During the 2074 BS local elections, Madhesh-centric parties had demanded that local elections be held without parties. The debate was lost in the middle. However, after the National Independent Party's election manifesto, in point number ten of the '100 bases of policy departure for transformation', proposed 'constitutional amendment, directly elected executive system, fully proportional parliamentary model' and other proposals, this issue has re-entered Nepali politics.

The government, which had a political agenda to make local levels non-partisan, rejected the non-partisan local level in the reply submitted on Chaitra 23 to the writ filed a year ago when the Rashtriya Swatantra Party was the head of the government. While it may be premature to say now, it cannot be said that the Prachanda majority in the last House of Representatives could not change the stance of the Rashtriya Swatantra Party. Because in the upcoming local elections, why will the RSVP change its stance of ‘being non-partisan when it does well in party elections’? Doubts can be raised. I want my doubt to be proven false.

Nepal’s constitution has adopted a decentralized governance system that is accountable to the people by distributing resources, means, power, and authority between the federal, provincial, and local levels. Since the local level, rural municipality, and municipality are the government of the people who are in direct contact with the citizens, there is no provision in the constitution to hold local level elections on a party basis. Some provisions of the Local Level Election Act-2073, such as requiring an official letter from a party to be a candidate from a party and using the party’s election symbol in local level elections, have led to party-based competition in local elections. This has led to party politics dominating over development and service delivery in some cases. This situation has made the debate on non-partisan local elections increasingly relevant.

How relevant is this debate now?

The ongoing local elections, with vested interests between parties, allegations of corruption, delays in development and slow service delivery, have made this debate even more relevant. Nepal is continuously testing federalism as the constitution nears its 10th anniversary. Generally, it is considered relevant to review the constitution after ten years of its implementation.

Nepal's 2072 constitution has brought forward a structure to make the local level powerful. It was expected that the elected representatives in 753 local levels would establish development, service delivery and direct relations with the people. However, looking at the experience of ten years, the reality and achievements are not as expected but mixed.

After the 2079 local elections, there were reports of party interests at most local levels, conflicts between mayors and deputy mayors, political division in the budget, use of government resources and allowances when local government representatives went to their parties' political programs in the party's districts, provinces and federations, and corruption. This has gradually reduced the popularity of local governments compared to the federal and provincial governments. In this way, it has been felt that local governments have been used for their own political gain by paying less attention to local issues in the name of political competition.

In the first phase of federalism, it is also alleged that parties sometimes made local levels like party offices. It is not new that as soon as the leadership of a municipality changes, the chairperson of the consumer committee and even the school management officials change, making them look like they are of the same color and class. Competition is inevitable in a democracy, but when there is a party syndicate in all units, the risk of society becoming polarized on the basis of parties is increasing.

When people close to party decision-makers are given priority in ticket distribution instead of local qualifications, capabilities and public support, the result has been politicization of development work, question marks have been raised over the fairness of service delivery, and people's trust has gradually been lost. At a time when it seems that party competition has weakened local democracy somewhere or that local government has become a political unit rather than a center for service delivery due to the politics of prohibition in communities, the debate on establishing non-partisan local governments has become timely.

What are its constitutional bases?

Articles 76 and 168 of the Constitution of Nepal have clearly provided for the formation of a government of a political party at the federal and provincial levels, where even the proportional electoral system is organized on a party basis. Not only this, according to Articles 89 and 170, there is a strict provision that if members of the federal parliament and provincial assemblies leave the party, their posts will be vacant. However, the structure of the local level is different from these two levels. The federal and provincial governments are indirectly elected executive, while the local level is based on the principle of directly elected executive. The provisions of Articles 214 to 227 of the Constitution relating to local levels do not envisage or make mandatory provisions for holding elections on a party basis, which seems to have given the local government a constitutional position to rise above party influence and work.

What are its theoretical bases?

The concept of making local level elections non-partisan seems to be based on the deep theoretical foundation of democratic principles, public administration principles, and practical governance management. It is based on three main principles.

First, local government is not a political arena but a service delivery unit close to the people, it is the government of the citizens. The strongest theoretical basis for non-partisan elections is that the main work of the local level is the delivery of practical services such as development, waste management, water, sewage, roads, education, and health. Party ideology has no meaning in this work.

‘There is no Democratic or Republican way to take out the garbage,’ is a statement that American political scientists and reformists have repeatedly repeated. Local issues are more focused on the practical and technical aspects of the people than on the ideological. Parties may compete ideologically at the federal or state level, but at the local level, that competition affects service delivery, hinders cooperation, and hinders development.

Second, in 1887, Woodrow Wilson stated regarding the theory of politics-administration conflict, ‘Administration is outside the proper sphere of politics. Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics assigns tasks to the administration, it should not be allowed to interfere with administrative offices.’ In the context of Nepal, this principle seems to have some relevance. The non-partisan model can make the local level an autonomous governing unit rather than a political shadow in accordance with the spirit of the constitution.

