to be one of the most significant events in Pakistan’s history, and would mark the first time in the country’s 66 years that a legitimate and democratic transition of power took place.

With the completion of the government’s five-year term, Pakistanis have a renewed sense of optimism and longing for change. In the face of serious threats, citizens, civil society groups, international bodies, and political parties have continued with election preparations, resolute that a true democratic system can transpire in Pakistan through open and fair elections. At the opposite end of the spectrum, though, is a powerful and abiding force of terror, the ultra-conservative militants, determined not only to disrupt elections, but to derail the path to democracy, which they have come to associate with all things un-Islamic.

Election observation is a critical prerequisite of the democratic process, ensuring that elections are held in a free, transparent, and non-violent environment, guaranteeing the rule of law, and more importantly, building confidence among citizens in the electoral process itself. The last is particularly vital given Pakistan’s volatile political history, where democracy has been repeatedly undermined by rampant corruption, feudalism, military dictatorship, and more recently, ongoing violence and terrorism targeting secular parties, ethnic and religious minorities, and political opponents, particularly PPP, ANP, and MQM, who have lately been under attack.

Within this political context, safeguarding the rights of voters during elections is an imperative. The Asia Foundation and our local partner, the Free and Fair Elections Network (FAFEN), are preparing election observers and monitors, and have developed a comprehensive, systematic electoral process, from pre-election monitoring to Election Day observation and post-election results tabulation. Election observation is based on historical trends and lessons learned from 2008 election monitoring, such as information on voter turn-out rates, constituencies with low female participation, and areas of high security risk. The Foundation has worked to strengthen the capacity of long-term observers to assure quality of pre and post-election observations, initiate voter mobilization campaigns in polling areas across the country where female voter turnout was negligent in previous elections, and monitor short-term observers.

Women engage in an election awareness campaign at Jamshoro Sindh. 43,000 election observers will be deployed across Pakistan on Election Day.

Observers, accredited by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), will work alongside international observation missions to determine the extent to which the election processes comply with Pakistani and international standards, including the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Pakistan in 2010. These short-term volunteers will actively observe polling stations using standardized checklists to document non-compliance of electoral laws, rules, and regulations. This Election Day is expected to have the largest number of observers ever deployed in Pakistan’s election history.

To say that the future of Pakistan rests on these elections is no understatement. Yet the ongoing violence, which has certainly challenged the country’s already fragile democratic institutions, presents a very real threat to voters and election officials despite enhanced security vigilance and planning. Only a strong, defiant voting population committed to asserting its democratic rights can offset these challenges, because ironically, the most effective tool in combating terrorism is a robust and flourishing democratic platform in which citizens are empowered through active engagement and participation, and guaranteed equal rights under the law. Here’s hoping May 11 will begin with fair voting and culminate in strengthened, transparent, and accountable governance in Pakistan.

Ameena Ilahi is The Asia Foundation’s deputy country representative in Pakistan and Ali Imran is a senior program officer there. They can be reached at ailahi@asiafound.org and aimran@asiafound.org, respectively. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual authors and not those of The Asia Foundation.

On May 6, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak took the oath of office as Malaysia’s 7th prime minister before King Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah at the National Palace. Prime Minister Najib’s coalition, Barisan Nasional, returned to power when it won 133 of the 222 parliamentary seats to form the Federal Government.

After a violent campaign period, Malaysians headed to the polls to elect the 7th prime minister. Photo/Flickr user alanalew

For many Malaysians, there were mixed feelings on the result. On the one hand, they are tired of politicking and want to move on with their daily lives. On the other hand, one cannot help but to be upset with how the elections were conducted in general. Among a myriad of other issues,  the “indelible ink” marked on voters’ index fingers, a new procedure to prevent people from voting twice was easily washable, party workers continued to campaign on Election Day, and various reports of phantom voters persists. While many observers have reminded the Malaysian public that the Election Commission must not be blamed in full for the shortcomings in the electoral process, many still question its credibility, which has in turn put the result of the election in question.

Despite this, brave young Malaysians saw this election as a new beginning for Malaysian politics.

When interviewed, a young voter said: “Leading up to the GE13, in my mind, I did not think the opposition would win. While I felt that they could win more seats in the parliament, I had a feeling that they would not be able to get the seats needed to form a government. And because it wasn’t a change in government, it is currently being viewed as a total loss, especially by the younger generation of voters. With the result of this general election, the government has a lot more work to do to convince the public that they deserve to be in power. As part of the younger generation of Malaysia, I do hope for better transparency and fairness on the elections and the voting process and information that is being put forward from it. There should be more equality between incumbent and opposition parties, in terms of freedom of speech and expression and rights to a fair campaign especially in the press and media. These are all being championed by Pakatan Rakyat with the help of the Bersih movement. I do want to see this change happen, and I believe that our aspirations will be carried on beyond this elections.”

