National Seminar on
Strengthening Decentralization and Good Governance in Nepal
Organized by
POLSAN in cooperation with FES

April 21, Kathmandu.

A one-day seminar was organized by the Political Science Association of Nepal in Kathmandu on April 21 to discuss the various aspects of decentralization and its implementation in Nepal. Participants made their contribution through theoretical advice and practical experience garnered in the respective fields of their expertise. Six papers were presented during the course of the day in two different sessions. Each three-paper session had its own floor discussion period. An opening ceremony preceded the working sessions where prominent politicians made their viewpoints known about decentralization and the state of governance in the Kingdom. Prof. Shyam Kishor Singh had welcomed the participants and Dr. Shastra Datta Pant had highlighted the programme of the day.

The chief guest at the opening session, Opposition leader and the general secretary of Communist Party of Nepal Madhav Kumar Nepal, said that in spite of the increasing debate about decentralization of government, political units and administrative units, it appears that decentralization has only been successful in decentralizing corruption. "The government secretaries might have been corrupt in the past but now even the DDC chairman or mayor wants to be corrupt as well." Nepal said that good governance should therefore precede decentralization. "We have not been acting responsibly, there is no monitoring and evaluation etc. and impunity is fostering. Therefore, we need to strengthen institution building to eradicate the malaise in governance.

The opposition leader had his prescription for good governance. He said, "I stress participation of the people especially those left out or marginalized by the system. Autonomy and participation are necessary. The only prerequisite is proper monitoring and evaluation.

"Six issues need to attract enough attention for democracy to be proper," he went on. "Dalits, the backward janjatis, women, those living below the poverty line and Tarai and rural issues need to be brought to the mainstream. The centre should take up the responsibility for evaluation and monitoring.

"Will a federal system solve the Nepalese problem," he asked? "If we look at the Bihar example, there is not much hope in federalism." He discussed at some length on the need for partisan politics in local governance, unlike many commentators who were against the idea. "Non-political local governance units did not help much in the 30 years of Panchayat. In the absence of politics, the public space is taken up by individualism, religion and the like. So politics is needed. When we were in power, we helped all party consensus to be institutionalized for local development. We also developed a system to disperse resources to the different regions.

"But there is a kind of anarchy at the moment," Nepal said. "There are some VDCs or municipalities that may have done well, but what have the others been doing? Instead of acting to remedy the situation we blame politics.
"Panchayat had local governance provisions in the constitution. In multiparty democracy, the interim prime minister, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai had said that local governance would be a matter for the elected government to take up. It has been 12 years since the elected government came but local governance has not yet made it to the constitution. So, let us first, take care of good governance, then devise a Nepal-specific decentralization scheme that takes into consideration the Nepalese diversities. For example, can linguistic issues be incorporated, although Nepali has to be given its due status?"

Former speaker Ram Chandra Poudel of the Nepali Congress
Democracy is said to be a representative system, but still popular participation is lacking in Nepal. To make it a more participatory system, decentralization has been taken as an apt medium. Progress was being made during the tenure of the first democratically elected government in 1960, but the government did not last long. Later during the Panchayat rule, attempts were made to involve people in development for the system's legitimacy, but no resources went to the VDCs even then.
After the restoration of multiparty democracy, various steps have been taken. Recently, a bill has been passed to strengthen decentralization. Nepal has perhaps the best system in decentralization in South Asia.

We need to understand that unless people take part in their issues, mismanagement will continue to exist. There is a tendency to delegate power to the politician's protégé in the village rather than devolve it to the common man. Politicians are non-cooperative when it comes to devolution of power.

Indeed, overpoliticization of local governance an partisanism in politics has been coming in the way of meeting popular needs. But that is the case with the governance process as a whole, not just local governance.
There is also a lot of talk about autonomy- linguistic, cultural, regional etc. But I have not understood how particular regions or languages will develop by providing them autonomy. The fact is that people live in a mixed linguistic and ethnic scenario and individual group interest might not be fruitful for the whole community. Decentralization should be based on non-partisan concerns.

