Decentralization and Local Governance in Bhutan ( 1st Draft)
Abstract
The
decentralization and local governance complement each other; one can’t function
in absence of other. The decentralization is a means of local empowerment whereas
local governance is an ends to the decentralization. This paper will explore
the decentralization process in Bhutan, empowerment to local governance till establishment
of democratic institution, types of decentralization, pros and cons of decentralization
and local government etc. This paper will also analyze whether Bhutan’s
devolution of power can be really termed decentralization with respect to political,
administrative and fiscal policy.
Introduction, Concept &
History of Decentralization and Governance in Bhutan
Decentralization
is a word that has been used by different people to mean many different things
(Aggrawal & Ribbot). In fact, review of the literature shows that there is
no common definition of decentralization, although much work has gone into
exploring its differing applications (UNDP et all, 1999). ’ Decentralization is
the transfer of authority and responsibility for public functions from the
central government to subordinate or quasi-independent government organizations
or the private sector—covers a broad range of concepts (Ahmad, Blair, et al).World
Bank Institutes defined decentralizations ‘a set of policies that encompasses
fiscal, political, and administrative changes, can impact virtually all aspects
of development.’ Decentralization can happened at international level, national
level, intergovernmental level and intra-governmental level. It is to an extent
identified with the local governance. Local governance is act of governing by local
leaders. The combination of local governance and decentralization is called
‘decentralized governance (UNDP).’ UNDP (1999)
defines decentralized governance as the
systematic and harmonious interrelationship resulting from the balancing of
power and responsibilities between central governments and other levels of
government and non-governmental actors, and the capacity of local bodies to
carry out their decentralized responsibilities using participatory mechanisms.’
In
Bhutan, the decentralization process seemed to be planned from the throne so
that people are educated about importance of decentralized participation and ‘facilitate
direct participation of the people in the development and management of their
own social, economic and environmental wellbeing through decentralization and
devolution of power and authority.’
During
the reign of second King, fiscal, administration and political policy was
centralized.The decentralization process has been initiated from enlightened
vision of Third Druk Gyalpo from the day of His enthronement in 1952. This was
probably influenced by his brief stint of education in Europe which changed his
vision. One year later in 1953; the National Assembly was established followed
by Royal Advisory Council in 1963. In 1968 high court was created. For the
first time in 1963, Gup was elected considered household as a voting unit. In
1968, council of ministers was appointed with approval of the then National
Assembly. First the legislative power was devolved to National assembly
represented by majority of elected people, government servants and representatives
of clergy. When he was enthroned, Tibet was in turmoil. He knew that Bhutan
should aspire for external recognition and internal empowerment. In 1971, the external recognition was
achieved in most important way when Bhutan became member of United Nation
Organizations while internal empowerment was partially achieved with
institution of national assembly.
After
3rd King passed away, his teenage son, 4th Druk Gyalpo
Jigme Singye Wangchuk continued with decentralization process. The state of
affairs under 4th Druk Gyalpo was keeping in mind the happiness of
nation where one component is good governance which decentralization is part
of. Decentralized local government was
instituted at two levels; district level and gewog level. At the same time in
1998, first council of ministers was elected by National Assembly to whom His Majesty
devolved executive powers. In 1981, Dzongkhag Yargay Tshogdu (DYT)was
established where ‘wide ranges of powers, authority, resources,
responsibilities and functions from the central agencies to Dzongkhag Yargay
Tshogchung to formulate, approve and implement geog and dzongkhag plan
activities (DYT Chathrim, 2002)’ were delegated.
With
revision of DYT Chathrim of 1995 by 80th session of National
Assembly in 2002, elected leader took over as chairman of DYT from Dzongdag was
no more the chairperson. The chairman was elected from among the members as per
the article 3 of DYT Chathrim 2002. The
members of the district level included Gups, Chimis and Mangmis of various gewogs
and one member from the municipal or town. The Dzongrab or Dzongkhag
Administrative Officer acted as a secretary whereas Dzongdag and sector heads
were mere observers. In other words, the DYT Chathrim further empowered the
members to make decisions pertaining to the wellbeing of the district. The
power and scope of DYT was again widened with Local Government Act of 2007.
After rectification of constitution by first parliament, Local Government Act
was revised in 2009 where roles, power and responsibilities of Dzongkhag
Tshogdu (erstwhile DYT) was outlined.
