 |
|
| Kathmandu, Wednesday July 17, 2002 Shrawan 01, 2059. |
|
Grass-roots democracy
Uncertainty looms large over the election of
local bodies whose extended term came to an end on Tuesday. As it appears, bureaucrats
will be running the grass-roots election until the duly elected bodies will assume charge,
but the government is not confident enough to set the date of election in the prevailing
law and order situation. Local bodies are the bedrock of democracy. And the concept of
decentralisation is the key to democracy. Local bodies represent the democracy at the
grass-roots level with a range of objectives and mission to sort out local issues. They
may range from resolving quintessentially local problems to charting out local development
projects through the participation of locals and elected representatives.
Therefore, the government’s inability to
hold election on time will be considered a setback to the concept and practice of
grass-roots democracy. This is also a setback to the concept of de-centralization, an
inalienable feature of functioning and vibrant democracy. In fact, the care-taker
government headed by Sher Bahadur Deuba at least showed some last minute restraint by not
filling up around 14,000 vacant posts with the party loyalists. It would have been a crime
as well as a gross disrespect towards electorates’ rights. But it is equally
unjustifiable that the bureaucracy — an implementation wing of the local bodies
— has been asked to lead and run the grass-roots democracy. This cannot be an
acceptable proposition. But the government should bear in mind that handing over the
leadership to bureaucrats cannot be a permanent phenomenon. In all fairness, the
government, which has decided the dates to hold parliamentary elections in November,
should have at least indicated approximate timing for the local bodies’ election.
Notwithstanding what the government has done,
the local bodies cannot be wished away, nor can its election be permanently shelved. The
issue of grass-roots democracy and its strengthening would require a consensual approach,
especially in the present situation. All political parties including the main
opposition— CPN-UML—which controlled maximum number of seats in the local bodies
deserved to be taken into confidence before the government took such an extraordinary
decision. After all, bureaucrats entrusted with the responsibility to run these local
bodies will act as commanded by the government of the day, and the people’s
involvement in the local governments would be reduced to nil. The government or the ruling
party should not take the liberty of exploiting this vacuum just for its narrow political
gain at the cost of democracy at the grass-roots. In the situation, nothing but a
consensus or at least majority opinion alone can lead to a solution. In the given
situation, election is the only way to restore the local bodies or the grass-roots
democracy. |