Prakash Chandra Lohani, the RPP general secretary
The country is undergoing a crisis and this is because we have not been able to go with the people in the development of the nation. In other words, it must be due to the lack of actual decentralization of power that the country is undergoing crisis. The nation has always had a centralized power structure. There have been efforts to decentralize, but they have been limited to administrative delegation rather than actual decentralization.
In Nepal, the central government invests about 90 percent of state spending while other countries are found to have at least fifty percent local share in investment. There appears to be no change in this ration in the aftermath of restoration of multiparty democracy. The past feudalism still rules and there is no change in sight. Instead, perversions in political life have grown. Even elections are finding it hard to establish the legitimacy of the elected in the eyes of the people due to widespread rigging allegations. These are signs that we have not been able to transform people into citizens.
There is no political devolution of power. Even minor decisions need the minister's approval. Similar is the case with economic power. For example, we have the whole trolley bus infrastructure- the buses are there the lines are there, the road is there and it had been running until we decided to close it down. Everything necessary is still there, but we have not been able to run the buses. And, transport is a basic need like food and clothing. Sajha used to run several hundred buses, but it has also closed down. All this is because there is no devolution of power to the corporation. And, all this is being done in the name of economic reform.

A new social contract where local governance is properly defined in terms of giving power to the people is the need of the day. Even the constitution may need to incorporate these concerns. Voices have started to come out on federalism and realignment of districts. All these are related to how the local areas use their own power and resources for their own purposes. But the government still appears to be unwilling to devolve power to the local units so far.

There is too much party politicking at the local level governance units, hindering development. It may be more apt to make local units non-partisan.

Dr. Alfred Diebold, the FES representative
There is no single vision of good governance and decentralization. This means that Nepalese need to find their own vision to suit their context. It is time that foreigners listen to your ideas on decentralization rather than the other way round.
In two weeks from now there will be a major German-Nepali event in Germany. Germans are worried about the future of Nepal. Apart from decentralization, the No.1 priority for Nepal should be to come out of the crisis it is undergoing at the moment and from our side FES is willing to make its contribution in any way it can.

The opening ceremony came to a close with Bhuvan Pathak, the chairman of the session, gave his vote of thanks to the speakers. After a brief break the presentations began.

Session I

Chair: Ganga Thapa
Paper I: Decentralization and Dispute Settlement Mechanism in Local Bodies by Kashi Raj Dahal
Paper II: Conflict Resolution in Local Governance; Provisions in Local Governance Act 1998 by Rabindra Khanal
Paper III: Ethnicity and Decentralization in Nepal by Dr. Shastra Dutta Pant

FLOOR DISCUSSION
Prof. Jitendra Dhoj Khand: The current situation is beyond negotiation, arbitration or mediation. The government has already exhausted the police force and is using joint forces at the moment. How will such a situation warrant a conflict resolution?

Murari Sharma: We need to incorporate issues that remain outside the jurisdiction of the state branches- the legislative, the executive and the judiciary. The traditional system of arbitration needs to be discussed from the state's viewpoint. While legitimizing traditional conflict resolution mechanisms, one needs to fight the various interests against them, like dogmas, taboos, elite interests etc.
I think ethnic issues and ethnic demands do not conform to the decentralization perspective.

Dr. Dwarika Dhungel: After touching upon the local self-governance act, Rabindra Khanal should have elaborated on the implications of the various provisions of the act. Kashiraj should have been more elaborate on the points he has made. Shrasthadatta Pant has been caught in a maze. We need to take Prithvinarayan Shah's guidelines in solving ethnic issues. People should be able to identify themselves as a Nepali in spite of the ethnic lineage each on of them comes from. This is the way for the solution to be permanent.

Ananda Aditya: Negotiation is not a zero-sum game. So while looking at the Maoist issue we need to look at the Japanese experience which looks at negotiation not as a zero sum game, but as a win-win one.
Secondly, We have enough examples of republics right here, like Baishali. Why look to the west? For pressure-building for negotiation, violence or threats of violence may be necessary, but why do we always have to take the adversarial position while seeking a solution.?

