The KP Sharma Oli-led government formed on the basis of the 7-point agreement reached between Congress and UML on 17 June 2081 has completed one year. In the agreement, it was mentioned that the leadership of Alopalo government (Oli for the first two years and then Sher Bahadur Deuba until November 2084), constitutional amendment, good governance, economic revival and ensuring political stability.

In one year of the formation of the government, although the economic indicators have become somewhat positive due to the increase in exports, decrease in imports, increase in currency reserves and control of inflation, the expected progress in governance and corruption control has not been achieved. The people have not been able to get a different feel for good governance and the credibility of the leadership has been seriously questioned. Kulchandra Neupane of Kantipur spoke with analyst Hari Sharma about why the strong government with two-thirds support could not work according to the people's expectations and where the government went wrong: 

One year of the government formed under the leadership of KP Sharma Oli has been completed. Do you think the government has done the expected work?

From one point of view, it seems that the government has done a good job, but it has not done much. Democracy is the expectations and aspirations of the people. The question is whether this government has acted according to the aspirations of the people. It was often heard that Nepal needs a strong government. This government is made up of two major parties, Congress and UML, which appear to be stronger in terms of numbers. So it was expected that it would do something and no problem would occur.

KP Sharma Oli is an experienced and strong leader in his party. Congress is also a historically strong party. It was thought that after meeting these two, people's expectations can be fulfilled despite the limited resources. However, this government could not do the expected work. Let me give you an example - national highways are damaged due to floods and landslides during rainy season. The situation is the same as last year. There are problems in big political matters, but the roads and transportation facilities needed by common people have not been improved.

There is a strong government, there are resources, and it is also a national priority. However, looking at the condition of the highways, no progress is seen. There is no need for deliberation when it comes to making a road. The road to the east is built on the banks of the river, there may be technical problems, but there are always collapses. Earth is building a highway, but at a slow pace. National highways, which connect the capital, have not improved. Instead, the roads built by the local government in the villages look good, but such progress is not seen at the national level.  

The government did not work as expected or could not do anything?

The government had high expectations, but it did not work. It is up to the government to decide what to do with trade, investment, taxation or education. However, market price, basic amenities are important to the common man. Our country is dependent on imports for many things, but even in the things that can be done, it is experienced that the people are not facilitated. A strong government could allocate resources and set priorities. But not much progress has been made. Sad to see this. 

The main priorities of the government consisting of two major parties were stability, constitutional amendment, good governance and economic reforms. But what was the priority of the government?  In a

democracy, public services and amenities should be provided through policy programs. The government first makes policy, and then implements it. It was expected that there would be such a 'delivery' when the two big parties met, but it did not happen. Why not? In the Parliament, the two major parties look practically identical. Their theory doesn't seem to matter much. 

Two strong parties in parliament should keep each other in balance, stop being arbitrary. However, when both the parties come together, the rights of the citizens will be curtailed. It was my principled belief that this should not be done. It was thought that it would be easy to mobilize resources for good governance, public service and development, and the two parties would work together. However, sometimes there may be something to be gained by curtailing rights. However, rights should be given priority.

The meeting of the two parties was not good in theory. This alliance became like 'Kale-Kale Meer Kahon Bhale'. Being in power, it seems that attention has been paid to the allocation of resources and budget. Institutions are weakened by the division of posts. It was said that when the two parties meet, development will progress, it will be easier to share resources, and conflict in the society will be reduced. However, it seemed that the two parties agreed to exploit the resources of the state. 

Does it mean that the government has gone beyond the priority set by itself? 

There was no policy clarity in matters such as corruption, control of social media, street protests of teachers. No one knows what the controversy is in education. In policy making, both parties work together in the civil service, but it has been seen that one cheats the other, the bureaucracy dominates, and the accountability decreases. Development and construction also did not happen as expected. The parties complain that they did not get a majority, but when the two parties combined, they had almost a two-thirds majority. However, they could not give good governance. Instead of tampering with the

electoral system or the constitution, there is an inability to make roads or clean sewers. We are strong in destroying, weak in building. It took eight years to make the constitution, but it has not been allowed to work. The attention of the parties has shifted to allocation of resources and positions. State institutions have weakened. Constitutional commissions have not been able to function. The game of 'your man, my man' has hit the theoretical essence. 

