Power to the People
Lal Babu Yadav, Political Science, Patan Multiple Campus

"Everybody speaks of people's participation. A bureaucrat going into a rural area in his brand new imported jeep and after having a few words with village people comes back to his office and speaks jubilantly of people's participation in the planning. That is just poppycock". A.T. Ariyatne

Even after the unification of Nepal by Prithvi Narayan Shah the political development process has been rather slow. For almost eight decades until 1846, the King was absolute sovereign and successive Kings exercised their authority directly without any semblance of opposition.. In 1846 political power was transferred from the King to Rana Prime ministers. The political authority was effectively centralised and remained under absolute control of the family oligarchy of hereditary Rana Prime minister until 1950. Political parties, media, and independent judiciary etc were fundamentally missing as the command from their mouth hukum-was the law. But Ranas were also modernizers who introduced the annual review system pajani, written legal code Mulki Ain 1854, schools for education, road transport, and hydropower which made some positive effect of long-range significance. Socially also, they abolished slavery and sati system

The Nepalese spurt with political democratic development, however, began only after the political movement of 1950. Rana Prime minister Padma Shumsher wanted to introduce a written constitution but he could not succeed. The Interim Constitution of Nepal Act 1951 was the first attempt towards separation of power and check-and-balance mechanism together with the potential to evolve democratic governance accountable to the people. The constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1959 was another progressive attempt in this direction. The House of Representatives promised to create an egalitarian society based on horizontal and vertical devolution of power and authority. Fundamental rights were guaranteed and all forms of discrimination in social life were regarded illegal. Appointments to public services were made by Public Service Commission-PSC- and the cabinet was responsible to the Lower House and it exercised executive power in the name of King. The sovereignty as well as the residual powers was vested in the King. However, the 1950s were characterised by political instability caused by inter and intra-party feuds. The intensification of these activities inspired King Mahendra to abolish the elected parliamentary system in 1960 and introduce party less Panchayat polity under a new constitution in 1962. The major political instruments formulated during the panchayat era were* Village, Town, District and Zonal Panchayat Acts and Rules* Decentralisation Plan 1965* Local Administration Acts in 1965 and 1971* District Administration Plan 1974* Integrated Panchayat Development Design 1978* Decentralisation Act 1982 and decentralisation working procedure rules 1984.

The all too frequent structural innovations and formation of various high level decentralisation commissions in addition to the party less nature of panchayat itself created political barriers for decentralisation in the real sense. The citizen's involvement in national politics was conceived only after the political referendum held in 1981. The post referendum election on the basis of adult franchise increased political participation of the people, but there were no political institutions to regulate their behaviour. This reflected a sign of political decay, which ultimately led to the movement of 1990 that overthrew the panchayat system and established a multiparty polity in the country.

Concept of Decenralization: Decentralisation means transfer of power, authority and responsibilities from the central authority to local bodies. It provides a search for popular power where citizens can participate in the planning, administration and control of vital decisions that affect their everyday lives. It provides options for the people to organise themselves for attaining political and economic development. Decentralisation is closely related to strengthening of democratic system whereby people can enhance their participation on local level and promote community development. Decentralised institutions have a number of advantages, for instance: * Decentralised institutions are more flexible than the centralised ones; they can respond quickly to changing circumstances and popular needs and aspirations; * Decentralised institutions are more effective in decision making and delivery of services; * Decentralise institutions are far more innovative, and * Decentralised institutions generate high moral, more commitment and greater productivity.

The concept of decentralisation-including de-concentration of decision making, devolution of power, authority, and responsibility from higher bodies to the local self-government institutions—is very important in order to give people adequate opportunities to participate in the governance and development process.

Decentralisation in the present context: The current decentralisation drive is a paradigm shift from the pre-emptory command, hukumi shasan, of Shah kings to the sovereignty of people. Nepal has had a long history of authoritarian rule where a few families in Kathmandu through local zamindars-landlords- civil service, police, and army have exercised political powers. Only after 1990, decentralised institutional structures were established for economic development of the nation, and people's participation in the governance and development were actively encouraged.

Second, the latest decentralisation moves have also attempted to modify and replace all the statutes in order to set up an extensive framework for decentralised planning and local governance. The country is administratively divided into 14 zones, 75 districts, numerous ilakas, 3912 Village Development Committees and 58 municipalities. The power sharing between the centre and local units has become difficult due to state control over the lower units. Although the focus was such that people's representatives from the lowest level could effect their role and take part in the decisions being made, the reality was just the opposite. The panchayat system excluded the participation of 'non-panchas' and cultivated the politics of patronage. The political bodies like Back to the Village National Campaign and Panchayat Policy and Investigation committee were created to control politics. The current decentralisation process tries to revert this by giving autonomy to the local government institutions. In article 25 of its preamble, the constitution has stated the notion of decentralisation whereby people can participate in the governance and development of the nation. In accordance with it the National Planning Commission in its approach paper to the Eighth plan-1992-1997, has formulated a policy for decentralisation in Nepal. It mentions that decentralisation will eliminate all types of political inequality which excludes important parts of population from effective participation in the political process as well as in the development of the country. The Ninth Plan-1998-2002-has highlighted the adequacy for good governance by linking politics to the development of nation. Although exclusive citizenship is not defined for eventual empowerment of people, and is only confined to the right to vote, sharing the sovereignty of the nation effectively still remains the goal. The approach paper promises for: * Empowerment of local units through decentralisation * Formation and activisation of a high powered committee involving the representatives of Ministry of General Administration, PSC, and the University; * Establishment of good governance by means of making the public administration people-oriented, transparent, accountable and credible;* Adequate mobilisation and use of financial, human, and physical resources in order to implement project management as well to enforce the accountability of organisation and authority; * Structural co-ordination among ministries and agencies for development activities; * Enhancement of morale, efficiency and accountability of development administration by according it adequate authority and responsibility; * Proper handling of grassroots grievances;* Striking a balance between the roles of central government and local institutions by means of administrative management and decentralisation.