Shyam Shah: The parliament itself is not efficient in doing its work. So, how can we think of giving more authority to the local units. The central grants given to VDCs has only been successful in making local units corrupt.

Kedar Shakya: Dahal's paper talks about 6 per cent of Nepalese converting into Christianity. The present census sees 10 per cent Buddhists. The Buddhist figures had been declining in the past censuses and suddenly it has gone up. How?

Dr. Sharma: Why has local governance not strengthened? Because of lack of resources. Because resources are unevenly distributed. This needs to be recognized and some prioritization needs to be made for strengthening local governance.
Secondly, the central level institutions are not going to devolve power to the local units just like that.
Third, whatever politicking is going on at the central level, the same is happening at the local level hindering development and consensus. It is not the local level only that is hindered by politics.
Also, there is no coordination in matters local. There is duplication in work on local governance.
For a solution, a thorough reorientation to administrative and political leaders to strengthen local governance is needed. Secondly, locally required skill needs to be imparted to people. Third, Power needs to be devolved so that there is a strengthening of local governance.

Mukti Rijal: Conflicts have arisen in many spheres. How do we manage them in totality? The Constitution itself is being challenged. Even decentralization alone is not going to solve the conflicts. The papers should have been more wide ranging in discussing conflicts.

Abulesh Thakurai: We need to look at federalism for a lasting solution, otherwise, it will just be another exercise in futility. Although the morning session saw a bad example of federalism in Bihar, the good aspect, Jharkhand, was not mentioned. It might be more apt to take the South African example in matters federal.

Dr. Gopal Pokhrel: Dahalji, Should the Supreme court verdict have come to thwart the UML decision to dissolve parliament?
Khanalji, If indeed the Rana regime allowed democracy to foster in Limbu culture, is it not a paradox that the Ranas did not even allow dissent?
SD Pantaji, You should be talking about how to filter the vices from the virtues while taking the western values.

Sooryalal Amatya: There is conflict between different levels of governance and different institutions. E.g. there is conflict between VDCs and forestry offices. This does not appear to have been realized. We should not have thrown away the decentralization achievements of the Panchayat system with the advent of 1990.
I criticized Dr. Gurung's thesis about reducing the number of districts as he had presented his arguments based totally on custom revenues of each district.

Sri Prasad Gautam: Regarding the Maoist issue, all the institutions, whether local or central, have been ineffective. Conflict management should not only include power realignment, but also look at traditions and customs.

…..: We have talked about decentralization for 35 years. Should we not give up on decentralization? Or should we say that we will still try for some more years? If the center does not want to decentralize, why complain about it?

Tamla Ukyab: Should janjatis be studying the Geeta to be more independent of the 'external influence' in their movements?

Answer by Kashiraj Dahal: The paper is only confined to the legal perspective. For example, with Deuba's exhortation about bringing down the land ceiling, ten thousand new cases came to be registered. It would be fruitful for us to study whose party members were the ones involved in the cases.
Family conflicts and natural conflicts do go to the VDCs. But even that situation is not permanent as the past law has been thrown out and the new one has not come to take its place. The government has said that infrastructure is needed for the VDCs to act as effective mediators. Parties have committed themselves to implement acts that empower VDCs to decide on conflict cases, even if it means providing them the capacity needed to do so.
The local governance act does not empower the district, only the VDC. Various development tasks have been given to the DDC through other acts.
The Bhadra 12 Supreme Court case is one where the legislators could not solve an issue amongst themselves, hence had to take recourse to the court, as the Constitution is also a legal document. But if the legislators do not like it, they can change the law to suit their needs, as this is allowed by the Constitution.
To give life to the local governance act, other laws need to be modified as they come into conflict with it.

