Himalayan News Service

Kathmandu, April 25

Lack of clarity of policy, legal provisions and sheer financial constraints have marred the materialisation of decentralisation in true sense. Add to that, problems of coordination and improper formulation of the programmes and ineffective implementation.

Nothing seems to be going right for decentralisation and advocates of decentralisation point the finger at the government. “The government is not serious about decentralisation,” said Krishna Prasad Sapkota, chairman of Federation of District Development Committee. “Decisions at the policy as well as planning level have been half-hearted making the process of decentralisation slow and ineffective.”

Sapkota’s paper on current situation and challenges of decentralisation in the country, presented at the workshop on Strengthening Decentralisation and Good Governance in Nepal – organised by Political Science Association of Nepal (POLSAN) on Monday – clearly spells out hindrances that decentralisation policy is facing and the constraints of the Local Self Governance Act.

The Local Self Governance Act brought amid protests from the Opposition parties in Parliament in 1998, has contradictory provisions, which the local representatives say that the government has not given enough attention to correct. According to Sapkota, neither short-term nor long-term plans have been put together and that the government has proposed to make changes in only 10 Acts that contradict with the provisions of the Local Self Governance Act while the number of contradictory provision is more than 20.

He points at the need to clearly redefine the roles and responsibilities of the bodies from the central to the local level, scrapping the contradictory provisions in the existing legislation, division of budget and functioning of the local as well as central bodies, effective implementation and monitoring of the programmes for decentralised system.

The steps, however, would not end the problems the decentralisation effort is facing.

Increasing security expense is another reason that has hindered the process of decentralisation in the recent days.

The government recently decided to cut down the budget of the local bodies in order to put in more money at security efforts. This move of the government has come under scathing attack from the local bodies who have been saying that the decision contradicts with the process of decentralisation.

Officials at the districts say that only 3.6 per cent of total annual budget is spent through the local bodies. The government had decided to cut down the budget allocated for the local bodies budgets of DDC and municipality by 10 per cent, that of VDC by 50 per cent and the electoral constituencies by 25 per cent.

During the 30 years of Panchayat regime the subsequent governments did bring in over 10 decentralisation programmes with a view to facilitate transfer authority and responsibility to the local bodies. According to Dr Shastra Dutta Pant’s paper on Ethnicity and Decentralisation, implementation of decentralisation scheme started in the country from 1919 when judicial and cleaning responsibility was handed down to the Kathmandu municipality.

Ethnic and under-represented communities have been at disadvantage in the post-Panchayat days which has impeded true decentralisation, argued Pant.

He said that the election system in Panchayat era allowed resident citizens to contest election from the area at any level, which was a built-in reservation provided opportunities to the local ethnic groups to be representative in the respective areas of dominance. “The present election system enabling anyone to contest election anywhere has deprived such opportunities for resident ethnic groups,” he said.