Developing and strengthening the Provinces should not be a zero-sum game that pit them against the Federal Government or the Local Governments
The ongoing debate on federalism is often being framed in such a way that it does not do a good service to the nation. Instead of holding a conversation about it based on objectivity and opinionated reasoning, people end up repeating the same catchphrases and talking points.
The problem is not federalism per se or the political movement and the unique historical context that enabled it. The real issue at stake is instead related to all the provisions, most of which are very technical, that are underpinning federalism. It is about power, competences and the capacity of enforcing them that have been attributed to the three different layers of the state.
For example, there has been a huge backlash against the intermediary power that lies between the Federal Government and Local Governments, the Provinces. Any review of the literature related to federalism from around the world clearly indicates that such a sphere of power is central for effective delivery of good governance.
Instead, in a context like Nepal, the Provinces, instead of being the engine and catalyst for development at Local Levels, are the weakest link. Developing and strengthening the Provinces should not be a zero-sum game that pit them against the Federal Government or the Local Governments. Rather, the Provinces, if enabled and supported with proper legal provisions and funding, could play an essential role to support the quest of development that each Local Government is pursuing, often in competition with each other.
In short, enhancing and reinforcing the power and the capacity of the Provinces should be in the best interest of the citizens, including publicly-elected stakeholders leading the Local Governments. It is important, therefore, to shield ourselves from dichotomy and binary approaches that tend to either support one layer of governance or another one, often pitting them against each other.
That's why I am proposing a key question that could instead frame the debate on federalism. Considering that good and inclusive governance centred on delivery of services for the people is the central goal of the State at all levels, what policy areas are the Local Governments better positioned to deliver?
For example, let's take the issue of education. The Constitution entrusts Local Governments with unique responsibilities in this domain. A similar argument could also be said for public health. But within these sectors, where could Local Governments make the difference?
Trying to answer these questions could do a better service at truly strengthening federalism in the country. Let's not forget that the pursuit and implementation of federalism must be always understood as an attempt at creating a stronger and better social compact between the citizenry and the state.
Keeping the overarching aims of federalism at the centre of the conversation should help key stakeholders, policy makers, locally-elected citizens but also members of the broader society, to show more flexibility and pragmatism in their approach to the subdivision of powers. This means that the key issue of "who should do what at Local Levels" should be debated and framed in the most neutral and depoliticised fashion. If we follow this approach and attitude, then, also the most intractable and controversial issues related to the provision of education and health could be solved.
But underpinning this method is the centrality of two key elements: objectivity and technical expertise that must remain the driving forces of the debate. For example, the capacities, both technical and financial, of Nepal's metropolitan governments, either Kathmandu, Pokhara, Lalitpur, Bharatpur, Biratnagar or Birgunj, the six major urban governments of the nation, is completely different from the ones of a small municipality.
The metropolitan governments might be in a position, also in terms of know-how, to have strong in-house departments focussed on public health and public education.
But also in terms of standards, provision and, in the case of education, also in terms of curriculum, these units of governments, no matter how well equipped they are, should coordinate and have strong relationships with the Provincial governments. The latter should be seen as facilitators, enablers that are able to provide resources at both technical and financial levels.
Within each Province, there is a need of having some forms of uniformity and policy coherence that do not erase the unique differences of each single unit of Local Government, no matter their size. Most importantly it is going to be paramount that Local Governments are enabled to do their job whenever and wherever they can prove to be the most effective for the citizens. Analysing when the Local Government or the Provincial Government can deliver services and provisions in a better and stronger way should be at the centre of the conversation.
These two layers of governments, each with a clear legitimacy to govern must work in partnership and formulate proposals to make federalism work in the best interest of the people. In the eyes of many it is obvious that such "entente" is going to be key to pressurise the Federal government to act differently rather than continuing usurping the many powers and competences entrusted by the Constitution to both Provincial and Local Government levels.
It is obvious that many Local Governments are not in a position to properly run the whole education and health systems within their geographical boundaries. Accepting this reality does not mean a rejection of two key pillars of federalism. Rather it implies a rethinking of responsibilities between the Provinces and Local Governments.
Federalism is a great tool to enhance the power of the people by bringing power closer to them. While is not a panacea to all the illnesses of the political system of Nepal, but, if properly discussed, reframed and supported, it could truly help unleash transformative changes.
