E-Kantipur

KATHMANDU, MAY 01 -

The question of accountability has been central to the good governance discourse. Many researchers have suggested that corruption is on the rise in Nepal mainly in the lack of system whereby officials and politicians are held accountable to the people, and not their superiors. Bimal Koirala, a former chief secretary of the government, carried out a research on “Stock Takings of Financial Decentralisation Policies” in Nepal. The Post caught up with Koirala to solicit his experiences and observations: Excerpts:

Your recent research is focused on financial decentralisation in Nepal. What is your observation on accountability and good governance?

It was the Local Self Governance Act and the decentralisation policy that first demarked the functions and responsibilities of the central and local governments. This provided the people with a lot of programmes but limited funds, which posed several challenges at the local level. People switched over to easy projects. For example, the budget aimed at promoting quality of education was spent on constructing boundary walls, furniture, or repairing buildings.

The objective of government funding is to promote participatory development and to improve people’s access to quality education and health. But most of the budget is spent on construction of either rural roads or boundary walls or something similar. The fund is rarely spent on promoting women’s participation, education or poverty alleviation.

If you analyse the capital expenditure, 90 percent of the budget has been spent on road construction. During our research, local people stressed that they would have achieved a lot if only a small percentage of budget had been allocated for the development of the agriculture sector.

So, firstly, there should be harmony between what is needed and what is funded. Second, the local bodies should be fully autonomous. That’s what has been said but in reality, the centre dictates most of the capital expenditures, and each with certain conditions for local bodies to follow.

What makes you think so?

The centre, for example, fixes budget percentages in sectors such as education and health at the local level. This has deprived the local bodies of the chance to formulate their plan as per the need. Such a practice will be suicidal if not corrected, especially when there are elected peoples’ representatives.

What are the major problems you found out in local bodies?

Two things are important. There is a lack of accountability and transparency in the local bodies, which are running without elected people’s representatives. There is abuse of authority in local bodies. Transparency is nil. People have no information on budget allocated for development projects in their areas. The elites forcefully capture development projects both in urban and rural areas.

But we do have accountability measures, such as the 14-step planning process and social auditing?

Yes. The 14-step concept is very good. It has ensured people’s participation. But, almost all plans are under the control of elites. Elite-proposed projects are always placed on top while the demands of people lie at the bottom. The projects proposed by people are always sidelined during the selection process citing “insufficient funds”.

Does this mean public participation is non-existent both on the ground and in the policy-making level?

There is no real participation of people. Their views are not heard. The beneficiaries are unaware of the projects that have been proposed for their benefit. Another important point to note is the monopoly in performance evaluation. Downward accountability is almost nil. Service providers should be accountable to service seekers.

Our bureaucracy is responsive to bosses instead of the people. It’s simply because service seekers do not play any role in their promotion. People-responsive projects will not be ensured unless downward accountability is established in the country, which means letting the beneficiaries play an important role in evaluating the performance of officials responsible.

What your observation on the accountability of the All Party Mechanisms?

The mechanism was not responsible to the people. Members of the mechanism were accountable to their own parties, which appointed them. This is what they said when we approached them. So when it comes to swindling funds, all of them agree.

How do you think this problem may be corrected?

We should ensure that the general public is informed about upcoming programmes, target groups, the amount of budget and other details. There should be social auditing at the end of the project. The next point of intervention is performance evaluation. Works should be evaluated against the level of satisfaction of ultimate beneficiaries.

Posted on: 2012-05-01 08:45

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.