Experts are technically sound individuals who can articulate fellow citizens’ need and are capable of providing evidence and analyzing policy options. Their ability to comprehend the issue comes from their strong theoretical base and the considerable amount of time they spend in gathering experience and knowledge. But there is no single universally accepted way for experts to engage in the democratic process. Finding out how experts can play an effective role in policy making can be a challenge to decision makers as well as researchers. Their capacity and commitment to properly understand the seriousness and far-reaching implication of issues in question shape the reliability and authenticity of their expert knowledge. However, this does not happen most of the time because there are several other factors that shape their expert opinion. Understanding why it does not happen the way it should and what makes their role significant in policy process are explored in this paper. Having a democratic institutional arrangement that provides a different sphere for experts are also important considerations to be made. Thus, the paper explores how proper positioning of experts can enhance their interactive role in the policy process.

The paper examines the existing prison policy of Nepal to diagnose critical problems emerging by neglecting the need of prison reform, despite several attempts and efforts. The punitive prison policy implemented back in 1963 has dilapidated triggering some of the most unanticipated problems possessing threat to an individual, community and country as a whole. The study focuses on the current situation of the prisons in Nepal and the problem associated with it, identifies the alternatives that can be implemented to mitigate the problems and recommends the most suitable alternative that would help to alleviate those problems. The study highlights overcrowding, accommodation, education, health, employment and discrimination as the critical problems. Subsequently, it scrutinizes these problems from sociological, economical and human rights perspective. Based on these arguments, the study emphasizes on either reforming the existing prison policy, implementing open prison policy or public private partnership policy. Case studies of prison policies practiced in different countries are taken in account to support the argument. In summation, the research takes into account the policy problem associated with the prison reform and makes a recommendation to fulfill the policy gap for reforming the prison sector of Nepal.

नेपालमा आदिवासी जनजाति आन्दोलनले वि.सं. २०४६ सालको राजनीतिक परिवर्तनपछि आकार लिएको हो । आदिवासी जनजाति आन्दोलनको नेतृत्व नेपाल आदिवासी जनजाति महासंघले गरिरहेको छ । महासंघले आन्दोलनको क्रममा थुप्रै किसिमका माग÷दाबी गरेको छ । तर, यो अध्ययनमा आदिवासी जनजातिको परिभाषामा महासंघ र राज्यबीच ‘हिन्दू वर्णाश्रम’भित्र पर्ने कि नपर्ने विषयमा देखिएको विरोधाभासलाई प्रस्तुत गरिएको छ । त्यसपछि आदिवासी आन्दोलन उपेक्षाले जन्माएरको अधिकारको आन्दोलन हो भनेर सैद्धान्तिक आधारकको व्याख्या गरिएको छ । ‘सामाजिक आन्दोलन’को सैद्धान्तिक फ्रेमवर्कभित्र ‘समता’ र ‘सामाजिक न्याय’को अवधारणामा आदिवासी आन्दोलन बाँधिएको छ । यसमा इन्स्टिच्यूट्, एक्टर र कन्टेक्स्टलाई ध्यानमा राखेर अध्ययन गरिएकाले ‘एजेन्सी एप्रोज’ विधिको उपयोग गरिएको छ ।महासंघले स्थापनाकालदेखि अहिलेसम्म पाँचओटा ‘राज्य संयन्त्र’को माग राखेको थियो÷छ, ती क्रमशः अध्ययन संस्थान वा एकेडेमी, आदिवासी जनजाति आयोग, आदिवासी जनजाति मन्त्रालय, जातीयसभा (माथिल्लो सदन वा राष्ट्रियसभालाई जातीयसभा बनाउने) र पहिचानसहितको संघीयताहुन् । एकेडेमी र आयोगको माग सामाजिक÷सांस्कृतिक मुद्धाकेन्द्रित माग हो । यी माग भाषिक÷सामाजिक÷सांस्कृतिक क्षेत्रको संरक्षण र विकास तथा त्यसको संवैधानिक प्रत्याभूतिको मान्यतामा आधारित छ । आदिवासी जनजाति मन्त्रालय, जातीयसभा र पहिचानसहितको संघीयता राजनीतिक माग हुन् । राजनीतिक मागहरू नीति निर्माण गर्ने, कार्यान्वयन गर्ने र आदिवासी जनजातिको पहिचानलाई सम्बोधन गर्ने ‘राज्य संयन्त्र’को स्थापनासँग जोडिएका छन् । यी प्रत्येक ‘राज्य संयन्त्र’का मागले तत्कालिन राज्यको चरित्र र आदिवासी आन्दोलनको गति र गन्तव्यको सीमा प्रष्टसँग उजागर गरेको छ । महासंघको मागलाई सम्बोधन गर्न राज्यले तीनओटा उपकरणहरू क्रमशः जनजाति उत्थान प्रतिष्ठान कार्यदल, राष्ट्रिय जनजाति विकास समिति (गठन) आदेश २०५४ र आदिवासी÷जनजाति उत्थान राष्ट्रिय प्रतिष्ठान ऐन २०५८ को उपयोग गरेको थियो । तीनै उपकरणसँग फरक–फरक एक्टर र कन्टेक्स्ट जोडिएका छन् ।अन्ततः राज्यले निर्माण गरेको तीन उपकरणले महासंघको एउटा मात्र माग सम्बोधन गरेको छ । महासंघले गरेका माग र राज्यले उपयोग गरेका उपकरणको सैद्धान्तिक आधारलाई ‘पोलिसी रिसर्च’को सन्दर्भसँग जोडेर यो लेखमा परिचर्चा गरिएको छ ।