National Dialogue on Governance Conflicts and Cooperation in Federal Nepal

Introduction

With promulgation of the 2015 Constitution and adoption of a federal governance framework,
three tiers of electoral and democratic participation across geographical and political jurisdiction were introduced in Nepal. 753 local levels have been delegated to most of the authorities to reach the grassroot level.

According to part 5, article 59 of the constitution (2015), local level governments have sole
authority to form their own laws, policies, formulate annual budget, develop plans and implement them. However, this scope for engagement of democratic values has also introduced possibilities
of ideological, functional as well as systemic disagreements. Also, working against the background of waves of political instabilities, authoritative power struggles, political agenda and societal as well as regional disparities, effective functioning of federal governance system currently faces some evident and some underlying potentials of governance conflict. The effects of these governance conflicts can be observed in growing civil unrest and dissatisfactions.

The essence of federalism is based on the principle of cooperation, coexistence and coordination
of three levels of government. However, due to the lack of necessary laws and policies and ambiguity in the implementation of the laws, intergovernmental disputes have increased. In concept, governance conflicts can be potentially addressed by taking initiatives to formulate laws
and policies that clearly define and implement the roles of the three tier of government bodies, as
defined by the constitution for which, but this requires proactiveness of lawmaking, judicial and
relevant constitutional bodies. Also, mere interpretation and declaration of roles and responsibilities may not be sufficient to achieve better intergovernmental relationships. For this,
capacities of each actor need to be ensured and enhanced to be able to proficiently execute their
designated functions.

Role of CSC in intergovernmental conflict transformation

Due to severe lack of research, database and evidence-based attempts to identify the root causes
of governance related conflicts in young federal Nepal, and their solutions. To fill this gap, Center
for Social Change (CSC) has been consistently working in the past few years, to closely study and
monitor the governance related conflicts in Nepal, with larger focus on four areas- Natural
Resources, Development, Ethnocultural and Political conflicts. Furthermore, CSC in coordination
with various local levels has been actively conducting local level dialogues on local issues relevant
to the four areas of focus.

Also, findings, learnings and knowledge obtained from these activities is continuously
disseminated to the public through various forms of publications like study report, infographics,
blog articles, etc. through Governance Monitoring Centre (GMC Nepal). GMC Nepal is a monitoring mechanism that aims to deconstruct the existing and potential intergovernmental conflicts as well as conflicts between people and state and share those evidence among key stakeholders responsible in its transformation or resolution mechanisms.

The objectives of this dialogue are:

• To share major findings from GMC Nepal’s initiatives and sensitize relevant stakeholders
  on the most prominent intergovernmental conflicts.
• Bring the state representatives, development partners, private sectors, policymakers,
  academia, and other related stakeholders on same platform to foster effective dialogue
• To identify major intergovernmental conflicts and citizens’ dissatisfactions around the
  current function of the governance and seek action driven solutions to those conflicts
  through cooperation.

Key Discussion points

• Are conflicts related to governance processes and system as a whole increasing in recent
  times? If yes, what can be the reasons?
• What are the existing mechanisms (local/ provincial/ central) relevant to resolving governance conflicts?
• How can cooperation be used as a measure to transform or resolve governance related
  conflicts?