Experience of Local Self-Government: India and Norway

Speech held by Magnhild Meltveit Kleppa, Minister of Local Government and Regional Development at the Indo Norwegian Symposium, Inaugural address, New Delhi 29th October 2007.

Your Excellency Minister Aiyar, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Thank you kindly for your hospitable invitation to visit India to discuss matters on local government in our two countries. I am truly pleased to be here today to open this conference. It provides an interesting opportunity for politicians, researchers and civil servants to get to know one other. First and foremost, however, the conference is important in that we may benefit from each other’s experience with and views on how to design and possibly reform local democratic structures.

Please allow me to convey some introductory remarks concerning the Norwegian tradition with local self-government. Norway became independent from Sweden in 1905, but acquired its own constitution and parliament in 1814. In 1837 the Norwegian parliament passed a lay – the Alderman act – which lay down the principles of local self-government. Suffrage was confined to a subset of the male population in those days, but the law provided for democratically elected local representatives. Moreover, local governments were given extensive powers. It is fair to say, I believe, that this reform proved to be an important step towards both a deeper as well as a wider democratization of our society at large.

Local democracy in Norway nowadays be characterised as follows:

First, it increases participation in political processes. Indeed, suffrage is more extensive at the local level because permanent residents have to right to vote in local elections without having Norwegian citizenship. Also, since 1892 a wide range of local referendums have been conducted which have supplemented our representative form of local democracy.

Second, local self-government enhances effective governance. There is a need to do the right thing by spending the money in the most efficient way. This can best be achieved by letting the people decide locally - through their elected representatives - how to spend money and in what way.

Third, local democracy is entrenched in the principle of local autonomy. Indeed, broad participation in local elections as well as effective local self-government requires a satisfactory degree of local freedom to conduct policy.

In my view, a strong national democracy is closely connected to a well-functioning system of local government. Local self-government gives many people a chance to exert an influence on how their communities are governed. Furthermore, most politicians get their first taste of political work in local councils.  That holds true for me as well: I started my political career in 1979 as a member of the council in a small municipality. As a matter of fact, the majority of Norwegian MPs have started their political careers as members of local councils.

In Norway there are 431 municipalities and 18 county authorities with their own elected assemblies. The county authorities have as a principle no authority over the local authorities. The county authorities’ most important role is to deal with tasks which are to big for the municipalities to deal with. An exception to this rule is the council of the capital which also is responsible for the task handled by county authorities elsewhere in the country.

In average the size of the municipalities is about 10000 inhabitants. The biggest one, our capital, has more than half a million. The smallest one has about 200 inhabitants. About half of the municipalities have less than 5000 inhabitants. Hence, local self-government in Norway differs to a significant degree across municipalities. The areas of the various municipalities also vary. For example there are municipalities with a big area and a dispersed population and there are highly urbanised municipalities which are densely populated.

However, the municipalities are all regulated by the same law; the Local Government Act, which was enacted by the national parliament in 1992. This law replaced two local government acts, one for the county authority and one for the local authorities. In Norway, unlike India, the principle of local self-government is not enshrined in the constitution. However, the Norwegian government is currently evaluation the practical consequences of such an amendment to the constitution.

The extent and scope of local self-government is Norway has varied over time, and will in all probability continue to be a contested issue in Norwegian politics. However, I believe most people – both advocates of further decentralisation as well as opponents of such policies – agree that local self-government has been instrumental in the development of our welfare state. Why so? Principally because the municipalities have been pioneers in offering and producing public welfare. Technical services, health care, kindergarten, childcare, women’s security, housing, care for the elderly, libraries and other cultural institution were all initially initiated by municipalities. This process started during the end of the 18th century and continued into the last century. In a way the municipalities have been the driving force in modernising Norway. The pioneering municipalities also provided youth with a chance to acquire more education than the minimal standard which had been determined by the parliament. They built hospitals and roads. In recent years they have in cooperation with NGOs been in the forefront in terms of offering women protection against violence.

Today the municipalities employ about 450.000 people. About 10 per cent of the population in Norway make their living by working in the municipalities, mostly to provide public services. Local government expenditure is about 20% of GDP.

But there are still challenges to face.

In Norway many people are concerned about the declining voter turnout in local elections. Voter turnout has been in decline since an all time high in 1963, except a small deviation from this trend in 1979 and in our last local election this autumn. Then 61 per cent of the electorate voted. I am particularly eager to see more young people exercising their right to vote.

Moreover, I should also wish there had been a balance between men and woman as representatives in local councils. Today about 37 per cent of the representatives are women and 63 percent are men. Only four out of ten of the prime political leaders of the local authorities, the mayors, are women..

To a greater degree the representative governmental system could be supplemented by direct democracy methods, for instance by increasing the use of local referendums. In this manner the citizens could have a greater say between the elections. 

I have to confess having but a limited knowledge about Indian local government system and I suppose many of you don’t know very much about the Norwegian version of local governance.

However, this conference promises to alter this state of affairs. We are eager to learn and share with you our views. Obviously, Norway and India differ along a wide range of dimensions. But there is one thing our governments have in common; we both want a strong democracy. Neither of us should take the democracy for given. Even though Norway has strong democratic tradition, it needs to evolve as well as be reformed.

We have got among our best experts on local government to be here to explain the Norwegian government system. Among the questions which will be dealt with today are: How is local government organised? How is it financed? How does local government deal with service provision? And what is being done to include women and marginalized groups in local government? What obstacles are faced by the local democracies and the local government bodies?

And I am sure you  have got among your  best experts to explain how the Indian system function, what you are satisfied with, what problem you meet and reforms you are planning.

Let me end by stating that I sincerely hope this is the beginning of a fruitful discussion and exchange of views that may well continues into the future.  We need to learn of each other. However, learning is a process that takes time. Therefore this should not be the first and last opportunity to exchange experiences between our two countries. I hope the contact between the researchers on both sides will continue and that there will be taken steps to implement this.