Restructuring Of Local Bodies for Full Devolution
By Krishna Man Pradhan
Background : The local self-governance system is an important aspect of democracy. In the local self-governance system, the legally established local bodies work for the development of particular region by seeking people’s participation in planning, operation, making decision on things that affect people’s daily needs and livelihood, as well as promote local leadership. It is expected that such governments are equipped with adequate authority, and are capable of undertaking people’s responsibilities, inspire people-oriented development and deliver quick and efficient service. Furthermore, the structure of the local bodies has to be viable and scientific in order to put into practice its desired goals.
Currently, there is neither functional nor resource freedom for the local bodies. The center determines the roles and responsibilities, deploys its own staffs and asks the local bodies to conduct prescribed duties. Likewise, the local bodies are not allowed to formulate their local need-specific jobs and do not reflect local diversity in terms of religion, caste, tribe, language etc. The representation system is also much generalized and does not address the concerns nor is able to adequately represent the minority. The provision of population-based process of providing expenditure has also helped in increasing the gap because the rural and outlying region will never get adequate attention.
The devolution, in true sense, means the local bodies will not be under the direct control of center because they will be constituted and governed by separate legislative arrangement; they are able to exercise their powers and perform public functions according to geographical boundaries specified by the Act; they enjoy corporate status, are free to collect and mobilize resources; and they will be operated by the elected representatives where local citizens will have definite access in decision-making and service-delivery.
Present Situation
At present, there are five development regions, 14 zones, 75 DDCs, 58 municipalities (Including one Municipal corporation and three sub municipal corporation) and 3913 VDCs in the country. The number of local bodies is not viable from the perspectives of political, economical, service-delivery and inclusiveness standpoint. For service delivery to be effective and accessible, the local bodies have to be powerful and resource-rich. This they are not in our case. Carrying out development through the current structure of local bodies only results in scattering of scarce resource and has not given good results.
Thus, they are politically unmanageable and developmentally inefficient. Although the number of such local institutions is high, they do not have proportionate infrastructure, buildings, human resource or other facilities. The service they are currently delivering is neither need-based nor easily accessible.
Currently, in many VDCs and DDCs there are no secretaries and LDOs. Even in those VDCs and DDCs where they are working, they have not been found to be motivated for the cause of local development due to various reasons including their lack of legal knowledge, lack of environment conducive to development and lack of people's faith in them.
After one and a half decade since the promulgation of the Constitution, for Nepal it is now time to reflect upon its policies and gauge their effectiveness. Apparently, the local bodies, for various reasons, have not been able to deliver services and cater to the development needs of local people as desired. And, as experts have said, one of the most import reasons for their failure is the very nature of their structure.
Experts' Opinion
Noted decentralization experts, sociologists and economists have forwarded the need to reshuffle the current structure of the local bodies with the sole purpose of tailoring them to be able to deliver need-based service and development.
Various experts have put forth various opinions in this regard. While some have recommended the reduction in numbers of the local bodies, others have called for federal structure. But the bottom line is that everybody feels the current structure is no longer feasible. Pertinent viewpoints of some eminent experts are given below:
Dr. Alok K. Bohara, Professor at the University of New Mexico , in his paper titled "Nepal Needs Federalism to Achieve Much Needed Political Decentralization" and published in May 2002, has proposed "a federal system of government to break the concentration of political and economic power and to devolve it across the Nepali landscape." Dr. Chaitanya Mishra, a noted sociologist, has proposed for restructuring the local bodies by putting political workers in the center. He suggests that one political worker could be assigned to deliver service to 25-30 households. Ms. Rakshya Basyal, a woman activist, has advised to take serious attention of the fact that women comprise half of the total population in the country. Basyal suggests that the structure of local bodies be such that there will be at least 35 percent representation by women. She also emphasizes the need to bring women to key decision-making positions in the local bodies. Shankar Pokharel, a senior communist leader, has proposed that the local bodies should be restructured in such a manner as to manage the current conflict – that is by giving more power to the local people. Dr. Harka Gurung, eminent development expert, has said that the current structure of the local bodies should be reduced and only 25 districts be formed so as to reduce expenditure and make each of the district units financially viable. He compares the sizes and population of Indian local body units and proposes similar change in Nepal . From the common agenda of political parties to Forward Looking Reforms Agenda presented by His Majesty’s Government during previous peace talks with the Maoists, the issue of effective devolution – which would require scientific restructuring – assumes high priority. The concept paper prepared by the Association of District Development Committees of Nepal (ADDCN), Municipal Association of Nepal (MuAN) and National Association of Village Development Committees of Nepal (NAVIN) also underscores the need to have clear provisions for ensuring proper representation and participation of peoples from different castes, creeds, gender and class in the local bodies and the need to make such bodies effective and accountable. As such, the restructuring of local bodies is going to become inevitable if Nepal is to move forward in the path of democratization and decentralization.
Legal Policy
One needs to examine the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990 and the Local Self Governance Act (LSGA) 1999 to look into the existing legal provisions on local bodies' structure. The Constitution 1990 does not state the number of local bodies except 205 constituencies (for the election of House of Representatives) in Article 45 (1). On the other had, the LSGA, too, does not speak in detail about the numbers. But it does mention that each VDC should have 9 wards (Section 5). Likewise, it has stated that each municipality should have at least 9 wards (Section 73). In case of districts, it states that each district should have 9 –17 areas (Section 171). The LSGA also mentions that the number of VDCs and municipalities can be changed as per need. Section 170 of LSGA further states that the number of districts should be as per the Local Administration Act 1971.
Government Initiatives
The government has already indicated its willingness to go for full-fledged devolution. Recently, the National Planning Commission (NPC) approved the implementation of sectoral devolution strategy in 18 districts. The Ministry of Local Development has also shared the document prepared by the Rural Development Foundation (on Sectoral Devolution Strategy) with all the line ministries. The civil society, local body associations and donor community, have always supported the need to implement full sectoral devolution.
Recommendations
In the backdrop of current conflict, it has become imperative to address various voices being raised for effective devolution and redistribution of authority for truly self-governing units of local bodies. Therefore, proper restructuring of local bodies at this point of time will, essentially, go a long way in resolving some underlying causes of current conflict as well. At present, the country is waiting for local as well as general elections. And both the government as well as the conflicting party has been indicating that they would support scientific restructuring of the local bodies. So, this is the right time to exercise and find out what sort of restructuring would be most appropriate so that the country can have scientific and efficient local bodies after coming election.
It is widely accepted that the current structure of the local bodies needs change. But any such change or restructuring would have to take into account following points.
Viable Unit: The local body units must be viable politically, physically, resource-wise, manpower-wise. Their size must be appropriate and they must be able to formulate local need-based plans on their own.
Financial Aspect: Local bodies should not feel the financial constraints while formulating plans and implementing them. There should be an environment whereupon the local bodies can easily avail of necessary resources.
Representation: Appropriate number of representatives of women, disadvantaged group, indigenous and backward castes should be included in administration and politics in accordance with the concept of inclusive democracy.
Efficient Service delivery: The local bodies should be restructured to ensure accessible, effective and accountable delivery of service.
Autonomy in Assessing Development Needs: The local bodies should be able to identify the local development needs, formulate plans to carry out such development and implement them to the satisfaction of the local population.
In conclusion, in order to make appropriate restructuring to address the above-mentioned points, the government, civil society, local body associations and donors need to jointly undertake a program to suggest the final and appropriate method of restructuring.
(Mr. Pradhan is the President, Rural Development Foundation. He can be contacted at kmprdf@mail.com.np)
