Towards Local Democracy in Nepal: Power and Participation in District

Development Planning
Writer: Damodar Adhikari, PhD E-mail: dadhikar@wlink.com.np

Publisher: Faculty of Spatial Planning, University of Dortmund, Germany

and the SPRING International Network of Universities (Germany, Philippines, Ghana,
Tanzania, Chile and China)

Marketing and Distribution in Nepal: Institute of Local Governance Studies, Anam Nagar,
Kathmandu, Phone: 4-266158; 016 220195; E-mail – inlogos@wlink.com.np

ABSTRACT
This is a qualitative 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.