The intellectual seeds that led to the peaceful Rana overthrow were sown mainly through the formation of the Nepali Congress Party in India. Because of the
96
poor education system in Nepal, wealthy children were sent to India for their education. Here they mingled with Nepali dissidents who were exiled by the Rana autocracy. Students and dissidents alike witnessed Ghandi’s protest movement and the work of the Indian Congress. Eventually coalescing with the existing monarchy in Nepal, and with support of the Indian Government
(Whelpton 2005), the factions pushed the Rana dynasty from power and restored Nepal’s hereditary monarchy (King Tribhuvan) to power. It was to be a constitutional monarchy, in order to prevent the autocracy of previous regimes.
The 1950s were marked in Nepal with an uneasy relationship existing between the newly developing political parties and the monarchy. The next significant public administration development occurs in the 1960s. King Mahendra, father of King Birendra (who later died in the 2001 royal massacre), implemented the Partyless Panchayat System (PPS) in 1960 (formally in 1962 when a new constitution was enacted). The rhetoric was that the PPS would decentralise power and foster development. The reality was that it was an attempt by the king to regain absolute control through the abolishment of the political parties and controlling who gained power in the PPS.
Assemblies were established from the local to the central/national level, which gave the illusion of decentralisation and a democratic polity. Village or town councils were directly elected. From this pool of elected members, their members “formed an electoral college to choose district-level representatives” (Whelpton 2005: 101). A majority of the national legislature (Rastriya Panchayat) was selected from amongst the district councils, with some seats kept free for representatives of royal nominees:
“The Rastriya Panchayat’s powers were limited and the whole
arrangement was designed to allow an element of popular represent while the king ruled unhindered by the pressures of parliamentary democracy’ (ibid 2005: 101).
Nepal was divided into 14 zones with each zone divided into 75 districts. Within the district were village and town panchayats (approximately 30 per district). Each village or town was subdivided into 9 wards. Mayors and ward chairmen were directly elected (Bienen et al. 1990). The PPS system was dominated by ‘traditional elites’ who came to that stature through land ownership. There was little opportunity or space for public participation. According to Bienen et al. (1990), the rural elites were not cohesive and factionalism was strong but the
97
factionalism was not created from ideology. Rather, the factions were created by allying with “local patrons whose land constitutes the single most important work opportunity” (ibid: 63). Patronage and private networks funnelled most of the funds earmarked for development away from the community and into the pockets of elites. National Assembly members also operated on a system of patronage and maintained affiliations with local factions:
“From countryside to Kathmandu, then, politics under the Partyless Panchayat System is characterized by battles among elite factions for control over government resources” (Bienen et al.1990: 64).
Cooperation at all levels of government was limited as there was no political ideology that galvanized cohesion within the bureaucracy or politicians, allowing the King to fill that role. Although the King set the broad policy objectives, he was unlikely to interfere in the bureaucracy or engage in dispute with elites because his rule largely depended on their support (Bienen et al. 1990).
In February 1990, the outlawed political party’s joint forces and led a massive protest movement call the Jana Andolan’ (Peoples Movement), a non-violent movement aimed to restore multiparty democracy. The protest movement eventually led to two hundred thousand protestors marching through the streets of Kathmandu. By April 1990, the King removed the ban on political parties. Both the overthrow of the Ranas in 1950 and the Jana Andolan movement characterise the struggle of the democracy movement in Nepal- one big step forward followed by several steps backwards, but the forward momentum has thus far been maintained.
A series of events, in particular the Maoist led civil war (1996-2006), curtailed Nepal’s administrative, social, and economic development. Jones et. al. (2014) argue that the civil war was instigated due to a democratic deficit. Peace was brokered through the signing of the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement. In the same year, massive public demonstrations put an end to the monarchy, making Nepal a republic. The protests were another indication that Nepali people wanted accountable and democratic intuitions and government. One of the demands was for a Constitution that would enshrine the rights of the people. A constitution would not be passed until September 2015, almost five months after the April 2015 earthquake. As previously discussed, many in Nepal (not only the Madhesis people) consider the 2015 Constitution to not have embraced the spirit of the 2006 demonstrations.
98
4.5 Modern Administrative Structure
As per the 2015 Constitution, Nepal’s federalist structure will eventually be divided into seven provinces. However, the structures discussed below are the structures that were in place over the course of this research. There are three main administrative levels: central, district, and the local level which includes both Village Development Committees and municipalities. Nepali government administrators are using the same administrative divisions that have been in place since the Panchayat period.