Answer by Khanal: Social taboos will not increase when conflict resolution powers are vested on traditional communities. The examples I have given show that this will not happen.
The Rana period was very stable, if we look at the duration it lasted. I was referring to the stability of the Rana regime.

Answer by Shastra Datta Pant: A solution to the backward classes cannot come from providing a few jobs to the elite of those classes, which is what solutions like reservation do. So I am against reservation.
The data fluctuation on Buddhism may be because of the looseness in the use of the term 'Hindu' which at times looks at Buddhism as part of Hinduism.
Our education system should be based on equality, not on reservation to a few.
On conversion, I do believe that there is foreign influence.

Chairman's remarks by Ganga Thapa: If there is political decentralization, economic decentralization follows naturally. Dr. Harka Gurung's thesis appears to be burdensome on the poor who will need to travel longer distance for his official job.
This is an age of localization coupled with globalization at the same time. Our focus should be on providing services to the people.

Session II

Chair: Dr. Gopal pokhrel
Paper IV:Nepalko Santoolit Bikasko Sandarbhama Bikendrikit Sashan Byabasthako Abadharana by Dr. Durga Paudyal
Paper V: Nepalma Bikendrikit Sashan Padhati by Krishna Prasad Sapkota
Paper VI: Traditional Local Governance in Nepal by Krishna Bhattachan

FLOOR DISCUSSION
Toyanath Bhattarai: Regional autonomy and regional administrators have been mentioned. But I think that the regional administrator's post is to strengthen the centre's position rather than providing autonomy to the regions.

Jitendra Dhoj Khand: The papers have not been able to analyze all the viewpoints coming out in the discussions today. The new realism theory talks about integration through disintegration. What are the varying levels of governance and which are the countries that fall under each category? I envision five different categories to define countries according to the levels of governance they exercise.
Nepal is experiencing bad governance and going towards worse. We do not have the capacity to carry out good governance. We do not have leadership with drive. Institution building is also lacking.

Sooryalal Amatya: Context specific planning needs to be done and arrangements and budgeting should be made according to the specifics of a local context.
Indeed, local level officers have a vertical orientation rather than tendencies to familiarize themselves with the horizontal structures of power.
The successful stories of local level grassroots projects tell of the need for a marriage between the alien and traditional systems, rather than purely traditional ones. Forest or irrigation management systems are prime examples.

Habibullah: Our democracy is a bourgeois one, a wrong choice. We are traditionally a centralized society, for hundreds of years, practising autocracy. We should have gone for decentralization of every kind of institution. In the lack of decentralization, the same feudal structure prevails. Even in the context of multiparty democracy, we might have a different party ruling over us, but in terms of class and caste structure, the same rulers are there even in these years of democracy.
The military has been operating with the same rigid structures of hundreds of years ago. The bureaucracy also needs to decentralize.

…: The 2019 constitution had local governance spelled out. Today, we do not have the constitution doing so. What is the net effect of having it in the constitution or not having it. Should we have it in the constitution, if so for what?
How will federating the national structure deal with the rank partisanism prevalent today. Can we actually grasp the indegenization of our system, as we have been captivated by alien culture?

Murari Raj Sharma: Decentralization means taking power closest to the people. In other words, it is an optimization issue. Devolution of state power to local bodies needs some pre-conditions. For example, it can only go to a local body that is elected. An option could be to contract out the public sector job to the private sector or to the NGO and civil society sector. Once these preconditions are met, it becomes easy to monitor how things are going on.
Indigenous systems need to be looked at, not just in the devolution perspective.

Sriprasad Gautam: Have the traditions been institutionalized in the modern sense to handle their responsibility?
We should look at the possibility of having local level parliaments, numbering 15- 30? The national parliament can take only cases related with sovereignty. Local parliaments can assess and meet the local needs.

Dr. Dhungel: It is said that the act we have is the best yet, but it is a camel that has come out of too many contradictions. The preamble talks about devolution while the provisions talk about delegation of authority. Pressure needs to be built for change. I will support the principle of devolution.
Indeed the costs are high in having so many districts. There should be different perspectives of looking at governance districts and development districts. This may lessen the number of VDCs and districts.