Constitutional commissions, the independence and impartiality of the courts have also been questioned recently. How did you see it?

The Constitutional Council is represented by the Opposition Leader, the Court, the House of Representatives and the National Assembly. Such a structure has been made so that the Council becomes a balanced and independent institution. However, this process was interrupted by an ordinance. The trouble started with the intention to take over government institutions. The court delivered its verdict four years later, but the process had to be 'managed' by discussion and consensus. The constitutional provision itself was attacked. The mentality of punishing the opposition by placing their own people in the Election Commission and Authority was sown.

Election Commission, Authority etc. got a mindset that if people like what I mentioned are taken away, they can punish rivals and opposition. Democracy needs transparency, it should be discussed. Citizens' right to vote should not be narrowed by amending the constitution. Those who came to defend the constitution are trying to rule unauthorized. Whatever political parties, Parliament has done, it should be transparent. Then we had to comment, discuss. If it is not, if it is to rule from darkness, democracy is not safe.

How do you see the Prime Minister forming a commission under his own chairmanship to maintain good governance and control corruption?

Administrative reform commissions were formed earlier for good governance. This should be done by Parliament. The reports of every government organization come to the Parliament. Can see if it works or not. It is the job of the Parliament to direct people's questions to the government. By forming parliamentary committees, economic reforms, administrative reforms or political reforms could be discussed in the parliament. Reform processes could proceed. Even if the accountability of the government lies with the people, it will be through the parliament. Therefore, there is no accountability in the report prepared by the government itself. It is not even in the commission created by the government with some people.  

On the one hand, a commission is formed under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, on the other hand, the property details of the ministers have not been made public even for a year. How do you see it? 

The government will do the work of governance through its mechanisms. The authority is an autonomous institution. We have to see whether there are resources or not, what kind of people are there. The accountability of the authority comes from the hearing of the parliament but the accountability is with the people in the government. Because the people in the government have appointed him. 

The 'sequence' of the council's recommendations and parliamentary hearings has been broken. How is the election commission appointed? We have provided for parliamentary hearings in the constitution so that the government makes the decision but it should be accountable to the parliament. The Constitutional Council is not an organ of the government, it is an organ of the state. It is a matter of balancing the three powers—judiciary, executive and legislature.

Here we have crossed 'boundries' over each other. If there is an appointment in the Supreme Court, then people come to line up in such and such a party. The judge had to be partial to the law and the constitution. However, here it is seen that the party and the individual are biased. The country went towards the 'discourse' that it can be governed only if it is my people, and only if I take over the institution, there will be good governance. The prime minister should not form a commission. 

The constitution amendment was based on two parties forming a government, but it has not yet been entered into?

Constitution amendment is brought for simplicity or ease. "The constitution did not allow us to work, it made it difficult to do good governance" is based on a momentary analysis. The constitution envisages a compact and inclusive state. As if he doesn't know how to dance and the yard is crooked, what stopped him from doing good governance by blaming the constitution? Where did the constitution stop to reduce the contradictions and differences, reduce the polarization of the society by discussing with each other? It's been 10 years. The parties should have been aware of the problems that arose when using government institutions.

Auditor General's report to the Parliament and the government in the report, what are the concrete steps to implement the recommendations of Beruzu and cost reduction? Has there been a debate in parliament about judicial reform in the Supreme Court's justice committee or in the report to be submitted to the government? What is in the report submitted by the Election Commission as an independent organization to the government? These institutions are supposed to mobilize the government, bring policies and lead towards the society envisioned by the constitution. It's been 10 years, but people don't know how these institutions could not function. These institutions were weakened by the tendency to fill 'own people'. 

The geopolitical balance, especially the relationship with India and China, is linked to the question of stability of the government. How have you seen it? 

Most importantly, what kind of neighborhood are we in? How do we shape our policy beyond the neighborhood, regionally and internationally? What is our opinion, direction? Our environment determines that. But the most important aspect of democracy is how strong are we internally? What is our commitment to the system and system that we have adopted? That determines a lot. We come to power by showing foreign powers. Politics is often based on perception. Like, 'India is on my side, but China is not on my side'. However, it ignores people's feelings, governance and good governance.