Local Governance
Devolution Of Power Essential

By Satish Gautam

NEPAL is ranked 129th among 169 odd nations in the world in the human development index published by UNDP in 2001. Nepal’s basic human development indicators are characteristics of a poor and underdeveloped country; very low literacy, low life expectancy at birth, low daily calorie intake, high fertility, high infant mortality, very low income and so on. Although several improvements are discernible in the trend, the current level of development lags far behind not only in the developed countries of the West but also neighboring countries like India and Sri Lanka. From all these facts, it is evident that in spite of the ‘development’ efforts of the past five decades, Nepal has not been able to achieve the desired economic growth. Rather, even to maintain the present level of development, Nepal has become overwhelmingly dependent on donors.

History

The advent of democracy in 1951 heralded a new era in Nepal’s development sector. In the autocratic Rana regime, the State was responsible mainly for maintaining law and order and collection of land revenue through vassals, the people were left on their own to fend for themselves. The rural communities expected very little from the state and undertook all the necessary development activities with their own resources. History is witness of community planned, designed, constructed and managed irrigation canals, trails, bridges, etc. of this era. After the revolution, the state, with donors’ backing, started promising the sky to the people. From national highways and international airports to village drinking water projects were constructed by the state. The people became mere spectators. As the Panchayat regime replaced the democratically elected government in 1960 with the promise of fast-track development, it was compelled to go even further.

Among others, 1960s saw the nationalisation of the forests. It was forbidden for the people to even go to the forests they had been using for generations. From plantation to management of the forests became state matter. Even minor decisions like where a drinking water tap should be located and which fields get irrigation facilities from which stream were decided by the bureaucrats.

The fall of the communist empire in the late 80s has put financial pressure to the traditional donor nations. The proverbial cheese needs to be shared by more and more of the destitutes of the world.Sustainability,people’s participation, local governance, etc, have become the catch phrases for prioritising recipient countries.

Lately, the first tentative steps towards correcting the situation are underway because of some public pressure and more hand twisting by donors. These days, politicians and bureaucrats say that the government cannot do everything and the people have to take over the responsibility of development themselves. However, in reality, the bureaucracy, politicians and professionals are apprehensive of ‘losing’ power to the rural people and are conniving to delay the devolution process. The oft-cited reasons against decentralization are lack of capable institutions at the local level, very low absorbing capacity of rural people, possibility of corruption and misappropriation of funds, etc. These arguments do not hold any substance, as rampant corruption at the central level and the achievements of the past fifty years are open for everyone to judge.

A host of donors have come forward to support the Nepalese people in strengthening democracy, promoting local governance, empowering women and marginalized section of the society, etc. Among others, UNDP is supporting the local authorities in 60 districts in participatory development efforts. This effort has been instrumental in upgrading the capabilities of the local elected bodies. The programme District Development Committees (DDCs) and Village Development Committees (VDCs) have largely internalised methodological approach to development and have enhanced self-confidence. This can also be discerned from the fact that VDCs with these programmes have better annual-budget expenditure records than most others.

Since the restoration of democracy in 1990, and particularly after the initiation of ‘Build your Village yourself’ programme in 1995, there are clear signs that the people and their local representatives are more involved in development activities. The provision of annual development budget of Rs. 500,000, has enhanced the role of the VDCs in planning and implementing small scale projects. However, the bulk of the bourse is still with the government and is spent with little regards to the people’s aspirations. The government bureaucracy is still oblivious of the people’s needs and still holds the belief that the state is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

It is high time for bureaucrats and politicians to take stock of the situation in the country, including insurgency, and initiate devolution of power honestly, building upon the achievements of UNDP supported programmes. It could easily hand over many roles and responsibilities along with the resources to the DDCs and VDCs. The experiences of UNDP funded Rural Energy Development Programme in the establishment of a Rural Energy Development Section within the DDC to look after all matters concerning energy in the district should be emulated by other sectors too. Bringing the district level offices of government line ministries dealing in health, education, irrigation, drinking water, postal services, agriculture, veterinary services, etc. under the DDCs would be the first step in the right direction. Gradually, all the relevant sectors have to be further devolved to the VDCs and community based organisations.

The rampant absenteeism prevalent in the government owned or supported organization in rural areas could easily be controlled by devolving the power to ‘hire and fire’ to the people who are directly affected by these services. A VDC could easily take up the operation and management of schools, health posts, family planning related activities, rural energy, agriculture and veterinary services, postal services, drinking water and small scale irrigation projects, village trails and trail bridges, community forestry related activities, etc. Transferring not only the rights to undertake these and other similar activities but also the financial resources and human power to the VDCs will streamline development activities and avoid duplication and overlaps. Villagers can easily access VDC leaders compared to parliamentarians and ministers. Moreover, experience shows that VDC level representatives respond to the community’s needs more readily than the ones at the upper tiers of establishment.

Furthermore, with the right to ‘hire and fire’ personnel to undertake development activities reserved to the VDCs, not only rampant absenteeism prevalent in government offices curbed and better services provided to the general public but also thousands of new jobs will be created at the grassroots. This will address the unemployment and underemployment in the rural areas and stem the out flow of rural youths. The nation is at a juncture where it has to choose between two distinct roads ahead. One is the path of devolution of the power to the peripheries and empowerment of the people. The bureaucrats and the professionals in Kathmandu might dread traversing the path that will ultimately spoil their party and wreck havoc to their self-indulgent ways. However, the other choice is to continue the weak system and wait for the catastrophe.

Other Stories

• For ‘True Democracy’ In South Asia