Our Representative Our Right

Constitution of Nepal, 2072 (2015) provides for 35 exclusive rights of the federal government in Schedule 5, 21 exclusive rights of provincial governments in Schedule 6, 22 exclusive rights of local governments in Schedule 8, 25 concurrent rights of the federal and provincial governments in Schedule 7, and 15 concurrent rights of the federal, provincial, and local governments in Schedule 9. However, provincial and local governments have complained that these exclusive and concurrent rights have not been implemented.Local governments have reported that there is interference in certain exclusive rights as well as in some concurrent rights, and that delays in the federal government creating laws in a timely manner have caused problems in governance.

In the context of Constitution Day, a discussion about the issues of lawmaking and governance was held between INSEC Dang District Representative Jayanarayan Poon and Narulal Chaudhary, Secretary General of the Nepal Municipal Association and Mayor of Ghorahi Sub-Metropolitan City.

How did local governments celebrate Constitution Day?

On this day, when the Constitution enacted by the representatives of the people was received, local governments celebrated Constitution Day just like ordinary citizens. While overall it is a day of joy, there is some concern regarding its implementation. The exclusive and concurrent rights of the three levels of government provided in the Constitution have not yet been as effective in their implementation as they should be.

Even after nine years since the issuance of the Constitution, an environment for the exact implementation of the rights outlined in Schedules 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 has not been established. However, it is not to say that nothing has happened. Many initiatives have been taken to deliver services to the people more closely. Yet, the failure to complete certain necessary tasks has caused issues in governance. There have been obstacles in providing services to citizens. The first point is that the federal government must take responsibility for fully implementing federalism.

What exactly is the problem?

The federal government has not yet transferred offices such as land revenue and surveying to local governments. Even in the 22 exclusive rights of local governments, the federal government continues to hold onto some responsibilities in various ways. The operation of sensitive sectors like education is still reliant on outdated laws, with the Education Act 1972 still in effect. The inability to establish a new education act remains a significant issue. While the country has advanced considerably in terms of political organization and change, the laws and regulations have not been updated. Operating the government under old laws has created significant problems. Moreover, the Forest Act is still the same, and the Civil Service Act has not changed either. Although local governments have conducted surveys to determine where and what type of human resources are needed, these proposals have not been approved. All of these factors contribute to the incomplete implementation of the Constitution, and development-friendly laws have yet to be established.

What are the obstacles?

When constructing roads, local governments still have to wait for the federal government’s decision to relocate electricity poles. Districts and local levels have not been granted sufficient authority to implement even such minor rights. So how can local governments promote development? They do not have the authority to remove trees when building roads. How can local governments proceed with development? Is it enough to bring only political structure to federalism? The lack of implemented administrative and financial structures at the lower levels has hindered the effective implementation of the Constitution.However, it is not the case that there has been no progress among the people. Many positive aspects of the Constitution have been implemented, and numerous improvements have been made. Nevertheless, problems persist because the government has not been able to address certain necessary tasks. For instance, the Guthi Act remains outdated. Thousands of farmers affected by the Guthi system are waiting for a new law, hoping to attain justice. The responsibility to work in a way that citizens at the grassroots level can feel change lies with the federal government and the House of Representatives.

If there are so many problems, wouldn’t there be a push to amend the Constitution itself?

Right now, the lack of a stable government has caused instability and allowed impunity, and this is a concern for all political parties. Even though we have a good Constitution, there are talks about making changes to solve some problems. If certain rules in the fundamental law don’t serve the interests of citizens or the country, they can be changed. If all political parties agree on what needs to be changed for the benefit of the people, we can work towards securing the rights of citizens.

Does reducing rights stop instability?

Rights should not be reduced. If certain systems designed for improvement cause problems, they need to be changed to make them better. For example, if the electoral system leads to situations where no one gets a majority, creating a better system to resolve government instability is necessary. Another consideration is whether to reduce the number of structures in the country. Political parties should agree and move forward on such positive matters. A key aspect of the Constitution is inclusivity, and parties need to be responsible for how to manage it. Inclusivity is essential for equal access in the state, and this should not be overlooked.

Should we amend the Constitution or create new laws?

The issue of amending the Constitution falls under the jurisdiction of the Government of Nepal and the House of Representatives. At the local level, we have already created laws. We have not created them in conflict with the federal government’s old laws. However, if the federal government enacted laws that reflect the current era and needs, local governments would also be able to develop appropriate laws. Even if the higher levels have not progressed, local governments have already established laws and regulations.The key point is that there is a constitutional provision stating that local laws should not conflict with federal laws. This means they shouldn’t clash with new laws, not old ones. Therefore, our position is that the federal government should quickly bring forward new laws. The absence of certain laws is causing issues in managing employees, development projects, and providing services to the public. We believe that if the federal government can expedite the creation of laws, it will support the full implementation of the Constitution.