People line up outside a government hospital for a PCR test in Kathmandu in 2020: The COVID-19 pandemic provided the first substantial stress test for Nepal’s federal system.
Nepal’s Constitution took eight years to hammer out, but in 2015 finally established the Himalayan nation, ruled for centuries as a unitary kingdom, as a federal democratic republic, with three empowered levels of government.
This structure, though, has come increasingly under question. Nepal’s fastest-rising political force, the Rastriya Swatantra Party, is demanding that the three levels be reduced to two and refusing to enter candidates in provincial elections. The party, founded just two years ago, is now the fourth-largest of the 14 represented in the lower chamber of Nepal’s parliament.
It is timely, then, to consider how well federalism has delivered on its promises for Nepal.
The COVID pandemic provided the first substantial stress test for Nepal’s new governance structure.
K.P. Sharma Oli, prime minister for the first year and a half of the pandemic, failed to recognize the seriousness of the new coronavirus and repeatedly advised citizens that they could rely on home remedies like drinking hot water or gargling with guava leaves for protection.
When officials belatedly started to seek supplies of masks, noncontact thermometers and other medical provisions, they awarded a procurement contract to a company whose inflated bids then fed into a sprawling corruption scandal.
Yet even as Oli dithered, many of Nepal’s local administrations successfully mobilized resources to combat COVID-19 despite scarce fiscal and technical resources, and confusing national policies and regulatory frameworks.
Dhulikhel, a city of 40,000 southeast of Kathmandu, took the initiative to set up health centers in each ward as well as a 70-bed quarantine center for women and the disabled. It also moved to directly secure COVID test kits and PCR machines to process them.
Even municipal authorities in rural areas with more limited resources were proactive about confronting the crisis.
For example, officials in Likhu Tamakoshi in eastern Nepal took the initiative to secure a jeep and two ambulances to transport residents for COVID treatment. They paid out 10,000 Nepali rupees ($74) to families who suffered a COVID death. As a further measure to support the local economy amid the stresses of the pandemic, they offered subsidized loans of up to 500,000 rupees for small businesses and agriculture-related businesses.
Earthquake damage in Jajarkot, Nepal, in November 2023: Local officials led search and rescue efforts and the identification of victims. © Reuters
Still, it must be acknowledged that the quality of the crisis response of Nepal’s local governments during the pandemic did vary widely. Those that navigated better generally had leaders with preexisting political connections, a clear vision of serving the public, a favorable geographic location or better access to financial and human resources.
For example, authorities in Bidur, a town northwest of Kathmandu, responded more effectively to COVID than their counterparts in Temal, a rural area beyond Dhulikhel, thanks in part to superior infrastructure and better financial and human resources. With a well-equipped district hospital with 15 beds, as well as six health posts and five urban clinics, Bidur could provide much better testing and treatment than Temal, which lacked health facilities or staff to manage quarantines or deal with returning migrant workers.
If Nepal had not had local administrations in place, the suffering of the public might easily have gone unabated during the pandemic. For comparison, one could look at how areas of Pakistan, lacking empowered local administrations, failed to take steps to evacuate citizens or minimize damage during catastrophic flooding in mid-2022.
The strength of Nepal’s local governments was shown again during the aftermath of the earthquake that hit Jajarkot district last November.
Local officials led search and rescue efforts, and the identification of victims, as well as coordination among different agencies. To ensure fair and equitable distribution, local officials channeled relief materials through their own offices rather than through community-based organizations, charities or other nonstate agencies. This helped ensure that aid reached those most in need, and renewed hope and trust among the public in area officials.
Indeed, Nepalis in general are supportive of their local administrations. In a 2022 survey sponsored by the Asia Foundation, 70.4% of respondents said conditions in their area were improving thanks to local government action.
There remain, however, critical challenges to be addressed to make Nepal’s local governments more effective.
For one, there should be proper institutional arrangements in place for the exchange of ideas, experiences, learning and good practices across federal, provincial and local administrations. This would be of immeasurable benefit in times of crisis like COVID-19.
Nepal also needs to ensure that local administrations have sustained access to financial resources, which can help them to be prepared to deliver important services during times of crisis. More programs to provide training and capacity-building can strengthen human resource capabilities at a local level.
For many in Nepal, the transition to federalism was marked with optimism about the possibility of improved public service delivery. To a significant extent, the pandemic showed that this redistribution of authority made for a more effective crisis response.
From the declaration of a public health emergency to the activation of disaster management committees, local governments remained alert and ensured emergency services to citizens throughout the pandemic. In many parts of Nepal, local governments proved capable of setting up and managing quarantine centers, as well as of providing economic support through aid to agriculture and small business.
As the first point of direct contact for citizens with economic or social development needs, Nepal’s local governments handled the COVID crisis far better than the national government despite limited technical, financial and human resources capabilities. In this sense, federalism has already delivered considerable benefits for Nepal.
Kushal Pokharel is a research fellow at the South Asia Institute of Advanced Studies and an adjunct faculty member in local governance and social inclusion at the College of Development Studies in Kathmandu. He is also a fellow with the Climate Action Network South Asia.
This blog article was first published at Nikkei Asia February 21, 2024.
“Views expressed here are personal and not associated with any affiliated organisations”
