The government's budget or the people's?

There are extensive discussions and debates in the city about the budget that the government brings every year with pomp. Interest groups draw the government's attention to their demands and issues that should be addressed in the budget, but there is hardly any discussion about the issues and needs of the common people that should be addressed in the budget. From

development, local problems and complaints are brought to concerned bodies for solutions, people's representatives. From the local level to the state and federal MP, whoever it is, he is the real representative of the people. When the time comes for budget preparation, the local people come to the MPs carrying the demand for the development of the region. This is not only a matter of my constituency, it is a common matter of elected representatives from all 165 constituencies.

Let's talk about my constituency, now from the ward level, whether they are friends of the party or social workers, every day they come to talk about the development of the constituency and request that it be included in the budget. It is natural that they expect me as a representative of the people. A member of parliament runs from ministry to ministry with a list of development projects in his area. MPs are forced to wait on ministers' doors, from cheating employees. This is not the experience or problem of any MP, most MPs have been going through this cycle of fate.

The parliamentarian who submits the development list through the Ministry of Finance through the department, ministry, planning commission does not even know whether the list submitted by him is included in the budget or not. For that, we have to wait for the budget speech. This means that our budget making process is not transparent. Earlier, I myself was in charge of the Minister of State for Finance. But I didn't get the opportunity to be directly involved in budgeting.

People demand accountability of development from public representatives. How much development work has been done or not is seen in connection with the success and failure of the people's representatives. As people's representatives, we should be responsible for their every problem and need. But do we lose the participation of people's representatives in the important work of the country like budgeting? A limited number of intellectuals are discussed every year. A discussion is held with the official of the donor agency. Apart from rituals, the topics of discussion are neither included in the budget nor taken seriously by the government. Who is this budget for? In whose name is the government spending billions of dollars? If the people's representatives do not participate, how can the budget be people-oriented? How can the voice and needs of the people of all constituencies be included in that budget? This is an important question.

Lately, there has been a lot of controversy regarding the Parliament Development Fund. The pros and cons of this could have been debated and clear criteria for implementation could have been drawn up, but it was propagated in such a way that MPs would eat up all the money from the MP Development Fund. Commentaries were made as if this fund was brought to corrupt MPs. While there are hundreds of examples all over the country who have done excellent work in their constituencies with the money from that fund. There are dozens of examples in my constituency where the funds can be spent according to the needs of the constituency and the results are very positive. Funds were being spent on projects that were not prioritized by the central government but were very necessary at the local level. But it was disputed.

Elite's control of the budget

There is a dire need to make the budget making process transparent and advance the concept of proportional development across the country. For this, it is necessary to improve the process of making the budget. As much as I, as a public representative, know that there is a project needed in my district, the staff may not know as much. But it is ironic that we have employees who are completely dominated and people's representatives are not given any attention. It is necessary to have a discussion about which project to put in which district, from the people's representatives at the local level to the MPs of the Federal House.

We are opposing the Parliament Development Fund on the one hand. On the other hand, the leaders with influence and reach take the budget to their constituencies several times more than the fund amount. The effect of the ministers is bound to happen. Rather, the employees can include projects in the budget according to their convenience, but the people's representatives cannot include the projects recommended by the constituencies in the budget. The situation is such that to know the project recommended as a representative of the people, one has to wait for the budget speech or look at the red book. The government needs to allocate the budget to all the districts in a proportional way. Otherwise, big and influential leaders and ministers will spend more budget in their districts based on their influence and reach, but in most districts, the budget will be low.

If we can ensure everyone's participation in budgeting, the result will be positive. This will strengthen the government itself. It plays a role in increasing the trust of the citizens towards the government and strengthening the system itself. Is the budget effective for the development of the whole of Nepal with the current system of limited leaders and ministers having access to the budget? If the budget is to be effective and its implementation is to be strengthened, it is imperative to make the budget making transparent, and it is necessary to have a budget with the direct participation and access of the people's representatives. In some countries, the public's opinion is sought on the website about the budget. Based on that, the budget is made. Finance Minister will bring the budget, parliamentarians will listen.

We listen to the budget speech in the AC room of the Parliament building, while the common people listen to it on the radio and TV at their homes, shops or squares. The budget speech is over. MPs continuously make suggestions on topics in the House for several days. But there is no change in the budget based on the MP's suggestion. What is the psychology of the government, if there is even a slight change in the budget, it will become a failed government. What is the meaning of the long discussion and debate in the House on the budget?

If the MP's suggestions are not deleted, then the budget would have been passed on the same day it was submitted. Because after all, the government has the majority in the House. Therefore, there is a need for a comprehensive reform of the budgeting process. The government must think about incorporating the suggestions in the House from the preparation of the budget. Otherwise, there will be nothing but the continuation of the series of budget submissions and MPs shouting. The government will be forced to enjoy the self-sufficiency of the budget and the people will have to wait for development.