Crisis factors on federalism

He also pointed out the need to strengthen the provincial and local governments by giving good 'delivery' to the people as the opponents of federalism are trying to spread disaffection with the system by attacking the provinces. The next day, Congress General Minister Gagan Thapa said in a public program that it is necessary to amend some constitutional provisions of the state structure and electoral system to protect the constitution. Looking at it from a positive angle, it can be said that the need and expressed concern of the Prime Minister of the country and the General Minister of the largest party in Parliament to save the federal constitution and implement it effectively are aimed at the interests of the political system.

But, as Prime Minister Dahal said, the more responsible for the crisis over federalism are the ideological opponents of federalism or the extreme non-federal politics of the parties who are said to be in favor of federalism? An honest answer to this question must be sought first. The overall form of politics adopted by the current ruling parties, including the mainstream parties, is of a non-federal character. This is raising the ground for economic and administrative practices of non-union character. Is it possible to make federalism strong and smooth by only reforming the constitution or the election system without completely reforming this non-federal trend that is spreading in politics?

Federalism Disagreeable Politics

On the surface, it seems that the federal state system has come under criticism due to the uncontrollable series of government changes in the provinces, the continuous ideological baseless changes made in the political equation of the federal government, factions and splits between small political parties for the convenience of power, etc. The crux of the problem is much deeper than this. It is not seen that the main political aim and purpose of any active party is to take ownership of federalism, to institutionalize it and to make public service delivery according to people's expectations through this state system.

First, federal democracy is not just a game of blank parliamentary arithmetic. In order to institutionalize the sustainability of the federal system, the unwavering ideological loyalty of the political players and individuals to this system and the belief in its governing power are indispensable. But now, be it union or state, anti-federalism declared to be out of power after reaching the simple majority and the so-called pro-federalist parties are continuously and unhesitatingly doing the work of putting the powers at the center of the power equation in order to replace this system. On the one hand, the claim of strengthening federalism and the strengthening of federalism is just a hollow political pretense.

Second, the single main purpose of implementing a federal state system is to free the operational decision-making powers of sub-national political-administrative units from central control or feudal-style slavery. However, in the case of Nepal, such right could not be exercised from both the demand and supply sides. The repressed desire for centralization of the political and administrative organizations that exercise power at the 'national' level is often toxic and the new sub-national structures have not had the courage and skill to establish their justification by using the rights given by the constitution.

Every time the political equation of the union changes, not only the chief minister or the power equation in the state changes, but the bad tradition of changing the state head has been established. With the change of government, the 'spoils system', which seeks easy political beliefs, including ambassadors of foreign missions and secretaries in ministries, has been brought into eternal practice by non-federal politics. (For further discussion of this 'spoils system', see American politician William L. Marcy's (c. 1786–1857) concept of 'winner's election rewards').

Third, the minimum political ethics required for the operation of the federal system, respect for the limits of the government role in accordance with the 'mandate' of the vote, and assigning responsibility based on competence/experience, etc., are not defined by the constitution or the law, but are very important components that are beyond the debate and appreciation of the political circle. No wonder federalism is soulless without good practice.

Federal economy

The only condition for establishing the justification of a federal political system is the efficiency of the economy under that system. After the change in the system, if the people do not experience more effective service facilities from the state and if the infrastructure and economic development do not advance in a promising speed and direction, the question about the justification of that state system will automatically arise. This is the strong reason why federalism is now under question.

The instability created by the political industry of continuous government change has certainly hindered policy transformation and plan implementation. This fact has not been considered by politics. Moreover, the federal and provincial governments and legislatures have not made any effort to mold the structural form of the economy according to federalism and to tear down the factually negative comments. The local levels have shown effort and will power, but they have not got the support, cooperation and governance skills of the higher governments.

Federalism is not reflected anywhere in the concept, preparation and form of the budget presented by the federal government. A federal economy will not be built by the mere practice of transferring funds to certain designated grants and revenue sharing. There has been no fundamental change in the Panchayat-era practice of the Central Planning Commission setting the plan and budget limits, the federal ministries tampering with the budget, and the federal budget being formed without considering the priorities and interests of the provincial and local governments.

