KU leadership vs transparency

The recent spate of write-ups on Kathmandu University (KU) may have revealed an unexpected side of an institution that people thought was doing well. When one explores the excessive privation of a public institution that receives minimal government funding, the current criticism raised on improper functioning apparently seems invalid and targeted only against those who have adorned the image of educational reformists.

What many, both insiders and outsiders, feel is that KU's sacrosanct image can only be maintained if the present leadership is allowed absolute say in the administration and management of the university affairs. But what many do not know is the fact that the frontliners of KU have metamorphosed to become autocratic, unaccommodating and partisan. Therefore, if the policies come under the public hammer, the leadership alone must be held accountable; if the stakeholders of the university organ --- the students, teaching community, and the administrative staff --- complain about mismanagement and unprofessionalism, the leadership cannot make arbitrary arrangements to come clean; if the driving force of the university unite to point out the irregularities and propose amendments, the leadership must make way to the new breed; if the performance appraisal system has been replaced by nepotism and favoritism, the leadership must justify how free opportunity and evaluation system works.

KU needs to develop a leadership mechanism that does not look upon an individual alone, but functions on the support of all the stakeholders. KU needs to go through a cleansing process before any reformation takes place. KU needs to welcome other national and international intellectuals to assume leadership and not depend upon the disingenuous coterie.

Kathmandu University Professors' Association (KUPA) was formed and registered in the DAO, Kathmandu, last month. It is also the latest member of a larger federation -- the Nepal University Teachers' Association. However, it will take some time before the KU authorities take this new teachers' body in a positive vein. A narrow view put forward about the nature of such organization is that it will invite "politics" and KU will no longer remain as "reputed" as today! One must distinguish between the idea of politics and politicking. If KUPA proposes a participatory model of administration, if it wants the university bosses to be accountable and fair, if it upholds a check and balance mechanism, if it proclaims to protect the general welfare of the staff and wants to work collaboratively with the university, then KUPA is certainly a political force from within. And that is what it should intend to remain.

KUPA cannot be the sole answer to the ills that KU faces, but a proper representative body will position itself to revitalize the positive traits necessary of an institution. With the formation of this body, the majority already feel that their lost honor is restored and that the body will become a formidable force in bringing the derailed university management to the right track. Though this body will take some time to earn its gravity, the fallout of demeaning the unity of such a force may be ruinous to KU. It is but natural that students are concerned about the recent turn of events. But, can one concentrate in a usual manner when unusual circumstances disturb the academic atmosphere?

Unlike other public institutions in Nepal, KU has a credible percentage of young professionals. The spirit of this vibrancy should be reflected in the executive bodies that are formed in the university. Young people expect professional mentoring from those who have worked to build an institution. The university bosses have already come under sharp criticism for downplaying the contributions of other entities in the system. Independent members of KU resent when the leadership alone is acknowledged for what the university has achieved. How will an able academic community react if its potentials are continuously undermined and its achievements unacknowledged?

Everybody in an organization expects to upgrade one's portfolio, but the current scenario defeats the idea of proper delegation. A successful management practice is to entrust responsibilities and let the person do the tasks independently. When no authentic delegation has ever taken place in an esteemed institution, how can future leadership be available inside KU quarters? Individualistic leadership has never prepared others for higher roles, and this phenomenon is already evident here. KU is facing a leadership crisis. KU needs a better vision. But to start, KU has to shed the culture of adhocism.

At this time of crisis, insiders are deliberating on what values does this institution run. Besides being a popular center for learning, has it been successful in imparting values that generate decent conduct? How high is the integrity of a leader whose personal ambition supersedes institutional priorities? Is it not irrational that an institution holds an improved image and the staff remain impoverished? How should the students react if they do not get the quality they have been promised? Will modern society accept that policy-making and resource allocation are the prerogative of handful executives? What is the basis on which some development activities take precedence over the other? The present leadership has failed to work towards developing an institutional character of a public institution.

A usual practice in such circumstances of failure is to give up one's office and make way for new ideas. But if the leadership remains adamant the office invites the wrath of a rebellious force bringing unwarranted discredit to the institution. KU leaders only need to make a choice -- respect the sentiments of the stakeholders and exit in honor. Any obstinate step leading to confrontation will only be detrimental to the interests of the students, staff and the community.

As KUPA is working to rectify the functioning of the university, several anonymous entities are seen to be channelized to defeat the unified voice. Instead of targeting people at the personal level and engaging in conspiracy, all well-wishers must dare to show up for open debate. Institutional issues can be discussed without mud slinging. Perhaps the priviligenstia of the university can do a little service by behaving modestly and remaining apologetic for all the undue favours they have received instead of instigating others to bring disgrace to the individuals and the institution.

Originally published by The Kathmandu Post.