Forum (Spotlight Weekly)

“Elected Representatives Are More Enthusiastic To Do New Things In Their Areas”

— Sanjaya Adhikary

SANJAYA ADHIKARY, National Program Advisor of the LGP/PDDP, has more than five years of experiences of managing decentralization related programs. Following the lapse of more than one and half years the government has appointed leadership at the DDCs, Municipalities and VDCs level. Adhikary spoke to SPOTLIGHT on various issues. Excerpts:

How do you see the appointment of chairperson and members at the local bodies in the context of decentralization efforts? Will it help to run the development programs in the rural areas than earlier?

Under the local bodies run by the bureaucrats, the Local Development Officers (LDOs) were, due to the absence of local democratic governance, not only implementers of local development programs but also the decision-makers. Since the LDOs are not elected, they are not mandated to be directly accountable to the rural populace. With the nomination of the new DDC chairperson and vice-chairperson, the situation, under the present context, appears to be better and it will help if and only if service delivery can be improved at the most needy areas. It should, however, be a temporary arrangement and local elections should be held soon.

Since the government has said that this is a temporary phenomenon, how do you think will other development partners respond to it?

The government has said that this is a temporary phenomenon and it will hold local elections soon. But the key question is how "soon" is that soon. Does the state have the luxury to wait till the point of no return! Looking at the country’s situation, one does not tend to believe that soon is will be too soon. A year ago, the Government expressed similar commitment but the local bodies are still without their elected representatives. I think, the role of the development partners, in this critical juncture, is to support development efforts at the local level by taking proactive development response in the most needy areas while advocating for the need of democratic governance mechanisms and processes.

You have been working with the local bodies for a long time. How do you find differences in working with elected representatives, civil servants and nominated representatives?

There are major differences in working with them. By definition, democratically elected representatives are accountable to the people and they have to invariably listen to the voices and development priorities of their constituents. When oriented effectively, I have experienced that, they are more enthusiastic to undertake meaningful development initiatives. They are more concerned to opening avenues for positive change in the lives of local people. Since the future of elected representatives is determined by their voters, they would like to see that they win hearts and minds of the local people through responsive development work and thereby get reelected. Working with bureaucrats mean that they are accountable to their higher officers rather than to the people that they intend to serve.

Don’t you think the nominated representatives can bring certain change?

The nominated representatives certainly can bring changes and deliver improvements to services through greater citizen participation. Since they are also locals they know the local situation and they can get the development moving at the grassroots. More importantly, they can take this situation as the challenge of their lifetime and demonstrate what they are capable of doing.

At a time when the situation is deteriorating in the village level, how does your organization implement the programs?

The on-going conflict has adversely affected effective implementation and monitoring of local development programs and the pace of development has indeed reduced. At the same time, the conflict has also opened new avenues for development thinking and practice. There is now a heightened understanding on the part of many development practitioners to design and implement conflict sensitive local development programs that can provide benefits to underprivileged rural poor. For that to happen, the local development programs have to retuned to working "on conflict" and not ignore conflict. PDDP/LGP has been reoriented towards "do not harm approach" to maximize "connectors" and minimize "dividers". A total of 100 new VDCs have been added in the remote districts of the Mid and Far-west regions to squarely address some of key issues of conflict.

Don’t you feel difficulties in implementing the programs?

There are, of course, many challenges to effectively implement the programs at the local level. But the program is more driven by the earnest commitment of our local stakeholders and of the mobilized communities to take development into their own hands. Achievements made and experiences gained by the program in the sixty districts have enabled the program to face the challenges positively and move development process forward.

What types of problem are you facing?

Well, the greatest problem is the fear from the possibility of the impending attack. This has resulted in low mobility of local staff in the conflict-affected areas, which has resulted in reduced monitoring of program-supported activities. Moreover, the reluctance of professional bureaucrats to work in the remote parts of the country is well known. While the greatest need for development response is in the conflict sensitive areas, the institutional and human resource environment is not conducive there. It is an unfortunate situation.

Do you have any new programs for DDCs?

The program has been supporting to enhance institutional and management capacities of DDCs for more than five years now. The increased capacities have enabled the DDCs to be more responsive towards their mandates and also be accountable to their rural population. In the absence of locally representatives in the DDCs, the program has been consolidating its achievements and focused on system maintenance of DDCs rather than on newer activities.

You have been running one of the successful participatory development programs for the decentralization and poverty alleviation in the rural areas. How is it functioning right now?

The program has been guided by a three-pronged approach to participatory and people-centered local development. First, shifting decision-making closer to the poor communities by devolving authorities to local bodies helps poverty reduction as long as resources and capacity building accompany new responsibilities. But that is only one third of the package. The other, which is very important, is mobilizing the poor communities to organize themselves into self-governing local institutions to advance their interests, prioritize their development needs, access development resources and held local bodies accountable.

How does your program help to upgrade the capacity of local bodies?

Well, the program has come a long way in capacity building of the local bodies. While capacity building package initially consisted mainly of planning and monitoring tools and information systems, the program now uses a "business model" to enhance capacity of local bodies. The model has seven components consisting of strategic management, information management system, working processes, organization and culture, human resource development, financial management, and coordination and linkages. I see a significant change in how many DDCs now manage their mandated functions and services with increased effectiveness and efficiencies when compared to before - say five years ago. It is irony that while they have now the improved systems, tools, processes and experiences in place what they don't have is the democratic political/institutional set up at the district level to make greater use of the developed tools for improved service delivery. I hope our leaders realize this soon and re-institute democratic governance processes.