In its annual Policy and Programs, the government has promised local polls within a year. Local elections are essential, it is believed, as the absence of people's representatives from local bodies (for the last 17 years) has badly affected service-delivery and promoted corruption. We could not agree more. Local bodies are people's first (and often only) point of contact with the government and having elected office-bearers would make these bodies more answerable to the people they are meant to serve. That, at least, is the principle. In practice, the only way local bodies will be open and accountable, with or without elected officials, is if the major political parties stop shamelessly siphoning off development funds through their local representatives. Currently, a major chuck of the national development budget (at least the portion of it that gets spent) goes through the local user groups and consumer committees. The national Local Governance Act categorically states that a person serving as a representative of a political party at any of the local bodies cannot also be a member of such user groups and consumer committees. But the violation of this provision in the Act has become so common that it barely raises an eyebrow these days.The same Act also makes it illegal for a person to serve in two different consumer committees. This provision is also most notable for the frequency of its violation. Again, it's local members of big political parties who are most egregiously violating this law. Interestingly, those who are supposed to monitor these committees are also political appointees. It's not surprising, then, that 80 to 90 percent of the budget earmarked for local projects simply vanish. Local polls alone are unlikely to cure this kind of systemic corruption. In fact, elected local bodies, by adding an extra veneer of legitimacy to the rotten process, could make things worse. But this is not an argument against timely local polls. We still believe they should be held at the earliest possible date; there really is no alternative to the democratic process of periodic elections. What we would like to see is the strengthening of our oversight mechanisms. Anti-corruption bodies like the Commission for Investigation for Abuse of Authority (CIAA) and National Vigilance Center (NVC) need to have more power (as well as the autonomy) to pursue cases against corrupt officials.
More than that, it's simply a case of enforcing existing laws. The Local Governance Act, as cited above, has some admirable provisions to make local government more open and accountable. The problem lies with our political parties—chiefly Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and UPCN (Maoist)—who pick and choose among the laws to serve vested interests. They can do so because all sectors of the Nepali society are thoroughly politicized. There is perhaps nothing in Nepal that cannot be achieved with a phone call of a top minister or party leader. But perhaps it's also the fault of the media, the civil society, and the society at large that we have not asked enough hard questions of our political representatives.
Related story
