Wednesday, February 7, 2007

National

-Dr. Rabindra Khanal, Political Science Department, T.U

In a very general sense, the local government institutions are the basic units for people’s participation which is considered to be the prerequisite for democracy. Participation provides people the opportunity to choose what is best for them. In other words, people can be a part of the discussion which affects their life. But mere participation does not fulfill the objectives of democracy. People’s participation should be supported by power and authority so that they can discuss, decide, and implement decisions authoritatively. Power and authority provide legitimacy to make their participation meaningful. The aim of local governance is to empower local people and legitimize their decisions effectively. Decentralization, thus, becomes a fundamental feature of local governance to provide the power and authority to the local people which make their actions legitimate.

In the context of Nepal 's democracy, decentralization and authority need to be studied simultaneously. Local governance without decentralization is an extension of central bureaucracy when the local people have no real say in the local decision making process. Even when decentralization is practiced, it is limited to administrative circles. The authorities of the local bodies were selected by the center and not elected by the people. All decentralization schemes of the past failed mainly due to the non-involvement of the local people.

With the passage of local government and decentralization laws by the parliament, the people got empowered to take the decisions that affect their life at local levels. Their political rights are established through the method of election. They can make the plans and policies for their development. The structures of local bodies were set up and the power, authority, and space of their functions were defined. The subsequent bi-laws should determine the success or failure of local governance in Nepal .

Decentralization and Grassroots Democracy

Democracy at grassroots can thrive only when people have adequate power and authority in taking major decisions. They should be able to make the plans, implement them, and evaluate the implementation by themselves. But, to be able to do all these things, they need power and authority and be duly recognized by the higher authorities. In most democratic countries, people realize that power and authority need not be given from above, but can be derived from the people democratically. Decentralization, in this context, is a legitimate mechanism that can empower the local bodies and the people to function independently in implementing the fundamentals of democracy at grassroots. But, what is decentralization? A definition of decentralization commonly used is the one from Chemma and Rondinelli, which says:

... the transfer of planning, decision making or administrative authority from the central government to its field organizations, local administrative units, semi-autonomous and parastatal organizations, local governments, or non-governmental organizations.

This broad definition includes almost all the aspects including political, administrative, and economic decentralization. This definition, however, has focused more on vertical decentralization which is a corollary to the need of this study. At the same time, it also recognizes the role of non-governmental organizations in the decentralization process.

In development literature, vertical decentralization has been dealt with in three ways:

Deconcentration

Deconcentration can be defined as the transfer of power and function from the central level government organizations to their respective field level agencies enabling the latter to carry out their tasks efficiently and effectively. Kirsten says that deconcentration is the process of redistribution of administrative responsibilities within the central government, which might be used to consolidate the central government's power through field offices. For Maddick, deconcentration is “the delegation of authority adequate for the discharge of specified function to staff of a central department, who are situated outside the headquarters”. Rondinelli holds a similar view and states it “merely involves the shifting of workload from central government ministry headquarters to the staff located in the offices outside of the national capital”.

Deconcentration, however, does not allow the local units the freedom of decision making. The deconcentrated agencies need to get the consent of the central authority in making all kinds of decisions, but make it easier for the local people because they do not have to go to the center for everything. The relationship between the central and local units is based on the hierarchy and can contribute very little to the promotion of local democracy. In fact, the deconcentrated agencies are only the bureaucratic arms of the central government and do not actually help in strengthening local governance.

Delegation

Delegation implies transfer or creation of broad authority to plan and implement decisions concerning specific matters – a variety of activities within specific spatial boundaries transferred to an organization that is technically and administratively capable of carrying them out. Some authority and decision making power is delegated to local officials but the ultimate power remains with the central government and the delegated powers can be taken back by the center when it feels necessary. Besides, the local authorities can carry out only the specified functions assigned by the center. They must restrain themselves from autonomous policy-making.

Devolution

Devolution is the process of transferring power from the central government to a lower level. It increases the efficiency of the government in meeting the demands from special sections of a community which may also enjoy some degree of control over its interests. It highlights “the legal conferring of powers to discharge specified or residual functions upon formally constituted local authority”. “Devolution is generally understood as the most extensive form of decentralization involving, creating or strengthening independent levels and units of governments through direct assignment of decision-making responsibility”.

Privatization

Privatization is yet another form of decentralization. It is the act of reducing the role of government, or increasing the role of private sector, in an activity or in the ownership of assets. Privatization also encourages the involvement of private sector in state ownership and brings about efficiency and effectiveness in the management of national economy. It gives incentive to popular participation and enhances the overall development process.

Among the various types of decentralization, devolution is the best suited strategy for the promotion of democracy at grassroots. It strengthens the local units of the governments by providing full autonomy. It empowers them to take decisions independently from the center, implement them, and evaluate the performance on their own. It is politically significant as it provides an opportunity to the local people to participate effectively in local affairs. It legitimizes the local government institutions through elections and increases the popular control over their power and functions. In a way, it is subsidiary to democracy in the small areas where the local units can manage and execute their functions without intervention from the higher levels of government. Thus, devolution alone can fulfill the ambition of modern nation-states in empowering and involving people in the democratic governance of the state.

Objectives of Decentralization

Decentralization is an agreement between the central government and the local government institutions to reduce the dominating interests of the former upon the power and functions of the latter. It also aims at reducing poverty and inequality in many Third World countries. Since the tastes and preferences for public services vary among communities, welfare gains are achieved best by decentralizing the expenditure decisions to the level of government that best incorporates a community of common interests. Organization theory argues that decentralization improves accountability by clarifying the responsibilities of the distinct units of government, reducing the costs of constituent participation, and by increasing the likelihood that participation will influence policies.

However, two schools of thought are prevalent today in the study of decentralization. The first one is the liberal school of thought represented by Rondinelli, Cheema, and a line of donor agencies like the World Bank. It argues that decentralization is the strategy to control and improve the government performance. Popular empowerment is not the goal, though it is preferable. The liberals rationalize the government performance through privatization or the delegation of central function. The second is the radical school of thought which focuses on the people and is primarily concerned with political decentralization. People’s participation and mass empowerment is its primary goal. For the radicals, decentralization is both the means and the end. This school of thought is represented by such authors like David Slater.

The second school of thought relates decentralization closer to democracy and the strengthening of democratic process. Its emphasis on people’s participation and mass empowerment activates the citizen groups both in the political and developmental functions of the local level institutions of the government. Mass empowerment also helps in strengthening the civil society. Political decentralization prepares the local masses to exercise democracy at grassroots and helps in strengthening local government institutions through which they can fulfill their developmental aspirations. Thus, decentralization becomes a necessary element of local governance in the exercise of democracy at grassroots.

Excerpts from the author’s freshly published book on Local Self Governance-ed.