Furthermore, after the federal government grabbed 25 percent of the allocation without giving the last installment of the financial equalization subsidy that the local levels should receive regularly, the representatives of the National Federation of Rural Villages and the Municipal Association went outside the Ministry of Finance to sit and demonstrate against the government's decision last week. If the demand for payment of money is not met within seven days, he warned that all 753 local levels will be shut down and Singhdurbar besieged. The Prime Minister and Finance Minister were ready to address their demands.

The political leadership has failed to ignore the comment that federalism has become expensive. For this, no government agency has shown the will to conduct a comparative study of actual facts. During the Panchayat period, fourteen Achaladhis ruled. There were political mechanisms in seventy-five districts. There were 4,000 village and town panchayats. Even after the restoration of democracy, they continued. There were 47 people's representatives in one village. The number of elected representatives was 156 thousand. Now there are only 28 and a half thousand. Operating expenses are decidedly lower. The effectiveness of administrative and government spending has increased. This reality should be demonstrated by data.

The realization that each province and local level is and should be a separate economy has not reached the level expected by the federal government. The constitution has given them the right to make their own financial policy (budget) so that they can exercise this economic autonomy. It envisages expansion of economic jurisdiction and own source revenue. But now they are in the narrow practice of making a budget based on the amount that falls as part of the grant and revenue from the union. In fact, not many people go to plan selection, prioritization and expansion budget. The culture of learning and teaching has been prohibited by the arrogance of bad politics.

Municipal heads who come to the Ministry of Finance to protest against the reduction of equalization grants do not realize that they do not have the ability to effectively spend the available financial resources on time. They have started taking the easy way out by blaming the higher government for not being able to expand economic activities due to the work they did not know how to do and could not do. Around 2 billion rupees are still accumulated in provincial and local accumulated funds across the country. The disease of not being able to spend capital has moved from the union to the lower levels. Many complications including public procurement are the factors. Reports on corruption at local levels have been given by the Inspector General of Accounts and the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority. Governments at the relevant level should make an honest effort to investigate it themselves. Federal units should help, teach, which is not happening.

Governmental federalism

After the Federal Civil Service Act is passed by the Federal Parliament and the completion of the two tasks of police adjustment, the political leadership seems to be trying to convey the message that the federal administrative structure will be complete. Those are certainly important milestones. And why both these works are being done so slowly and what is their quality are separate questions.

The main problem is seen in the conception of the administrative structure in accordance with the spirit and needs of the federal government system. The idea that the Provincial Public Service Commission selects employees to meet the required manpower for the local level is wrong. Currently, about 28 percent of the total budget is being spent by the local level, 10 percent by the state level and 62 percent by the federal government. The effectiveness of the provision of recruiting all the manpower needed to provide services in accordance with Schedule 8 of the Constitution by the State Public Service and assigning them to the workplace by the State Government can be estimated now. It will not be much different from the challenge of the union selecting the staff and sending them to the local level.

The problem of not having highly skilled manpower, especially doctors, engineers, agricultural and animal technicians, planning managers, disaster managers, etc., in the workplace, is not addressed by this style of administrative planning. Those employees are responsible to the local executive only when the municipality levels can hire all the employees they need according to the potential and needs of their resources. There should be a provision to appoint only some posts like chief executive and chief accountant.

The system of capacity development, education and performance monitoring of employees who are assigned to the local level is more challenging. Organization and Management Survey (O&M Survey), which is necessary to manage manpower according to the demand for services of the municipalities, has also been conducted by only a few municipalities. The willingness to help remote rural municipalities in this work is not seen in the action plans and budgets of the union and state governments. There is a risk that the formula for distributing employees in Damasahi will be recommended by the state governments and the state public service commissions will select the employees. From the manpower that will be fulfilled by this process, the concept of "Singh Darbar at Gharghar" of the federal government will only be "Som Sharma's Satuko Bhudko".

In essence, no matter how many times the constitution and election system are changed, federalism will not move forward in the way of strengthening without changing the unnatural pedantic character of the main political characters and without establishing the culture of unconditional adoption of the dignity and values ​​of democracy without changing the main political characters. The same applies to those who are arguing that all problems will be solved after the reversal of federalism. It is not possible for any name or form of power run by politicians without dignity and without morals to be beneficial to the people. The state system is only a tool. Not possible. Only if the person using that tool is competent and good, the desired result will come out.