E-Kantipur

There is no doubt that Nepal’s institutions of local governance have major problems. In particular, there has been a tendency over the past five years for local leaders of political parties, through their participation in the All-Party Mechanisms that are meant to advise local bureaucrats, to collude with each other in siphoning off resources meant for development. Recognising this, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) directed the Ministry of Local Development to dissolve APMs across the country. The ministry did so and is now planning replacement mechanisms. In the political sphere and among the public there is now talk of holding local elections as soon as they can be organised. There are reasons to believe, however, that the abrupt dissolution of APMs can only further reduce the efficacy of the local bodies. Further, it is also doubtful whether elections to local bodies will be able to solve the problem of corruption.

The APMs were established in 2006, soon after the success of the Jana Andolan. Elected local bodies had been dissolved in 2002, and since then bureaucrats sent from the centre had total executive responsibility. This was during the period of direct rule by King Gyanendra, when the Maoist insurgency was raging, and local bodies were moribund and disconnected from the population. As the political situation did not allow for the holding of local elections in 2006, the parties decided that bureaucrats sent from Kathmandu would continue to hold executive power. But they also felt that it was necessary for the local population to have a greater say in the functioning of local governments. As it has been the political parties that have historically mediated between the population and the state, the creation of APMs was thought necessary. These bodies were to possess no executive power but only to advise the bureaucrats on where resources should be spent.

Over time, it emerged that the APMs were in many places wielding much more power than formally allotted to them. Its members took decisions on where and on which projects money would be spent. In the process, they colluded to distribute the resources of local government among themselves. This became a cause of public cynicism and disillusionment.

This does not mean, however, that the APMs were totally useless. There have been significant developments in the functioning of local bodies over the past five years. There has been a major influx of funds to local bodies in comparison to the period of Gyanendra’s direct rule. In some places, like the eastern Tarai, these funds have been largely misappropriated and have not led to much development activity. In many places in the hills some of these funds have been skimmed off, but much of it has been utilised. The vast proliferation of roads in many hill areas over the past five years is an indication of this. And the political parties have played a role in mediating competition over where these funds were spent. This is a task that local bureaucrats, lacking a political base and roots in the areas where they serve, are not very adept at.

There have also been other mechanisms that have encouraged marginalised sections of the population to gain access to local government resources. Many NGOs have emerged that train groups with little access to the state to deal with local bodies. Organisations such as the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN), Dalit civil society organisations, and women groups have demanded and sometimes succeeded in gaining a greater say over how funds meant for the groups that they represent are spent. In many municipalities across the country, committees have been formed that decide how funds meant for Janajatis, Dalits or women are spent. These include leaders of political parties, of course, but also members of civil society organisations.

It is important not to overstate the efficacy of these measures. They are obviously at a very incipient stage. The point, however, is that democratic competition at the local level has been on the increase over the past five years. Many more people than ever before have gained access to local resources. And the political parties have played some role in encouraging this process. Now that the APMs have been dissolved, however, there is a danger that democratic participation in local government will once again become inhibited. By seeking to control corruption by reducing political party influence over local bodies, the MoLD has also inadvertently removed mechanisms through which marginalised sections of the population can access local resources.

The MoLD recognises this and is now trying to find a replacement for the APMs. But across the political class, there is a sense that it is only local elections that can establish stable local government and control corruption. The idea that local elections will offer a panacea for all ills, however, is also wrongheaded. It is true that an elected official will bear more responsibility and be more accountable than the unelected members of the APM. Local elections may well bring greater coherence to local government. But they will not by themselves be able to prevent the misappropriation of resources. Even if one political party gains power through elections, it will have to constantly negotiate with other locally prominent parties. In consonance with national trends, diverse power centres will emerge and there will be much greater competition for resources at the local level than existed previously. Without mechanisms for greater accountability and transparency, collusion between interests groups to siphon off funds will continue even after local elections are held.

The focus on APMs or on elections is too narrow. The more important task — but also much more difficult — is to encourage greater democratic participation in local government while devising and implementing mechanisms for greater transparency and accountability.

aditya.adhikari@gmail.com

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.