The planning process under the previous regime is criticised for paying little attention to people's participation and socio-economic needs of development projects. This trend seems to continue. The main reason is that the political change in the country has not changed the political culture and the power sharing by the people.

On February 13, 1995, the UML minority government brought out Build Our Village Ourselves-BOVO- program with the idea of promoting local government through local resources without central government intervention. In order to promote self-reliance, it fostered real development planning and provided 70 percent of revenues to be utilized by the villagers themselves. Each VDC was given an amount of Rs. 3,00,000 that was increased to 5,00,000. Eventually, the coalition government of NC, RPP and Sadbhavana did not oppose the devolution of economic power to local level by the UML regime. Yet the NC led coalition government introduced Village Development and self-reliance Program-VDSP- with the slogan: Power to the village and Development through People's Participation-PVDPP- that was essentially the same program with a different name. This, in fact, gave some form of continuity to the old program.

The program has been able to generate wide participatory development process including a massive mobilisation of local authority. The DDCs that possess monitoring and evaluating power, can stop the implementation if they find that the funds are being misused by the VDCs. But, what would happen when despite noble mission, good vision, relevant context, and ample resources, one political party controls the VDC authorities while the DDC is overpowered by another and hence are at a point of confrontation? Conflict resolution mechanism at the village level is poor and, therefore, the local politicians refer many conflicts of local nature to their political bosses.

It is still undecided whether local units of self-governance are political units or development units. Depoliticisation of development might be achievable if people's representatives are insulated from the social feedback and if resistance to the new pattern of property ownership is overcome by proper laws. Participatory democracy tends to clash with depoliticised development and, far from advancing such process, conceals the ideological nature of development. Whom does it serve? What is the cost? How? And in what way? Depoliticised development, in this sense, is prone to paternalistic bias, removed from the lives and hopes of ordinary people and therefore antithetical to autonomous participation from below a development that is professional but lacks the control of citizens and loses the democratic attributes of legitimacy, credibility, transparency and accountability necessary to make development self-reliant and sustainable.

Local Self-Government and women: Women's confinement to private realm of biological reproduction and family responsibilities has retreated them from the public sphere. In this context one might believe that asserting their rights and sharing equal responsibilities in the society are the major steps to their empowerment process. This retreat has facilitated the repudiation of their access to the means of production and consequently, made them unable to inch toward greater freedom and equity. Women have less access than men, in power resource opportunities and decision-making. Women suffer from higher rates of malnutrition and have less property rights than men. The laws pertaining to marital status, divorce unwanted pregnancy and in matters of decision-making are equally biased against women. In fact, economic or social development is not possible without decentralisation and creation of pluralistic decision making structures, where men and women can equally compete for and participate in making fundamental decisions of their private and public concern. One positive aspect of the decentralisation bill in the parliament is that it prefers to create an 'enabling environment' for the participation of women in the primary units of self-governance. As per the spirit of the bill, the Royal Ordinance of 1997 provisioned to include at least one woman in the ward assembly election compulsorily. One weakness of this provision is that owing to demobilised nature of society, women candidates were simply not available in many wards. And in some cases women were reluctant to become candidates due to socio-cultural reasons.

Conclusion: The success of local self-government lies on genuine devolution of power to the people whereby they can share the sovereignty of the nation. Financial autonomy of VDCs and municipalities is a precondition to apply legal framework in practice. In principle, seventy percent of the expenditure of local government should come from their own sources and the rest is to be met by grant assistance from the central government. Because of a paucity of fund among the VDCs of hilly and mountainous regions, government, donor agencies and INGOs themselves undertake large proportion of development activities. A majority of VDCs can generate only about ten percent of the resources required. The second aspect of autonomy is the powers exercised by the local government. Local institutions have some powers in relation to making laws, raising revenue, spending money, recruiting personnel and developing their skills. Yet, the lack of their own practical experience and resources, organisation and management skills inhibit them in taking initiative. Third, the major concerns of a local self-government are accounting and auditing of expenditure. Corruptions in the distribution of resources as well as party factionalism have impeded the performance of the local authorities.

Many development experts doubt whether DDC can play the role of development unit. Because of its intermediary position, critics suspect that DDCs would tend to look upwards than being accountable downwards to the people who elect them. Various cross cutting loyalties of DDC members to their parties, higher authorities, INGOs and of course the people often put them at crossroads. It would be advisable to make VDCs and municipalities the direct bases of development because they can muster popular legitimacy and be accountable to the people. Also, it is here that the people can directly participate in and influence the decisions made for them. 

Headline | National | 5 Question | 2nd Impression | International