One thing was clear: the real winner in the Malaysia’s 13th general elections is the people. They have firmly entrenched a two-coalition system in the country and have given the opposition votes that would enable them to solidify their partnership and play a meaningful check and balance role in the parliament. More importantly, the voters have decided to end the days where Barisan Nasional enjoyed unfettered power. The younger generation of voters have stood up, and are showing that their voices are equally as important and that they carry weight no matter where, who, and how old they are. And if this trend continues we can look forward to a better Malaysia.

Amir Shariff is The Asia Foundation’s senior program officer in Malaysia. He can be reached at amir@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

With only four days left before Malaysians cast their votes in the nation’s 13th general elections, both the Barisan Nasional and the Pakatan Rakyat are intensifying campaign efforts to win the hearts and minds of voters. Political giants from both sides of the competing coalitions, such as the incumbent prime minister, Najib Razak, former prime minister Mahathir Mohamed, and opposition leaders Anwar Ibrahim, Lim Kit Siang, and Hadi Awang have all attracted massive turnouts at their campaign events. Thousands of posters and flags cover almost every intersection in the country, with some party workers and supporters being more creative than others, making giant replicas of the scale, rocket, and moon from flags to represent their party logos. Even more creative citizens have also “planted” small flower-like flags around Kuala Lumpur to express their hope for a peaceful “Malaysian Spring.”

Election campaign posters cover buildings across Malaysia. The last days of the campaign period have been marred by incidents of political violence, the highest in the history of Malaysian elections. Photo/Flickr user Johnragai

Amid the excitement, the last days of the campaign period have been marred by incidents of political violence, the highest in the history of Malaysian elections. Reports of arson, threats, and physical and verbal abuse from opposing party members appear in the news daily, in sharp contrast to the tolerant and moderate image that Malaysians pride themselves on. From the start of the campaign (April 20, 2013), a staggering 1,166 incidents of political violence have been reported, with 43 arrests made so far.

Some of these incidents are quite serious. For example, last Thursday a petrol bomb was thrown into the house compound of the daughter of a Pakatan Rakyat candidate for the Sri Andalas state seat, setting her car on fire.
Petrol bombs were also thrown at BN operations centers in Penang, Selangor, and Kedah last week, and a bomb exploded in northern Penang state late last Tuesday near a political gathering of the BN coalition, resulting in a 35-year-old security worker being injured by flying debris. Caretaker Penang chief minister, Lim Guan Eng, filed a police report last Thursday over a text message he received that threatened death against his wife and son if he was reappointed as chief minister.

There is no doubt that the coming election will be the most closely contested in the history of the nation. Emotions are flying high for campaigners, politicians are running at full steam to win votes, and voters are eagerly waiting to cast their ballots. This could all mean a brighter future for Malaysia, if both citizens and politicians can contribute to ensuring that the electoral process is free, fair, and safe where all can participate and contest healthily. From what we have seen so far, Malaysia has a long way to go.

Herizal Hazri is The Asia Foundation’s deputy country representative in Malaysia. He can be reached at herizal@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

Nepal has been in a state of transition since 1950. In the ensuing years, a relatively brief, decade-long romance with democracy ended in three decades of single-party, autocratic rule. Since the restoration of multiparty, democratic politics just over 20 years ago, we have had 20 prime ministers, a decade-long civil war, and an abortive constitutional development process. No elected government has ever completed a full term and just a few weeks ago, the fifth chief executive in as many years was sworn in.

The indicators of Nepal’s developmental progress are mixed: there are some very significant successes in health and education, the macro-economy is stable, and remittances are high. Investment is low, but there is no obvious economic crisis to spur political action. Though impunity and corruption are rising, the country has not descended into anarchy. While elected local government has been absent for much more than a decade, modest levels of public goods and services are available. The country is at a political impasse but seems to be muddling through; a suboptimal equilibrium, perhaps, that is difficult to graduate from.

How corrosive and costly are the effects of this most recent, elongated transition for Nepal? How much of the damage is reversible in the near and medium term? What keeps Nepal’s progress at an impasse?

