Even when the federal government was in a state of limbo due to the Gen Z movement, the existence of elected power at the grassroots level was still being felt - the local government.

Some municipalities were attacked, but they woke up from their unconscious state in a short time and seemed ready to serve the common people. The existence of the local level has not been mentioned in the constitution without a reason. In every crisis, the local government stood as a charioteer among the people like a state for centuries. Instead of looking to the higher authorities, the local government continued to provide daily services from the lower units. 

Local governance in Nepal was born from the womb of struggle. That is why, there is a greater awareness of rights in it. The quality of democracy is not only measured by the regularity of elections for local governments, but by the distribution of 'power' up to the grassroots level. Looking at the practice so far, the local level has neither completely failed nor been as successful as expected. It is a transitional constitutional level, which is in constant struggle. 

The current constitution itself has envisaged the local level. The greatest achievement of the local level is that it has given an ideological challenge to the centralization of power, although in practice that challenge is still incomplete. However, it has brought democracy to the grassroots level, political activity has reached the bottom. The local level is trying to run programs that are responsive to local citizens. The role of the government, which is available at the doorsteps of local people, is becoming clear.

Democracy is not just a system of governance, it is a moral relationship between the government and the citizens. When the government is distant - away from the people, then democracy becomes only formal. However, when it is close, then it reveals the possibility of becoming responsive. The local level is an institution born from the philosophy of proximity. However, even after reaching the middle of the second term, the question remains - does the local level actually bring power to the people or does it provide a local mask for the centralization of power? The answer to this question is contradictory. When viewed from multiple angles, the local level has matured in a relatively short time, it has established trust.

The one whose problem is solved from there and its acceptability is also wide - that is the local level. And, which continues to take shape as a local majority or minority based on the issue. Majority is not always a monopoly, the determination of numbers comes with the impact of the issue. Therefore, this 'next door' government is gradually spreading its ownership. The local level maintains sociality between the government and the people, both the service recipients and the service providers are well-known, where artificiality does not remain anywhere. Women and Dalit representation is bringing them to an equal status rather than a witness. It is becoming possible to create plans according to local needs, the speed of implementation and local monitoring have improved. The local government is free to impose taxes, make budgets and spend at the local level. The ability to mobilize resources and power is developing. How is the state run? Its experience and permission are expanding at the local level. This has helped it move ahead of formal governance. When development comes from above, the local level appears like an agency, it rises from the ground and it becomes clear as a 'government'. Along with administrative activity, the wheels of local activity have started turning.

The ideals of 'branding' local products, geographical features, crafts, natural heritage, archaeology, traditional knowledge and lifestyle are seen as exemplary. Some local governments are working in the areas of employment-oriented training, investment, technology support, conservation of indigenous seeds, and knowledge generation on the proper use of wildlife and flora. There is pressure to run programs targeting malnutrition, child health, girl child education, pregnant women, senior citizens, and the underprivileged. The process of preparing at the community level to deal with natural disasters has increased. Rigorous efforts are taking shape to eradicate social anomalies. The process of implementing strategic plans of long-term importance, including municipal-level pride projects, cultural, economic development, and others, has increased.

When power comes close, it is no longer just a technical issue, but becomes a moral issue. The core philosophy of the local level is not to transfer power, but to bring it down to earth. When decisions start being made at the local level, power is no longer a distant object - it becomes intertwined with everyday moral questions. Local government is the first touch of democracy, if it fails, democracy remains intangible. Local government is the laboratory of democracy, where the balance of power and conscience is tested. Local government is not just an administrative structure, but a mirror of citizen consciousness. It has rewritten the state-citizen relationship. Local government is a concept that turns citizens from beneficiaries into co-creators. It does not just deliver services, but rather begins the process of citizen building. This is also one of the reasons for the growing critical consciousness in Nepali society.

This is self-governance with the people. For local government to be effective, it means that the state trusts the citizens for the first time and the citizens trust the state. This is true - in South Asia, the constitution has made the local level powerful on paper, but practice has still put it on the test. It is said that Singha Durbar has reached every village, but the decision is still stuck in Singha Durbar. Centralized governance mentality, exploitation of state resources, and the understanding of those who reach the leadership, that the resources of the municipality are their personal earnings, and the appearance of corruption is no less. Accusations of misappropriation of public property and socialization of corruption are integrally depicted with the leadership of the local government, which cannot be said to be wrong. There is a strong case for complaints that the law-making process is opaque.

Local government should have become a service center, but in some places it is becoming only a power center. The government has reached the doorstep of the people, but sometimes its ears seem closed. Local government is a school of democracy, but both the curriculum and teachers are weak. When the local government appears weak, it is not the rule, but the society itself is weak. Being close to the people is not enough, it is necessary to think like the people. Promoting good practices regarding the emergence of local leadership and a comfortable platform for democratic training is indispensable. It is believed that the local level is more accountable when power is close. However, proximity becomes moral only when citizen monitoring is active. Otherwise, local power ends up being translated into local dominance. Proximity is a condition of democracy, not its guarantee.

The main issue that the common people expect at the local level is good governance and advanced public service. Complaints that the daily problems of the people are not being solved in some respects due to excessive control of the federal government, dependence on bureaucracy, technology and lack of skilled manpower have not gone unheard. In addition, the continuation of proxy representation (power exercised by husband or family), caste and feudal pressure groups has prevented elected representatives from working properly. Reservation of women or Dalits is not just statistical justice, it is an attempt to break the historical silence. However, the question of symbolic leadership versus real empowerment remains.

Reservation gives voice, autonomy gives meaning. Does representation mean only presence or influence? When elected representatives do not make decisions and social structures (relatives, caste, party, moneylenders) make decisions, then democracy becomes symbolic. There is a political saying – politics dies when action is replaced by action. In the municipal assembly, citizens should not be ‘subjects’ but doers. However, when that presence becomes limited to registers, predetermined proposals, and formal approvals, then the local level is not the final form of democracy, and questions begin to arise about it. We are constantly forced to ask – Whose power is this? Who makes the decisions? And, are the people just listeners or doers?

Development plans can only be considered meaningful when they are guided by local conscience. Otherwise, they are considered an extension of higher-level policies to the local level. The measure of success at the local level is not how many plans are made! Its significance is determined when the citizens themselves experience the moral inheritance of governance. Now, in order for the local government to have the drive and courage to provide effective service delivery, people-oriented development, and distribute the fruits of development fairly to the people, it is not too late to establish the tradition of ‘praise the good and punish the bad’.