Geowg
Yargay Tshogchung(GYT) was established in 1991 by fourth King with ‘profound
vision and conceptions to reforms’ to ‘promote local socio-economic development
strategies and initiatives, by empowering the people to make decisions on their
plans and programmes, and by enabling them to adopt approaches and practices
adapted to local needs (GYT 2002).’ In other words, it is to further
decentralize and devolve the decision makings to the grass root level. Before 2002,
Gup chaired the GYT but secretary was who was headmaster of nearby school. After
2002, the clerk became the non-voting secretary. The members were gup, mangmi
and tshogpas. In 2008, the newly elected members of parliament from political
parties were no longer the part of neither Dzongkhag Tshogdu unlike erstwhile Chimi.
The erstwhile Royal Advisory Council was
replaced by National Council which was elected based on district with five
additional eminent members appointed by His Majesty the Druk Gyalpo. The National
Council cannot be affiliated to any political parties while members of national
assembly are from political parties. After formation of constitutional
parliamentary democracy in 2008, the parliament passed the Local Government Act
of Bhutan 2009 on September 11, 2009 based on provision of the constitution. Just
like DYT was renamed Dzongkhag Tshogdu, GYT was renamed Gewog Tshogde as two
tier local governance where plans endorsed by Gewog Tshogde were further
submitted to Dzongkhag Tshogdu.
Status of Decentralization
and Local Governance
Distribution of power improves the management
of resources and community participation which is considered key to sustainable
development. Advocates of decentralization argue that decentralized government
is source to improve community participation in rural development (Ahmad M
&Talib N, 2011). Keeping the rationale in mind, Bhutan has gradually
transited from centralized government during reign of third king. It was
further taken forward by 4th Druk Gyalpo with ushering of
constitutional democracy. The local government or decentralized government is
complete as enshrined in article 22 of constitution of kingdom of Bhutan which
guarantees the formation of local government whose power and responsibilities will
be defined by ‘parliament from time to time’. It says, ‘power and authority
shall be decentralized and devolved to elected Local Governments to facilitate
the direct participation of the people in the development and management of
their own social, economic and environmental well-being.’ The process of
decentralization is complete legally with establishment of democratic
institutions as democratization in Bhutanese context is a furtherance of
decentralization. However, assessing decentralization using this yardstick
would be incomplete. The status of decentralization in Bhutan would be assessed
using three dimensions of decentralization and how empowered local government
is in terms of political, administrative and fiscal dimensions.
Status of Administrative
Decentralization
‘Administrative
decentralization seeks to redistribute authority, responsibility, and financial
resources for providing public services among different levels of government.’ It
is the transfer of responsibility for planning, financing, and managing certain
public functions from the central government and its agencies to field units of
government agencies, subordinate units or levels of government, semi-autonomous
public authorities or corporations, or area wide, regional, or functional
authorities (Ahmad, Blair, et al).
Although the ‘constitutions, laws, and regulations codify the formal
parameters in which decentralized systems are supposed to function’, it is
imperative to understand whether decentralization has achieved under this broad
frameworks.
In
the grass root level, Gewog Tshogde is considered highest decision making body.
They directly seek inputs from the people on community’s needs. The executive
powers at the gewog levels are vested in gup. The Mangmis and Gups of each
gewog under the district make the Dzongkhag Tshogdu. However, the chairman of the
Dzongkhag Tshogdu doesn’t have executive power. However, the administrative
functions are rendered by the civil servants. They don’t have authority to
appoint administrative staff, technical and expertise administrative staffs are
directly under Dzongdag. Civil Servants are further overseen by line ministry
but final authority on the civil servants rested on Royal Civil Service
Commission. The Gup as of executive head of Gewog doesn’t have authority to
decide on administrative capacity of the gewog. The administrative power of the
Gup doesn’t go beyond approving leave, giving annual appraisal of the staff
under them.
Comparatively,
the administrative power of local government has improved. The district
administration now reports to the elected body (Thompson 2010). The human
resources capacity of the local administration is also increased drastically.
Today, the dzongkhag can internally transfer the staff under them.