One characteristic of this crisis is the Nepali political party. Following the first People’s Movement, the settlement in 1990-91 was for multiparty politics, whereby popular aspirations and citizen interests would be represented by parties who would govern via parliamentary democracy. Instead, individuals governed and still do. Some have served at least twice if not more as prime minister. The problem of the undemocratic nature of political parties and their demonstrated lack of belief and investment in democratic practice within themselves did not change even after a second People’s Movement.

Another characteristic of this crisis is the lack of trust among political actors. Commitments made by powerful political figures are no longer considered credible. While the nostalgia for a strongman to enforce commitment is occasionally evident, more worrisome is the crisis of confidence and trust in political parties and in politics.

On the one hand, parties have shown that they struggle to change. Take their current difficulty in dealing with identity movements within and outside their parties; or the suppression of dissenting voices and the trivialization of second and third-tier leadership opinion. One common consequence is that parties have fragmented, making it even more costly to achieve common understanding and build coalitions in future.

On the other hand, professionals and the rest of the middle class are disengaged from politics and are now either name-calling or launching movements of anti-politics. This narrow understanding of politics and political practice does not get us any closer to a governance arrangement that is of, for, and by the Nepali people.

Nepal has experimented with democracy, but Nepal has neither strengthened democratic institutions nor nurtured democratic practices; and all are culpable in this, not only the political parties. In addition to ignoring political party reform, we are guilty of allowing or hastening the decay of critical formal and informal democratic institutions and practices. We must pay attention to, for example, the National Human Rights Commission, the Commission for Investigation into Abuse of Authority, the proposed Commissions for Truth and Reconciliation and for Disappearances, associations of government bodies, the community groups that manage schools, forests, irrigation, and so on. These are just some examples where constant institutional strengthening and innovation by both state and society ultimately matters.

The answer in rebuilding societies usually lies in the deliberate efforts of the state, its representatives, and its friends, in providing leadership, articulating vision and a clear sense of direction, in redressing grievances and injustices, and in reducing the trust deficit among their peoples and with the state. This has to become the focus of those within and outside government, sooner rather than later.

At this juncture, Nepal’s political future is not clear. We have come to a pass of our own making in Nepal, where politics is not representative of popular aspirations, where individual leaders have impoverished and undermined the very institutions that matter, and where myriad groups and coalitions and movements – vertically and horizontally across society – have disengaged from the idea that politics matters most to economic and social life.

A new idea of politics is required in order to transition Nepal toward stable, plural, representative, and accountable governance arrangements. For this to happen, first and foremost, institutions must replace individuals as the focus of political practice, both by parties and by society. Let us hope that the current hiatus will spur thought and action in that direction.

George Varughese is The Asia Foundation’s country representative in Nepal. He can be reached at gvarughese@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

When we hear about the current slow pace of negotiations between the government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, we can lose sight of the many concrete achievements made over the years.

As peacemakers on both sides of the negotiating table try to learn lessons from past peace efforts, two institutions in particular established in the past decade stand out:  the Bangsamoro Development Agency, which is currently working on a medium-term Bangsamoro Development Plan, and the Bangsamoro Leadership and Management Institute, which works for “ideologically-oriented and spiritually accountable Bangsamoro leaders and managers who will utilize political and social-economic knowledge and skills.” These institutions are meant to avoid a situation, ever possible in post-conflict situations, where incoming leadership from a revolutionary movement does not know how to operate in a demilitarized governance system.

During the period that these accomplishments were made, since 2001, Malaysia has acted as Facilitator of the GPH-MILF negotiations. This role can be controversial, particularly in light of well-publicized events such as the crisis in Sabah. But there are quieter, less well-known aspects of Malaysia’s involvement, such as assistance from the Malaysian Technical Cooperation Programme (MTCP), a crucial part of the Malaysian government’s thrust toward south-south cooperation. More than 20,000 participants from 140 countries have participated in the various programs administered under the MTCP since its inception in 1980. The program continues to draw interest and participation from a multitude of countries, ranging from the Africa, Europe, Latin America, and Oceania.  Nevertheless, qualitatively, the MTCP has a decidedly Southeast Asian focus. Seven of the top 10 countries in 2012 are located in this region. Malaysia provides assistance upon the request from prospective partner countries, and the initiative for cooperation begins with the recipient countries. In short, the program is demand driven.

Malaysia is not typically seen as a “donor” in discussions of overseas development assistance (ODA), nor does Malaysia use that term to describe its development cooperation with other countries. Malaysian assistance to other countries is part of a wider trend of “new development actors” working to extend assistance overseas, often in ways that more traditional donors (the U.S., UK, or Australia) might not do. Therefore, unlike conventional foreign assistance programs, which are often linked to donor values and priorities, MTCP strives to represent an approach of “prosper thy neighbour” and “mutual benefit” in its partnerships. This approach has been applied with regard to Muslim Mindanao.

