Interviews
Even 565 local units are too many given our resource crunch
As a mandatory constitutional provision, the previous government led by KP Sharma Oli formed a nine member Local Level Restructuring Commission (LLRC), which recently came out with a preliminary draft recommending to limit the local level units to 565.As a mandatory constitutional provision, the previous government led by KP Sharma Oli formed a nine member Local Level Restructuring Commission (LLRC), which recently came out with a preliminary draft recommending to limit the local level units to 565. The recommendation has been dragged in controversy as the Nepali Congress and the Madhesi parties have been saying the number is too small and will make it more difficult for people to access government services and facilities. They have demanded that the number of the local units be doubled. The restructuring of the local bodies has to be completed by mid-October as the government has already suggested that local level elections would be held in March and has directed the Election Commission to make preparations accordingly. Tika R Pradhan and Binod Ghimire talked to Balananda Paudel, Chairman of the LLRC, about the rationale behind 565 units, possible reasons behind the opposition to it and the commission’s efforts in coming out with the final report within the government’s deadline.
What is the current status of the LLRC’s work?
For three months since the formation of the commission in March, we were busy finding a place to set up our office, hiring staff and carrying out other administrative work. Then we studied the composition of our local bodies and the constitutional provisions for the formation of local level units, and developed the criteria for determining the units. After evaluating various factors and consulting several experts and stakeholders, we proposed 565 village and municipal councils. However, the number may vary slightly after the technical committees at the local level present the final report, which will most probably happen within a week.
What is the rationale behind fixing 565 units?
We did an extensive study before determining the number of local bodies. Population, geography, area, economic viability, composition of the community, social cohesiveness, service outlets like schools, heath posts and other factors have been taken into due consideration before determining the units for local level. We also conducted several rounds of consultation with the local people, political parties and members of civil society before arriving at that number. We have put maximum effort to ensure that the local level units provide services to people, uphold the principle of federalism and decentralise power from the Capital and districts headquarters to the local level.
So why do you think the political parties are objecting to your decision?
I do not think that all the parties are against our decision. I think the main reason why some parties are not satisfied is that we could not establish proper communication with them, although we did seek their advice time and again both at the central and local levels. We had very little time to complete such a huge task, so we were busier accomplishing our job than publicising it. We have found that the parties voicing against our decision have been cooperating very well with the technical committees working at the local level. So what I hope is that by the time we submit our final report, all the parties will welcome it and help in its implementation.
Some parties, mainly the Nepali Congress and the Madhesi parties, have demanded the dissolution of the commission arguing that 565 units were fixed without a proper study. They claim that only population was considered while determining the number.
The Madhesi parties have their own issues. They might be thinking that the dispute over provincial boundaries needs to be resolved before undertaking the restructuring of local bodies. When it comes to other parties, I do not understand what motivated them to object to our recommendation. Some leaders have been saying that the number should be 1,000 while others are demanding that it be increased to 1,500. But they have failed to provide a basis for it. Making arbitrary comments is easy. I appeal to all the parties to not make baseless demands and claims. Do we have the resources to sustain more local units? In fact, what we believe is that the number should be smaller than 565.
The claim that only population was taken into account is totally unfounded. As I said earlier, our preliminary report was based on a careful consideration of a number of factors, such as geography, composition of the population, availability of resources and government service centres.
For example, Manang has a population of only around 6,000 but there are three units (village councils), although in principle a population of 15,000 is needed for one village council in the hilly region and 5,000 in the mountain region. This shows we have prioritised multiple factors before determining the number of local units.
How likely is that the current number of local units will be changed by the time you prepare the final report?
There could be minor changes. The technical committee from Dang has recommended reducing the number by two. This indicates that the numbers may vary slightly. However, there will not be a big difference. What the commission believes is 565 units are already too many for a country like ours with limited resources. Our study shows that only 300 local units can be economically viable. This means there are 265 local bodies that are more than what is practical from an economic point of view.
In our final report, we will recommend a voluntary merger of the units, and also for a compulsory merger in the future if the people living there are convinced. We will also recommend a permanent commission for a continuous study that can make timely recommendations to strengthen the units. Since the local units will have lots of authorities from the existing district, zonal, regional and central levels, we must understand that the local units must be strong enough to handle all of them properly.
Parties have also been arguing that fewer local bodies would lead to difficulties in delivering services.
We have studied the work of the VDCs thoroughly. Currently, the tasks they perform include vital registration, distribution of social security allowances, land registration, local level development work, verification of relationships and protection of public lands, among others.
The VDC offices would remain as the service centres, so service delivery would not be affected. Instead, the authority of the existing central, regional, zonal and district levels would also go down to the units. The commission is still wondering why the political parties do not seem to have understood these facts. I think the criticism of our work is merely a reflection of the inability to differentiate existing local bodies from the local level with greater power.
How do you think the LLRC’s report can have legitimacy when many parties have issues with it?
Let’s be very clear that the LLRC is a constitutional body formed as per the provision of Article 303 of the Constitution of Nepal. Its tenure and responsibilities have also been stipulated in the constitution itself. This is a strong basis for its legitimacy. Having said that, we are also very clear that political support is a must for the restructuring to take place, as is the acceptance of the people from the respective areas. The technical committees at the local level are still working and the final recommendation will be based on the field report. Nothing can be perfect and immune from criticism. What actually matters is if our recommendations serve the aspirations of the people and the principle of federalism. We firmly believe that all the political parties will welcome our final recommendations.
The prime minister has asked the Election Commission to start preparations for local level elections, claiming that the LLRC will submit its final recommendation by mid-October. Amid the criticism you have been facing, is it possible for you to meet the deadline?
The prime minister made the directive after holding proper consultations with us. As local level elections will mark the beginning of the three elections in the federal set-up, we are putting all our efforts together to meet the deadline set by the government, although constitutionally, we still have six months to accomplish our task. In our consultations, we have informed the prime minister that we will make final recommendations by mid-October if our technical committees submit their report by the end of August. This is possible only if all the parties facilitate the committees’ work at the local level.
The prime minister is very much positive about resolving the problems and has already started work to this end. He has assured us that he would consult all the parties and find an agreeable solution to the existing differences. We would very much appreciate it if the parties can internalise the true spirit of the constitution.