Status of Fiscal
Decentralization and Local Governance
Fiscal
decentralization regards the extent to which local entities collect taxes,
undertake expenditures, and rectify the imbalance (White, 2011). According to
the Local Government (LG) Act 2009, ‘Local Governments shall be entitled to
levy, collect and appropriate taxes, duties, tolls and fees in accordance with
such procedure and subject to limitations as may be provided for by law.’ However, local government can’t legislate to
collect taxes. The taxes collected by local government as empowered by
legislations are direly insufficient even to meet the basic administrative cost
of the government. Therefore, central government gave local governments the
fund in the form of ‘annual grants.’ In 9th Five Year Plan, district
and gewogs were given 25.5% of total budget outlay whereas in 10th
Five Year Plan around 18.75 of the total outlay were projected (source:
Thomson,2010 ).The big projects in the local government are directly funded by
the central government either through GNH commissions or Ministry of Finance in
tandem with line ministry. However, local government can aspire to be
financially self-government through allocation of ‘a proportion of the national
revenue to promote self-reliant and self-sustaining units or activities of
Local Self-Government’ (LG Act 2009). They can also ‘own assets and incur
liabilities by borrowing on their own account subject to such limitations as
may be provided for by law’ (LG Act 2009). But with size of economy in its
jurisdiction and development status of the nation, attaining the financial
self-sustainability is a distant dream.
Despite the increasing empowerment of
the local government fiscally like collecting certain tax and fees, the local
government has to rely upon central government or legislatives on types and
amounts of tax to be collected. It doesn’t have freedom to decide like state
government or India or United States.
Status of Political
decentralization and Local Governance
Decentralization
through the involvement of local representative in the formulation of plans for
development as well as their implementation is being advocated in the interest
of efficient utilization of resources and for ensuring more equitable sharing
of benefit from development (Ahmad M &Talib N, 2011) Political
decentralization is fundamental to the concept of local self-governance
providing a platform for democratic accountability beyond de-concentrated
government (UNCDF, 2006). The political decentralization must not be seen only
as election of local leaders but also freedom and empowerment to fulfill the
wishes of the people locally without having to acquire permission from the
centre. The responsibilities shouldered by local leaders should be consummated
with authority. The elected leaders should be accountable and answer to the
electorates. People should be consulted about development, plans and policies.
On other hand, electorate should also involve in decision making other than
electorates. The participation of women in the election should be encourage but
going by the record, the participation of women in democratic as well as
decentralized process is negligible. Even those women who contested are not
trusted by women electorates themselves who are in majority. The Joint
Evaluation of Danish-Bhutanese Country Programme 2000-09 on Thematic Paper on Decentralization
and Local Empowerment, political decentralization found out that
decentralization was consolidated since enactment of GYT AND DYT Chatrim 2002
and the election of first ever local leaders on adult franchise with 34% of the
voter turnout. Tshogpas which is lowest elected representatives provide the
first level contact between people and plans mediated through village meetings
(zomdoos) and as such are crucial to the devolution process (Decentralization
Evaluation Report-Bhutan).However, after the enactment of LG Act in 2009,
‘elections were conducted for all 205 Gewog
Tshogdes, 4 Dzongkhag Thromde
Tshogdes and 16 Thromde
Tshogpas to Gewog Tshogdes
Tshogpas by June 2011(Wangdi, 2011)’. Dzongkhag Tshogdu is the highest
decision making in the district whereas Gewog Tshogde is highest decision
making in the gewog whereas Dzongkhag Thromde Tshogde is the highest decision
making body in A-Grade municipalities.
The elected members of the local
governments don’t have the legislative authority. But it has authority to make
rules and regulations that are consistent to the laws passed by the parliament.
With the advent of democracy, the authority and scope of local government has
been enhanced greatly. Having said that development plans and policies
developed by the local government is subject to approval of cabinet. At the
present, other than proposing plan and policies needs for the community, the
role of local government is to ‘ensure the provision of such social and
economic services for the general wellbeing of the residents of the communities
in a sustainable and equitable manner’ (LG Act 2009). One can also argue that
the political authority of the local government is greatly limited by fiscal
dependence on the central government. Despite these limitations, the 2007 GNH
survey found out that people give higher rating to the local leaders than the
chief executive officers of the district which explained the importance and
performance of the local leaders.
Positive and Negative of the
Decentralization in Bhutan
The
most important goal of the decentralization is bestowing decision making power to
the people as they know best what they want. The accountability and
transparency is improved and people are also empowered to have a say on
policies and activities that affect them most. In a way, local governance is a
form of good governance. Decentralization is also viewed as an indispensable
part of sustainable development efforts particularly those focused on the
alleviation of poverty (White, 2011). In her book, Government decentralization
in 21st century, Stacey White came out with various positive and
negative aspects of decentralization based on extensive literature reviews. Based
on her book, some of the deemed advantages of decentralization relevant to
Bhutan’s context could be improvement in the responsiveness to people’s demand,
betterment of delivery of public services and the reduction in nature and space
of corruptions. She mentioned other aspects of decentralization like limiting
‘the size of public sector, intensifying the ‘intergovernmental competition’
and limiting the ‘conflict’ and protecting ‘minority rights’ which is either
irrelevant or insignificant in Bhutan’s context at the present. However, one of
main positive aspects of decentralization in our context is to involve and
empower every citizen in decision making process and let people understand
their rights and duties properly. Stacy White also compiled some of the
arguments against decentralization which are relevant even in Bhutan’s context.
