By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel We are all prepared to conduct the election for the federal parliament and provincial assemblies on November 20. Following the promulgation of the constitution, this is for the second time that the general election is being conducted in Nepal. This will lay the ground for a peaceful handover of power to those elected by the adult citizen strengthening democracy. This will also indicate that Nepal is all set to move forward on its course to institutionalize democratic ethos and institution. At the same time, the objective of democratic exercise and practice has been to ensure that the consent of governed is secured through democratic processes and procedures. Most importantly, it also offers structures and spaces of interfaces between ordinary citizens and the state authorities. But it is very disheartening to note that the interface between citizens and state authorities has not been adequately fostered in Nepal despite electoral exercises conducted every five years. The local, provincial and federal governments instituted according to federal democratic principles do not seem aware of the need to conduct regular dialogue and communication with themselves. As if this is not enough, the state authorities including the elected representatives spare little time to engage and dialogue with citizen stakeholders and give a hearing to their interests, concerns and grievances. If we assess our governing mechanism ever since we restored democracy, we will find that it is skewed against the interest and aspirations of citizens. We will also find that the self-centred and bureaucrats prevails at all level with the top-down policy legislation process. The consultation among three tiers of government while formulating policies on the subject that is fully within the concurrent jurisdiction has just been a paper tiger. The local government often complain that the federal government has bypassed and encroached upon their jurisdiction. Across the globe, there has been a practice of consulting with citizen stakeholders soliciting their views and opinions on the issue of general interest. The citizen’s views and opinions are upheld high and policies and plans are developed accordingly. Conversely in Nepal, the citizens are not consulted in the process of formulation of plans and policies on issues of general interest. Even if they are consulted, it is not with genuine intention but just for sake of consulting. As a result, civic aspirations have been grossly neglected while taking administrative decisions and enacting laws in the parliament. The serious anomalies in our political and administrative system are that public officials and authorities hold and control public information in a very opaque way. Nobel Laureate Nelson R Mandela describes it as a basic human right and fundamental foundation for the formation of a democratic institution. Access of citizens to information is required for meaningful participation in decision making especially in producing public goods and services. It is therefore that the citizens should be endowed with democratic competence to engage with the state institutions to seek accountability and claim effective and efficient services from public service providers. For a successful democracy to deliver properly, citizens should also be enabled to exercise and secure meaningful and substantive participation in the decision-making process, especially in producing and delivering local public goods and services. Besides, the citizen should be endowed with democratic competence to engage with the local state institutions to seek accountability and claim and demand delivery of services. Generally, “to exist not to deliver” has been the nature of governments that are not responsive to the people. Nepal enjoys an enabling legal framework to build a vibrant transparent and accountable governance system. Legal instruments like the Right to Information Law, Good Governance Act, and Local Government Operation Act are in place. However, their implementation is weaker. As a result, local public institutions have failed to deliver insufficient terms. This is also because they are not made to face civic scrutiny, sanction and discipline for their non-performance and poor delivery. The last five years of local governments have shown that informed deliberation in the public sphere is hardly the case at the local level. The absence of informed democratic discussions, deliberation and inputs has created glaring agency problems at the local level. Consequently, accountability deficits have outgrown to rupture the democratic relationship between the citizens and the government. The cases of blatant misappropriation of resources and the abuse of authority at the local level have been manifest consequences. The political observer argues that willingness is utterly lacking and the culture of secrecy reigns dominant at three tiers- local, provincial and federal. They also hold the view that a culture of secrecy on issues of general interest has restricted citizens to engage with policy makers in process of development of plans and policies. Participation in deliberation and decision in the production and allocation of public goods and services should be ensured so that citizens are graduated into the shaper and makers of the goods and services. Civic forums and institutions can be important vehicles for enhancing civic competence for participation in the decision-making process and strengthening civic engagement.