Vishnu Prasad Banskota: The examples of traditions given by Bhattachan appear to be given for the sake of emulation. However, some may not be contextual today, which could require some changes for them to be relevant. Because there are some extreme governance examples too in some Nepalese traditions.

Rabindra Khanal: What would happen if we separate rural local governance from urban local governance?
How does the DDC federation feel about the proposed reduction in the number of districts?

Ganga Thapa: Are you suggesting a voter recall system to check bad people from coming to power and remaining there for five long years without any fear of reprisal to their bad deeds?
The parties also need to be decentralized. Decentralization needs to be a 'packaged' one, designed to encompass all sectors.

Ananda Aditya: Bhattachan's paper reflect his past viewpoints. In spite of the failure of many alien concepts in our context, we still take them up. If we can awaken the traditional roots through decentralization, we will be working for more justice. Over the past 50 years, we've been asking why planning has failed. A more apt question might be, despite the rhetoric, why should planning not fail in Nepal?
We should have the courage to ask unpleasant questions to the stakeholders before making decisions affecting them? Were the Mahakali people ever asked about inundation before making a decision on their behalf and signing treaties? Until the principle of subsidiarity works, decentralization is not possible.

Pradip Thapaliya (VDC Association): The attitude of the Nepalese is such that the government official thinks himself qualified for service from people, rather than the other way around. This is the main hindrance to decentralization.
The VDC and local institution linkages should also have been discussed.

Mahesh Upadhya: Both theoretical and practical issues were raised today, which is a good thing.
Democracy is not the importation of alien culture. Bhattachan's idea of indigenous institutions would make the Nepalese society a democratic one. There is a need for introspection by us.
We cannot take the topic of today's discussion in a sectoral perspective. In the panchayat era also there were a lot of exercises towards decentralization, but the restoration of multiparty democracy led to the total dismantling of all the gains in the decentralization field. Only now are they realizing the loss. There is indeed a need for a renaissance in the civil society and NGO sector for bringing about change in governance.

Reply by Dr. Durga Poudyal: If we want to make the DDC federation a watchdog agency, it has to be freed from donor influence. We can develop the synopsis of papers in English for donor consumption but it can actually be written in Nepali for the benefit of Nepali knowledge. This should be helpful in terms of decentralization.

Reply by Krishna Prasad Sapkota: Municipalities were categorized before, as Sooryalal Amatya says, but classification regarding municipalities and sub-municipalities were done only now.
Our federation is not partisan. Although we are all elected along party lines, we work on consensus in decision making.
We are trying to organize all the people in a VDC to make their programmes successful.
Constitution is not necessary to run a country, but in a country like ours where policies change with changes in ministers, we expect the constitution to bind them to some degree at least. But taking non-partisanism too far is not productive in a pluralist system.

Bhattachan's reply: The success stories in forestry is a misnomer in terms of indegeniety. The kusundas, Rautes etc have been made extinct from the forests, while forestry PhDs are from other ethnic groups of people. Those from the forests have been completely marginalized.
Dhukutis are sustaining among indigenous groups. They might not be successful among non-indigenous groups as trust is a precondition for dhukutis to be successful. There is a deficit in trusts these days.
Dr. Gurung's thesis can only be successful if federal, linguistic and ethnic autonomy is provided. He has not openly said it, but I think he is after that.

Chairman's remarks by Gopal Pokhrel: There needs to be conceptual clarity before making efforts towards decentralization. Decentralization needs to be self-sustaining for it to be permanent. Except for some national issues, others can be handled at the local level with assistance from the centre wherever necessary. The major impediment is the attitude at the central level where nobody wants to part with the power they have.
The need of the hour is to try and correct past mistakes with moral scruples, including executing redistribution programmes.

After the remarks of the second session's chair, Ganga Thapa gave the vote of thanks and after which the gathering broke off for refreshments.