Literature reviews show that despite the aim to reduce size of public sector by
giving power and choice to people within theoretical framework of good
governance, the size of the public sector is hardly limited. This will be never
truer than in Bhutanese context. This mainly is because creation of new
organizations to suit democratic set ups, responding to international
organization’s demand and empowering local government with human resources
capacity and so on. The decentralization
also creates space for local corruptions. When Dzongdag were empowered with
financial administration in 1990s, many dzongdag misused the fund and some were
convicted. Such thing can happen in local level as local leaders may feel easy
to fool local people especially in remote places. Some literatures also argue
that decentralization is ‘inherently destabilizing specifically when lower
levels of government are expected to respond to the needs of ethically or
culturally heterogeneous populations.
Bhutan can face such problems and regionalism may develop if we are not careful
about it.
Conclusion
Since
the origination of decentralization concept during French Revolution, the
decentralization has spread throughout the world. The degree and nature of
decentralization differs from country to country depending of nature of state
whether country is unitary state, federal or confederates. In Bhutan, since
1960’s decentralization has come a long way culminating with democracy in 2008.
Bhutan today has necessary constitutional and legal frameworks necessary for
the conducive functions of decentralized governance.
However,
if one to assess based on Arnstein Ladder of citizen participation, Bhutan has
yet to enter citizen control. Bhutan is in the rungs of tokenism where citizens
are informed, consultation and placated regarding social, economic and
financial policies of the nation.
The
local government at the present plays the role of policy implementer rather
than policy makers. The policy is made by center government under political
leadership elected political leaders. The five year plan is made by Gross National
Commission under the chairmanship of Prime Minister. Local Government can
submit their plans either independent or through Tshogde and Tshogdu, but it
will be for centre government to either approve or reject based on financial
availability and political ideology.
Having
said that, with 63% literacy rate majority of which are below matriculation
level, it wouldn’t not be the right time to hand over all the decision power in
the hands of citizens. Even with democracy, citizens are yet to make full use
of democracy and understand their duties and responsibilities. But government
has started private-government partnership on some selected sectors which means
Bhutan will soon be on border to citizen control.
References
Thompson,
A. (2010). Joint Evaluation of Danish-Bhutanese Country Programme 2000-09:
Thematic Paper on Decentralization and Local Empowerment. Denmark/Bhutan: Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Gross National
Commission.
White,
S. (2011). Government Decentralization in the 21st Century: A
Literature Review. Washington: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
UNDP&
Government of Germany (1999). Decentralization; Sampling Definitions; Working paper prepared in connection with the
Joint UNDP-Government of Germany evaluation of the UNDP role in
decentralization and local governance.
Ministry of Home (2002): Dzongkhag Yargay Tshogdu
Chathrim, 2002.
Ministry of Home (2002): Geog Yargay
Tshogchhung Chathrim, 2002.
National Assembly of Bhutan (2009): The Local
Government Act of Bhutan, 2009.
Wolfrum, R , Bogdandy, A & et all (2007). Max
Planck Manual on Different forms of Decentralizations.
Wettenhall, R. (2009). Civic Engagement,
Dcentralization and Local Democracy: Some Questions and Issues. Canberra:
University of Canberra.
Lim, P.O.W & Fritzen, S.A. (2006). Problems and
Prospects of Decentralization in Developing Countries. National University of
Singapore.
Wangdi, K. (2011). Status on Democratization Process
in the Kingdom of Bhutan.
VEVRIES, S& MICHIEL, S. (2000). The rise and
fall of decentralization: A comparative analysis of arguments and practices in
European countries: European Journal of Political Research: Kluwer Academic
Publishers
Ahmed, S.M &. Talib, A.B.N ( 2010). Decentralization,
Participatory Rural Development, Sustainable Development, Literature Review,
Rural Development Policy.
UNDCF,
et all. Decentralization Outcome Evaluation Report-Bhutan
Ministry
of Home (2002): 80th Session of National Assembly Minutes
Agrawal, A & Ribot,J (nd). Environmental Governance in Africa:
Analyzing Decentralization: A Frame Work with South Asian and East African
Environmental Cases. World Resources Institute
Comments
Post a Comment