The April 27 launching of an association of Bangsamoro graduates of the MTCP is an important occasion, given the need for a cadre of trained professionals to implement by 2016 the transition to a Bangsamoro as envisioned in the Framework Agreement signed in October 2012. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front, and the Bangsamoro generally, will need to look at an expanded talent pool beyond current employees of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM – which will be replaced by the new Bangsamoro) and those currently active in the MILF-led transition. An alumni association that taps the 59 MCTP trainees is an ideal beginning. A similar pool of a total of 326 young people has over the years been supported by USAID to undergo a training in public administration followed by participation in the Congressional Internship Programs for Young Mindanao Leaders (CIPYML), and AusAID has the Philippines Australia Human Resource and Organisational Development Facility that includes a focus on Mindanao. From such pools a “registry” of potential Bangsamoro leaders and managers (both current ARMM civil servants and potential new ones) can be developed. Such a database can be drawn upon as preparations for a Bangsamoro Transitional Authority – perhaps in 2015 – move forward.

A strong cadre of civil servants is particularly important inasmuch as the Framework Agreement for the Bangsamoro specifies that the Bangsamoro will have a “ministerial” form of government – a parliamentary system rather than the “presidential” system of separation of powers in both the national and local Philippine government. Rather than a chief executive (e.g., a mayor, governor, or president) elected separately from the legislature for a fixed term, the new Bangsamoro will have a chief executive elected by the legislature for as long as the executive retains the confidence of the legislature. A cabinet will be appointed from the legislature (in some parliamentary systems cabinet members retain their legislative seats; in others they resign to serve in the cabinet).

The point here is that, as the Framework Agreement says, once there is a ministerial form of government, “The Bangsamoro Transition Authority may reorganize the bureaucracy into institutions of governance appropriate thereto.”  In presidential systems, typically the chief executive appoints many layers of the bureaucracy:  in the Philippines, this includes cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries, and even directors. In parliamentary systems, typically just the top one or two political leaders of a cabinet department are political appointees; the rest (up to the very top level) are permanent civil servants. A reason for this difference is that in a parliamentary system the duration of an executive government is uncertain – it is only in power as long as it retains the confidence of the legislature. Rather than fixed terms, and fixed intervals between elections, there is uncertainty. An election can be called any time that a government cannot sustain support from the elected members of the legislature. Thus, continuity of services and processes in the bureaucracy rests in the top-level bureaucrats.

In the process of setting up the Bangsamoro Transition Authority to replace the ARMM, the average ARMM civil servant is being assured of retention (as long as they are not “ghosts“). But the opportunity to set up a senior civil service is one that the MILF can use to help instantiate its vision of a Bangsamoro beyond the regular election in 2016. The MILF has repeatedly stated that it is open to other forces winning in 2016, but a well-functioning civil service will help ensure that the post-2016 Bangsamoro serves the citizens of the region well.

Steven Rood is The Asia Foundation’s country representative in the Philippines, and represents the Foundation as part of the International Contact Group for the GPH-MILF negotiations. He can be reached at srood@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

Recent vituperative comments by the North Korean regime can normally be dismissed as the ravings of a state that either misinterprets their negative external impact, or as rhetoric that is intended for consumption by a remarkably unsophisticated internal audience. Yet amid this dross from North Korea there is often repeated a term that foreigners frequently neglect or dismiss and to which attention should be paid. That is the call for “dignity.” Indeed, this call for “dignity” is a common sentiment that is usually ignored but was included, for example, in the 2008 inaugural speech of President Lee Myong Bak, as part of his policy for a more prominent role for South Korea within the realm of international relations. More recently, Lieutenant General Qi Jianguo of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in a January 2013 article in an official Chinese journal wrote, “If a nation loses its dignity, how can it speak of freedom?” Previously, the term was often used by the Burmese junta in its anti-foreign statements. It appears that the quest for “dignity” is a relatively common aspiration collectively amongst peoples who have felt diminished as a state, right down to the level of the individual.

It is perhaps significant that the term has been used by the leadership of states that in the past were humiliated by arrogant colonial rule, or in the case of China, the one hundred years of “semi-colonial” status. Unequal treatment, in treaties or otherwise, creates resentments and long memories. Such memories linger, and heightened nationalism on the side of the oppressed is a normal consequence.

