On September 25, with less than a month remaining for the Local Body Restructuring Commission (LBRC) to submit its first report, the three largest political parties agreed to take the existing Ilaka boundaries as the main basis for the proposed new local government structures, that is the village and municipal councils. Then on September 27 the Cabinet amended the LBRC’s terms of reference in line with the agreement reached between three major parties. The LBRC is currently consolidating reports sent from the districts which were prepared by technical committees consisting of district-level governmental officials. As of September 22, a total of 48 districts had sent their reports with the proposed number and boundaries of local units. Hence, this  decision of the three big parties in Kathmandu not only negated the achievements reached by expert inputs and local consultations, but also threatened to put the local government restructuring process in political limbo. So there was a widespread criticism against the decision which forced the political parties to withdraw their verdict.

This is is not a unique exhibition of political influence over the work of constitutional commissions comprising experts. Earlier, the major political parties disregarded a report submitted by the State Restructuring Comm-ission defining the number and boundaries of states and decided among themselves how they should be fixed. This has raised a fundamental question about the relevance of scientific basis and consultation over the restructuring process of local government structures.

Constitutional mandate

Article 295 of the constitution of Nepal states that a commission shall be formed to determine the number and boundaries of local government structures. Accordingly, on March 14, the government formed the LBRC headed by an ex-government secretary and consisting of eight thematic experts on decentralisation, urban governance, law and so forth. The commission was given a mandate to determine the number and borders of village and municipal councils. As per the mandate, technical committees called Local Level Restructuring Technical Assistance Committees were formed in each district to assist the commission. These committees, coordinated by the respective local development officer, includes other government officials from the District Administration Office, District Technical Office, Land Revenue Office, Survey Office and the District Development Committee.

The commission was given a broad framework for restructuring local government structures taking into consideration theoretical concepts of local governance, international norms and practices, settlement patterns, population density, access to transportation, current and future opportunities for urbanisation, watershed management and assurances of continued access to the facilities currently enjoyed by locals. As per the commission’s guidelines, new local bodies are expected to be viable administrative units and their residents have fair access to natural and financial resources. In line with the spirit of the new constitution, the new local bodies will not only be stronger in terms of authority but also bigger in size in terms of geographical extent and population. They will perform some of the functions of the existing districts. 

Guided by this spirit and given framework, the commission has proposed to reduce the number of local bodies to 565 that include village and municipal councils. However, the major political parties have divergent views about the number as well as basis for setting their boundaries. The two parties in the ruling coalition, the Nepali Congress

and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), have been arguing for at least 1,000 local government units while the main opposition, the CPN-UML, wants to slash the number to 565.

Consensus politics

On the other hand, the Madhes-based parties, which have expressed their dissatisfaction with the new constitution, are not happy with the way the local government restructuring process is being conducted. They are displeased that the commission was formed without holding consultations with them and other parties who have been agitating for amending the constitution. With regard to substantive issues, they are against the idea of devolving power to the level of local governments arguing that this will make the role of the states weaker, which will be against the spirit of federalism. With particular reference to the issue of delineating state boundaries, the Madhes-based parties have demanded that population be considered as the sole basis. Putting this disagreement forward, the Madhes-based parties have been hindering the work of the technical committees in the Tarai.

Despite the disagreements and resistance at the local level, the technical committees have prepared reports including the proposed number and boundaries

of local units, and half of them have submitted their recommendations to the LBRC. However, the recent political

consensus among the three big parties to change the major basis for restructuring local governments has not only confused the commission but also undermined

scientific basis and the local consultation process.

Once again, the so-called major political parties have shown their supremacy over scientific basis and local aspirations. The practice of the so-called ‘political consensus’ has become a tragedy in Nepal’s politics and it has seriously undermined the space of scientific knowledge and local level deliberation. This will not only be against the spirit of making local governments more powerful to meet the aspirations of the local population, but more importantly, put the local state restructuring process in political limbo and push back plans to hold local elections later this year. It has become urgent for political parties to rethink the deeply entrenched but tragic practice of consensus politics, and acknowledge the significance of expert knowledge and

public discussions in shaping key administrative structures which will ultimately play an important role in influencing their daily lives. We have very little time to correct and resolve the state of political limbo. 

Devkota is a researcher at the South Asia Institute of Advanced Studies; Khatri is a PhD scholar at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences