Decentralising Nepal
Currently, there are about 170 countries under the unitary system and 26 that have adopted the federal system. Traditionally, it is believed that state governments of countries under the federal system have more power and autonomy than local units, whereas in the unitary system, power is almost entirely centralised. These definitions, however, are no longer as stringent, for most unitary states in the world have begun providing legislative, executive, judiciary, financial and administrative powers to sub-national levels constitutionally and many federal states.
Today, states under both federal and unitary systems have mixed characteristics. Countries like England, China, Philippines and Tanzania with the unitary system have formed state structures successfully and devolved more power to local provinces than federal states such as India and Australia. Other examples are Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Macedonia, which are among the most developed countries in the world despite adopting the unitary state system.
Countries internalising decentralisation as a Directive Principle of state policy envisage local governments as an integral part of the modern state system. They do not deny the fact that the success of democracy is attributed to sharing power and authority at the local level.
The Nepali experience deals with decentralised local self-governance practices amidst the several political situations that have existed. During the authoritarian regimes, it was a matter of show to safeguard the interests of the authority, treating decentralisation as a mere appendage of the centre. From 1990 onwards, the Local Self-Governance Act 1999 and Regulation emphasised vertical and horizontal decentralisation to consolidate the governing capacities of local bodies, but the ambiguity as well as overlapping in functions and duties between central and local agencies interrupted the smooth institutionalisation of local democratic practices despite the devolution of power.
In connection with the underdevelopment of decentralisation in Nepal, Professor Lok Raj Baral argues that despite various commissions formed and declarations made for a decentralised power structure, Nepal’s traditional base of power-the authoritarian culture or Hokum Pramangi militated against the spirit of decentralisation of power. Baral provides examples of King Mahendra’s December 1960 coup and the party-less regime innovated by him for the legitimacy of his direct rule, which contradicted his commitment for ‘decentralised democracy’. He also mentions the Jana Andolan I (1990) that failed to make a dent in the traditional power structure as the palace continued to wield real power. The Local Governance Act implemented in 1990 by the multi-party regime for Baral was not substantially different from the decentralised schemes introduced during the pre-movement regime either.
Apparently, both the centralised unitary pattern of the Nepali state and the mono-institutional culture of ruling elites hampered full-fledged democracy at the local level. Janaandolan II on the other hand, directed a political way to replace the authoritarian regime to concretise people’s sovereignty and authority.
Local democracy and decentralisation refer to meaningful participation of the local people in the domains of planning and decision making in the state’s political framework. Decentralisation is deemed a democratic reform, which seeks to transfer political, administrative, financial and planning authority from the centre to the local government councils.
Effective local governance requires decentralisation of two types: vertical decentralisation or transfer of authority, functions, responsibilities, and resources from the central government to local governments; and horizontal decentralisation -the empowerment of local communities to determine, manage and implement their policies.
The CA Committee on ‘State Restructuring and Distribution of State Powers’ has proposed 14 provinces on the basis of identities and abilities. It is yet to seek consensus on this. Additionally, it has pushed forward the proposal of Autonomous Area, Protected Area and Special Area parallel to the local bodies under Special Structures. As there is tremendous confusion over ambiguity on rights and the roles and accountabilities between local bodies, local governments must be designed alone with more consideration for inclusive and proportionate representation of different caste and ethnic groups.
In Nepal, there are approximately 300 market centres including small towns and municipalities. On the ground, the creation of 300 municipalities or municipal governments could be more practicable. 3915 Village Development Committees (VDCs) are better reduced to 700 Village Governments on the basis of administrative and geographical proximity, majority of caste, ethnic and linguistic settlements, shared watershed, availability of natural resources, infrastructures, the possibility of local economic development and access to service.
Local governments should have rights on taxation, inter-governmental fiscal transfer and distribution of revenues. Fiscal resources should be made available to local governments while devolving functional rights and duties. A constitutional provision of providing ‘equalisation grants’ to local governments should also be provisioned on the basis of the Human Development Index. As the local self-governments are constitutional parts of the federal system, suggestions on behalf of them should be mandatory in terms of policy formulation and distribution of fiscal resources.
In the Nepal’s context, there are three models of local governance being discussed. The first deals with two tiers proposing the creation of 50 to 75 District Councils. The second comprises of District Governments (one tier) ranging from rural to urban wards within the district. The third suggests only one tier to divide Nepal into 200 to 300 Municipalities and 600 to 800 Village Councils. As the prevailing practice of local governance in Nepal has unnecessary hierarchy and overlapping among the DDCs, VDCs and municipalities, the one tier system will reverse the weaknesses of local governance.
Since 2002, local bodies have yet to be filled with elected representatives. This vacuum has paralysed development and administration. Nepal is being initiated into a federal system of governance and in order to flourish cultural pluralism of Nepali society at the primary venues of local democracy, more autonomy must be guaranteed to the local level. The CA Committee on ‘State Restructuring and Distribution of State Powers’ has proposed the right of provinces on local resources. This threatens the autonomy of local governments and will cause a reliance on the centre
and provinces. Local governments should be given rights and accountability on management and mobilisation of local resources to determine their destiny.
BK is a researcher at Nepal Center for Contemporary Studies (NCCS)
Posted on: 2011-07-01 09:14
Post Your Comment
Today's Paper
The Kantipur in Print
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
Abin
All of them discussed the issue. The result was the same...and we have committed to continue discussions on the issue till midnight.
ADVERTISEMENTS
OUR PUBLICATION :
