Unruly Reform: Explaining Diversion in Local Security Governance Rules in Nepal

What factors enable, constrain or distort the implementation of legal reform governing policing? The legal architecture determines who holds authority to influence security decisions, from broad strategic directions to day-to-day implementation. Yet rules will be interpreted or even ignored by actors entrusted with their implementation, while unauthorised actors can be allowed to exert influence. Can we account for these distortions when reforming security sector governance to make security more inclusive? This case study of institutional change in Nepal analyses the forces that distorted the effect of a change in formal rules on the local governance of security. It shows that, while changes did occur around who was able to influence policing decisions, these were mediated at the local level by habits and different notions of legitimacy. Local governance reforms had a greater impact on local security governance than constitutional provisions endowing provincial governments with formal authority over security governance. This study underlines the importance of considering multi-tiered dynamics when analysing the governance of security. For security sector reform practitioners and policymakers, the study suggests a need to broaden the focus from rules about security to rules with an impact on security governance. One should also explicitly address the fate of existing institutions in reform processes, if they are meant to be replaced by a new architecture.