Third, in the 1900s and 1920s, there was a major campaign for non-partisan elections in the United States. The main goal of the movement was to stop the corruption, unfair appointments, and people's representatives who were distant from the people caused by the party structure of the major parties. Reformers like Lincoln Stephens and Richard Childs began to advocate that the party system gave opportunities to party loyalists, not qualified people, at the local level. They believed that non-partisan elections would make it easier for voters to make decisions based on the personal qualifications, experience, and local issues of the candidates. And, as a result of the movement, non-partisan elections became widespread in the United States. This experience can also be useful for Nepal.

What is the international experience?

Many countries in the world have made local level elections non-partisan. In their experience, it can be seen that the goal is to make local government the center of national politics and focus on service delivery. For a long time, local level elections were held on a party basis in Sikkim. However, in 2019/2020, the Sikkim Legislative Assembly amended the law and decided to make local elections non-partisan. Parties were not allowed to directly or indirectly support candidates. The main reason for Sikkim to go for non-partisan practice was to bring ‘functional democracy’ to the grassroots level at the local level. Most of the gram panchayat and municipal elections in India are also held in a non-partisan manner.

In the United States, more than 75 percent of municipal, council and school board elections are non-partisan. Since local elections are held in accordance with state laws, there is no single practice. All county elections are non-partisan and more than 80 percent of city council elections are also non-partisan. In the state of Nebraska, the House is also non-partisan. It is customary to put only the name of the candidate on the ballot paper without putting the party symbol. This has increased the government’s attention to local issues and Party polarization has decreased and cooperation among elected representatives has increased.

In Canada, except for large cities like Vancouver and Montreal, all local government/body elections are non-partisan. Political party names and symbols are not allowed in local elections. In other large cities like Toronto, councilors are elected independently. Canada's experience shows that voters prioritize a candidate's personal abilities, experience, and local issues, and partisan bickering is said to be rare. According to a study, about 43 percent of Canadians prefer independent candidates.

Similarly, in the Philippines, barangay (village) level elections are legally non-partisan, and this seems to be an attempt to reduce partisan interference at the local level. Non-partisan assemblies are prevalent in many cities in Switzerland, which has successfully used federalism.

The overall experience of the above countries shows that non-partisan systems make local governance practical and service-oriented, but also lead to lower voter turnout, lack of information, and transitional challenges. Nepal can learn from these experiences and develop a model that is appropriate for its context.

What are the benefits?

Non-partisan local governance creates an environment where local issues and needs are prioritized by eliminating political disputes, so that local needs are promoted over partisan agendas in development. What is the meaning of partisan ideology in practical service delivery such as service delivery, development, waste management, water, sewage, roads, education, and health? Nepal's experience to date does not show that local government is superior because of any party. The non-partisan system forces candidates to focus on local development, accountability to voters, people's needs, and transparency by freeing them from national political polarization. This reduces partisan friction, increases cooperation among elected representatives, and helps control corruption, as the impact of partisan donations, pressure, and ticket purchases is almost zero. By increasing direct accountability to the people, local governments can become truly service-oriented, and that is the goal of making local governments autonomous.

Generally, parties distribute tickets loyally to themselves and their people. However, in the non-partisan model, voters have more opportunities to see the candidate's personal capabilities, experience, and commitment to local issues, diligence, and honesty. In this way, this system creates a favorable environment for encouraging moderate and pragmatic leadership by giving qualified individuals the opportunity to enter politics and reducing partisan polarization. It minimizes the possibility of misuse of resources on a partisan basis, ensuring the practical practice of participatory democracy by institutionalizing performance-based evaluation, improving service delivery, and local autonomy in accordance with decentralized principles.

What are the challenges?

An indicator of democracy is how active the voters of that country are in voting. However, the main challenge of non-partisan elections is the possibility of a decrease in voter turnout. As shown by various studies in the US and Canada, the voter turnout in non-partisan local elections is on average 10 percent lower than in partisan elections. This is an indicator of democracy fatigue. In partisan elections, parties, through their workers, actively take voters to the polling stations on election day through voter education and provide necessary information. In our country, where public awareness of local issues is comparatively low, this system can make elections less competitive.

Another challenge is that these days, from forest to other thematic consumer committee elections, even though the parties do not publicly announce their candidates, it is seen that party panels are openly competing in the elections. Thus, there is also the possibility of indirect party influence in this method.

Its biggest challenge is the risk of decreasing representation of minorities or marginalized groups. Because parties have institutional structures to mobilize or reserve minorities or marginalized groups in an organized manner. However, this is difficult in a non-partisan system.

What should be done to make the upcoming elections non-partisan? The current debate, which may seem popular at first glance, is more emotional. It requires in-depth research and detailed study. An independent expert group should be formed and the experiences of the US, Canada, India (some states) and the Philippines should be studied. There should be no delay in public discussions, consultations with local level representatives, civil society and experts. It cannot be said that if a hasty decision is made without preparation, the new model cannot become another failed experiment.