The involvement of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in legislative committee deliberations has long been a contentious issue. This tension came to a head recently in Nepal’s State Affairs and Good Governance Committee.
The controversy arose when NGO representatives attended a committee session without the knowledge of many lawmakers. The session was supposed to delve into the federal civil code amendment bill with insights from Umesh Mainali, former chief of the Public Service Commission. However, unexpected catering arrangements by the NGO disrupted the discussion.
High-ranking officials like Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Rabi Lamichhane were present in the meeting, but the arrangement of an elaborate breakfast and lunch raised eyebrows. 
A deviation from the simple tea and snacks usually served led Nepali Congress lawmaker Hridaya Ram Thani to question the committee president. The revelation that the breakfast was sponsored by an NGO, which had representatives present, caused an abrupt end to the meeting without further discussion.
Lamichhane, visibly displeased by the revelation, questioned the committee chair before leaving the hall. The National Forum for Parliamentarians on Population and Development (NFPPD) had sponsored the meal, and their representatives—Ram Guragain and Arinika Rai—were in attendance.
The presence and actions of the NGO representatives led to questions regarding Congress lawmaker Ramhari Khatiwada’s role since he leads the committee in question. Khatiwada denied any involvement, stressing that their committee does not typically allow NGO representatives to attend meetings.
There were differing opinions among the lawmakers. For instance, CPN-UML lawmaker Prithvi Subba Gurung believed that participation from different societal sectors could be beneficial. He dismissed the disruption caused, asserting that such inclusivity could enrich discussions.
Mainali, the expert invited for the session, shared a similar view, noting that the controversy was more related to the unusual catering rather than the presence of NGO representatives themselves.
On the other hand, Congress lawmaker Ishwari Devi Neupane expressed concerns over the potential influence of NGOs on the legislative process. She cautioned that allowing NGO representatives into committee meetings could set a precedent, resulting in undue influence over lawmaking.
Neupane suggested that while discussions with civil society and NGOs could occur outside committee halls, their presence inside could be problematic.
NFPPD representative Guragain noted that his organization frequently interacts with parliamentarians and participates in such meetings by invitation. This contradicts concerns raised by some lawmakers about the propriety of such involvement.
Former minister Ramesh Nath Pandey criticized the integration of NGO and INGO agendas into the legislative process, suggesting that their influence can compromise the integrity of lawmaking. He emphasized that recognizing and correcting past mistakes is crucial for improving decision-making procedures.
This clash of perspectives underscores the broader debate on the role of NGOs in legislative processes. While some view their inclusion as a means to enrich discussions and bring in expert insights from various fields, others worry about the potential for undue influence and the dilution of legislative integrity.
Meanwhile, the ongoing debate highlights the need for clear guidelines on the participation of NGOs in legislative processes. The incident at the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee serves as a case study that might prompt policymakers to rethink their approach to NGO involvement.
The nature of the engagement, the transparency of their role, and the mechanisms for accountability are critical factors that need consideration.
While some argue for a more inclusive approach, others insist on stricter boundaries to maintain the sanctity of legislative deliberations. This dichotomy reflects the broader tensions between inclusivity and exclusivity in governance.
Effective legislation often benefits from diverse perspectives, but it also requires a safeguarded procedure that prioritizes the integrity and objectives of the legislative body.
As Nepal continues to evolve its democratic practices, the incident serves as a reminder of the need for ongoing dialogue and reassessment of existing practices. This ensures that the processes remain robust, transparent, and free from undue influence while benefiting from the valuable contributions that various stakeholders, including NGOs, can offer.
