The Village Development Committees (VDCs) are the lowest units of government´s service delivery system. In fact, the absence of elected leadership from municipalities to District Development Committees (DDCs) to VDCs is also the absence of democracy. People expect accountability, transparency, citizen-friendliness and effective delivery of public services and effectual execution of development works from these lowest units of governance machinery. But the continued absence of elected leadership has jeopardized democratic functions at the grassroots and also increased public funds´ vulnerability to misuse and corruption with reduced social accountability situation.
Lengthened constitution-drafting process, growing political instability and uncertain state restructuring modalities are sure to mess up these local units of government for another few years to come. But can we afford to prolong the democratic deficit at the local level in the name of political transition for any more years? When there is relatively a peaceful situation than in 2002 when local bodies were disbanded, why cannot our political parties dare for elections to local bodies when we have successfully conducted the Constituent Assembly (CA) elections?
Prevailing challenges, shortcomings and anomalies in local governance now at least need some proper address and tackling at the political level to restore people´s dwindling trust in messed-up local democratic institutions. As building local governance structures must warrant highest attention in any post-conflict situation, political parties will have to decide whether they go for fresh elections anytime soon or reinstate the dissolved local bodies until local elections are held. If dissolved parliament can be revived, why cannot the local bodies?
CONSENSUAL CORRUPTION
Presently, these local bodies are being run by civil servants. These are just makeshift provisions to fill in the vacuum. These temporary arrangements are neither accountable nor transparent in utilizing development funds. One of the major problems now faced by the local bodies is consensual corruption. Political influence and manipulation is seen to have an upper hand in disbursement of grants and funds through political consensus. Such unelected mechanism cannot ensure transparency and social accountability which is a crux of functioning democratic system. Prevailing "fiduciary risk" in local bodies due to absence of elected leadership has spoiled enabling environment for effective use of development grants at the hands of unelected mechanism.
In absence of social accountability, VDC Grants Operation Guidelines are not strictly complied with by the local political mechanisms. The guidelines have strict provision for at least 20 percent VDC allocations to the target groups such as women, Dalit, Janajatis, children, youths and disabled. Budget allocation data in six districts – Khotang, Okhaldhunga, Ramechhap, Dolakha, Dailekh and Jajarkot – last year showed that target groups´ budget for capacity building was used for construction of schools, roads and other structures. Other anomaly among VDCs is that their compliance with the guidelines is more limited to the papers and minutes only. Many VDCs were found to have disbursed budgets for target groups only on papers. Monitoring is totally deficient that has encouraged such practices among the VDCs.
Out of 3,915 VDCs, 1,186 yet do not have their office buildings since they were destroyed during the insurgency. Data shows that not even half of them have been reconstructed yet. The unavailability of VDC offices is a good excuse for many VDC secretaries to confine themselves to the district headquarters.
One of the most notorious examples of consensual misuse of tax-paid money is the recent maneuverings by some VDCs, DDCs and municipalities that transferred around Rs 3 billion unspent development funds to their non-freezable bank accounts. They have even flouted the Ministry of Local Development´s (MoLD) directives banning such fund transfers. Legally, local bodies have to return unspent budget back to the central bank accounts by the end of each fiscal year. The National Vigilance Centre unearthed that the local bodies have transferred around Rs 15 billion rupees to their non-freezable bank accounts over the last five years. This is a strong evidence of how a corrupt political system and a weak government eggs on local bodies to ignore the regulations.
The other form of corruption can be observed in the formation of the User´s Committees (UCs) as well. Development projects up to Rs 6 million should be implemented by the UCs whereas project above the threshold needs to be contracted out through competitive bidding. This mandatory provision is a good concept as it encourages local community and beneficiaries´ to own, monitor and participate in the execution of development works. But this noble UCs´ concept has ended up as a tool for the local politicians to misuse public funds. There is no transparency in formation of the UCs and political parties enlist their men as members to these committees. Target beneficiaries and local people are often kept at bay during the UCs´ formation process. Thus, the real challenge ahead is to reduce "politicization" and limit political dominance in these most vulnerable and lucrative committees. The other problem with the UCs is that some of them are sub-contracting development works which is against the law.
Maximization of development grants is also being marred by the delay and hastily-called council meetings. The Local Self Governance Act provisions mid-February for VDC and mid-March for DDC council meetings as deadlines. However, the councils are never called on time because of political discords and are mostly held during the end of June. Last fiscal year, around 700 VDCs held councils in early July and finished all allocations just in a week. This is a recurrent trend among the local bodies. The mentality to finish the grants at any cost with fear of a freeze reigns supreme among the local bodies.
Our development intervention at the grassroots has focused more on expenditure rather than "substantial output". Local bodies´ capacity to spend more is being linked to their efficiency, which is in fact a wrong development approach. Unless our development efforts shift from sheer "budget-absorption" tendency to "concrete outcomes", billions of grants will just keep disappearing in the name of local development every year. Around Rs 42 billion was disbursed for the local bodies during the last fiscal year. What was the outcome? It should be the debate now. Just inflating volume of grants will not take our development anywhere if we fail to streamline development process and objectively monitor the outcomes of such expenses every year.
INSTITUTIONAL LACUNAE
Out of 3,915 VDCs, 1,186 yet do not have their office buildings since they were destroyed during the insurgency. Data shows that not even half of them have been reconstructed yet. The unavailability of VDC offices is a good excuse for many VDC secretaries to confine themselves to the district headquarters. Even those having VDC offices are holding up in headquarters. Plight is that even DDCs cannot send them back as they are affiliated to different political party unions. At the receiving end, people do have to come to district headquarters even for simple services like citizenship recommendations and registrations about birth and death.
The government has been increasing volume of grants to the VDCs every year. A single VDC receives around Rs 3 million as block grants besides other additional funds and local revenues. But they lack institutional capacity and manpower to properly implement and monitor the use of hefty development funds. Increasing physical assaults on secretaries in recent years is the result of VDCs becoming a lucrative sector for extortions by non-state actors as VDC secretary handles millions of rupees annually. Until now, 26 secretaries have been killed by the undisclosed assailants. Growing insecurity compelled many secretaries to resign en masse a few months ago.
The other pressing challenge is that many VDCs are understaffed and a secretary has to look after at least two to five adjoining VDCs. This has often landed them in difficulties while distributing social security allowances, convening village councils, disbursing development budget and monitoring the use of grants. A secretary has to coordinate and implement all development programs, keep accounts and perform administrative tasks as well. Fresh data from the MoLD shows that 600 VDCs are without secretaries out of 3,915 VDCs. There has been no speedy initiation from the MoLD and Civil Service Commission to fill in the vacancies. This has also made local service delivery more problematic and chaotic.
pbhattarai2001@gmail.com
Related story
Governance in Social transformations in Nepal
