尼泊尔地方参与式民主的演变（英）

The Evolution of Local Participatory Thaneshwar BhusalMichael G BreenVijayendra Rao Policy Research Working Paper11252 Abstract Nepal is, according to its constitution, among the world’smost decentralized countries, with a long and complex tra-dition of local-level public participation. This paper tracesthe evolution of Nepal’s modern participatory institutions,examining the extent to which they are “induced” by externalinterventions versus being “organically” rooted in indige-nous practices. The paper identifies three broad phases: aninitial focus on participation in project implementation; asubsequent phase that expanded citizen engagement; anda third phase of citizen empowerment, culminating in the traditional participatory mechanisms into formal institu-tions of local government. Third, although central-levelinitiatives exist, most participatory platforms continue tooperate at the local level. Fourth, the federal constitutionhas created a new landscape of local democracy, embeddingautonomy and accountability. Fifth, although they are stillvalued in many ethnic and territorial communities, tra- The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about developmentissues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry thenames of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those The Evolution of Local Participatory Democracy in Nepal Thaneshwar Bhusal, University of CanberraMichael G Breen, University of Melbourne Keywords:Nepal, participation, local democracy, federalism, participatory traditions, deliberation JEL Codes:O10, P43 1.Introduction Nepal is one of the most decentralized countries in the world, with a long and complex history of publicparticipation in local governance, originating in various religious, ethnic and other cultural traditions, andadapted by both modern-day authoritarian and democratic regimes. Varieties of public participation cannow be seen across formal and informal institutions (Bhusal, 2018), local and upper-level governments(Stiller & Yadav, 1979; Tandon, 2025), ethnic and territorial domains (Hachhethu, 2023), political andadministrative apparatus (Dharamdasani, 1984; Dahal, 2006) and across several policy areas such as Nepal was originally established around 250 years ago following the Gorkhali conquest of the KathmanduValley (1768-69). Since then, and up until 1951, it was under the feudal authoritarian rule of a monarch(the Shahs) or a hereditary oligarchy (the Ranas). In 1951, Nepal enacted a (hybrid) democratic constitution,which would be the first of seven different constitutions implemented over the coming seven decades. Eachconstitution established a more expansive and inclusive version of democracy than its predecessors, despiteshortcomings. The democratic ideals articulated in these constitutions can be categorized into three broad The focus on participatory local democracy was reinvigorated and incorporated into the federal constitutionof 2015, which includes provisions about autonomous local governments, constitutionally guaranteedpower and resources, and electoral representative democracy. Although federalism was introduced in Nepalas part of its conflict resolution strategy (Thapa and Sharma, 2011; Payne and Breen, 2022), therevitalization of local democracy under the federal constitution was widely considered as the most effectiveinstrument for advancing democracy (Hachhethu, 2023). Dozens of subsequent legal and institutionalreforms consistent with the federal constitution have made local democracy more conducive to participatory We argue that while the Local Government Act of 2017 (which followed the 2015 constitution) providesan unprecedented level of political, administrative, and fiscal autonomy coupled with funding possibilities areas, do not sufficiently incorporate traditional modalities and ideals (Bhusal and Acharya, 2024). Weargue that popular participatory traditions in ethnic communities and territories are relatively neglected inthe design and practice of local-level participatory mechanisms. In practice, most local governments inNepal follow formal norms of participatory development – primarily derived from Western research and The paper is presented in seven sections. After this introduction, in section 2, we explore participatorytraditions in Nepal to understand their implications for modern-day local participatory mechanisms. Insection 3, we review Nepal’s democratic reforms as reflected in its constitutional developments over thepast seven decades, from which we derive a framework of three phases of public participation in Nepal.We then turn our focus to the second phase of public participation (section 4) covering the decentralizationinitiatives that primarily began in the early 1980s.