Oped»
Local guardian
JUN 30 -
Recently Village Develo-pment Committee (VDC) secretaries across the country have been resigning en masse, citing growing insecurity to their lives. This is a worrying trend as the country is already without elected representatives at the local level. In this situation, the absence of VDC secretaries will imply gradual withdrawal of state at the local level. The local government bodies are the state’s representatives at the grassroots level and act as important link between the state and the citizens. They are responsible for providing essential services to citizens, as is the case with local government officials with whom the citizens interact on a daily basis. Hence the state needs to have strong presence at the local level, which will also help boost its legitimacy.
But it is unfortunate that the state is unable to provide security for its own representatives. This is a pointer at how effective the state is. While the presence of effective local government bodies boosts the legitimacy of the state, this all important issue doesn’t seem to have bothered successive governments. The Madhav Kumar Nepal-led government too was not able to impose its writ beyond Singha Durbar. The growing presence of the armed non-state actors is a formidable challenge before the state and it needs to demonstrate considerable will to tackle it. But given the domination of the capital-centric politics, it looks unlikely that the issue will be resolved any time soon. It means that this state of affairs will be prolonged on the pretext of ‘transitional phase’. However, it is in this very transitional period that the government needs to assert itself, as the possibility of various elements taking advantage of the fluid political situation and thereby undermining the writ of the government in particular and state as a whole is high.
However, the apathy of the central government towards the concerns of local governments is not new. In fact, in the last two decades local bodies have never been allowed to act independently. In November 1992 then-Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala government acting on the advise of the taskforce formed for administrative reform decided to remove 3,000 bureaucrats by introducing the age limitation of 58 years or 30 years of service. Though the process was legal, it was widely believed that the purpose of the purge was to rid the bureaucracy of the sympathisers of the old regime. While regime change invariably tend to victimise those belonging to the old regime, it is nonetheless unfortunate that the axe tends to fall on the high-ranking members of bureaucracy and the security apparatus, who are driven out for non-cooperation with the new regime. This has meant that the bureaucracy is made to toe the political line of the party in power. Further, Nepali politicians always like local government body officials to work in the interest of their party.
That may be a reason why Nuwakot district had 20 Chief District Officers in a span of 18 years starting 1990. Such constant change of government officials at the local level is also detrimental for the growth of democracy, as such frequent changes of local body officials hinders the institutionalisation of democracy at the grassroots level. In order for the democracy to take root it is important that power is devolved to the local level and citizens feel that they have a stake in the process of nation building. However, Nepali experience shows that the central government has had undue influence in local affairs, as the local government have had to rely on centre for resources. In the 1990s the provision of allowing the parliamentarians to spend one million rupees in their constituencies further brought the centre into the sphere of local bodies. It is important to note that successive governments post 1990 have tried to curtail the powers of local authorities instead of empowering them, a practice that continues till date, as the country has been without elected representatives for a long period of time. Though the Local Self Governance Act of 1999 was hailed as a genuine exercise in devolution of power, in reality it did not empower the local authorities to the desired extent, as they were still dependent on the centre for funds. And the allocation of resources was uneven, favouring the constituencies of the ministers concerned.
The over-reliance on the centre continues to this day. While the country is preparing to embrace federalism, it is all the more important that the local government bodies are empowered if the power is to be devolved in real sense of the term. But unless people get a chance to elect their local representatives, it is important the state is able to make its presence felt throughout the country by creating a conducive environment for local level bodies to function effectively.
(Kharel is with the Post’s Op-ed team)
Pranab Kharel
pranabkharel@gmail.com
Posted on: 2010-07-01 08:07
Headlines
Advertisements