“Dignity,” from the Latin dignitas – the inherent right to be valued or esteemed – is something more profound and important than “respect,” which itself is more substantive than “face,” which is often considered an Asian concept but in reality is a human universal desire for respectability. It is the basis on which much of our lives operate, or on which we hope that they would. Humans try to ensure dignity in our normal activities through protocols and good manners, means to codify dignity so that everyone understands what is expected, and thus dignity is maintained – we are being treated as we should. As established customs erode in globalized societies, such as the United States, these unofficial and often unarticulated rules are modified or ignored, leading to confusion. So, one can be accused of “dissing” someone – not providing the proper demeanor or response, and thus not providing the dignity sought. This can become more acute when cultures cross. Many African Americans during the 1992 Rodney King Riots in Los Angeles accused Korean businessmen of “dissing” them – destroying their dignity – by not looking them in the eye as one would do with an equal in American culture, even though direct eye contact between strangers is considered completely inappropriate in traditional Korean culture.

Unfortunately, this stated or inchoate cry for dignity in international relations is sadly often ignored. The stronger power usually overtly or indirectly destroys dignity by attempting to force conditions or acquiescence upon other governments for numerous reasons; they are often labeled as “evil empires,” “pariah regimes,” “rogue states,” or “outposts of tyranny.” However egregious their mistakes or violations of what have become (Western) international norms, those other governments, at least within the realm of normal bilateral relations, are deprived of the dignity that could potentially allow them to transform themselves on their own volition and at their own speed. They are not, of course, being treated as equals – with the dignity that one would expect from others. This dialectic is, in effect, paternalistic – the powerful parent chastising a child. In such circumstances, the public airing of such views, however justified, means that to acquire internal dignity – with or among their own peoples – the weaker government must respond negatively to such criticisms. For if it does not, that government has the potential to lose internal political legitimacy – dignity.

Public negative characterizations of such governments are designed to affect positive change of some sort, yet they can often have the opposite effect, though one opposed to this position might argue that the government in question does not have legitimacy to begin with. Yet that is not necessarily the case. External “pariah” status does not always equate to internal vilification. Authoritarian leaders can be popularly, and even fairly, elected.

Sometimes there are requests, even demands, for access to the elective process of a country. From the more benevolent “observer” status to that of “monitor,” implying, implicitly, that the state in question cannot be trusted to conduct fair elections, just as students are supervised during examinations to prevent cheating. Dignity is thus denied. This is not to argue that efforts should not be made to change individual government’s negative and/or abusive behavior, both domestically and internationally. Quiet arguments for change should be made when the effects of some governments’ actions are destructive. Incentives can be proffered, and negative responses discussed. But the use of the ill-phrased “carrots and sticks” approach is demeaning. As a former Burmese foreign minister said, “We are not donkeys.” So the phrase itself is another, and not a singular, example of the demeaning rhetoric used that in fact undermines the foreign policy goals it seeks to achieve. During wartime, some in the United States have claimed that if enough force is used, the “hearts and minds” of the people on the receiving end will follow. One wonders what evidence exists for such assumptions, especially when one recalls “shock and awe.” Indeed, the very opposite seems more than likely – suspicion and distrust will follow.

The use of sanctions for “benevolent purposes” against another state are often cited to convince the government in question to reform. Those who impose such sanctions no doubt have some powerful stimulus – either of a military or economic nature, or even moral suasions. The very act of advocating such sanctions or imposing them, however, rests on the underlying assumption that the particular state in question does not have the status, strength, moral position or concepts that would induce them to change on their own. However, the very act of imposing sanctions, in effect, deprives such governments of dignity. Furthermore, by implementing sanctions, is not the opportunity of achieving the desired goals limited? This position is nothing new in Western or other societies who have become, as others have sometimes pointed out, the ethical or political missionaries who are out to convert the unwashed heathens – those individuals or regimes who by their very status are lacking the dignity that only we can confer. To maintain internal dignity, regimes must go out of their way to deny such characterizations and to strike back with rhetoric that simply exacerbates the unpleasantness of the relationship. So these actions, in a good Hegelian way, produce the opposite reactions that defeat their purpose. Even some modern missionaries have learned that conversion by example is often more effective that verbally beating people around the head.

The need for dignity in international negotiations is an essential component for dealing with unpleasant or enemy regimes if one is to attain some of the objectives of such negotiations. This lesson, alas, is seldom learned.

This article was originally published in the East-West Center’s Asia Pacific Bulletin.

David I. Steinberg is Distinguished Professor of Asian Studies, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University.