Towards Local Democracy in Nepal: Power and Participation in District Development Planning, 2006, Published by SPRING Centre, University of Dortmund, Germany

This book is written based on a study carried out in the context of local governance in Nepal. It focuses on district planning and management from the perspective of democratic participation of citizens while power and participation provide the theoretical framework.

Nepal was under an authoritarian regime for centuries. Since the 1990s, the country has been moving towards democracy, decentralisation and participatory governance. Decentralisation as a strategy changes structures and power relations between levels of government and among the key stakeholders. In this policy environment, the study explores and analyses dimensions of power focusing on how power is generated, shared and exercised in dealing with public affairs, and how these power relations and related dimensions affect local planning and other democratic practices.

The study explores and analyses a number of critical issues within its broader theoretical framework. It finds that the weak capacity of local government, the centralised mindset of bureaucrats and politicians, the weak internal democracy of political parties, limited fiscal decentralisation, the growing conflict and the absence of elective representatives in local governments are the foremost challenges in the path of effective local democracy and local governance. It also finds that decentralisation in Nepal is immature and prone to recentralisation.

There is a weak linkage between decentralisation and poverty reduction interventions. The current practice of bottom-up participation in planning excludes poor and marginalised groups while the benefits of decentralisation, if any, are grabbed by the local elites. Weak and fugitive accountability further weaken democratic practices at the local level. All these factors erode the credibility of institutions delivering services at the local level. If it is not checked in a timely manner, this may result in further weakening local governance and may add to growing conflicts.

On the theoretical ground, the research generates new theoretical propositions. First, it finds that participatory planning and representative democracy do not go well together. Indeed, it is difficult to bring them together on practical grounds. Bottom-up participation in planning requires sharing power with stakeholders, which needs open-minded officials having internalized democratic values. Secondly, the research reconfirms Flyvbjerg’s finding that power uses rationality to further strengthen power, largely ignoring the spirit of rationality. It also finds that local institutional fabric and respect for democratic institutions at a grassroots level are very vibrant in Nepal, providing solid foundations for democratic institutions to work effectively and sustainably.

Based on its findings, this study offers two sets of recommendations. While the first set is applicable to policy, the second set refers to the district level with special reference to the case district of Kavre. Key recommendations include redefining the Nepalese polity, restructuring and reorganizing functions of central and local level institutions, reorienting the mindset of officials, focusing on development equity, improving the credibility of district level institutions, building the capacity of local governments and democratizing the practices of local governments and political parties.