It has been only 7 and a half years since we started practicing federalism. This is not a sufficient period to decide whether an arrangement is effective or not. But now the debate on restructuring in the form of government with federalism has already started.

Many leaders who have led the Nepalese economy in a new direction after democracy have started saying that the country cannot afford federalism. It is said that the current federal government coalition is the foundation of the constitutional amendment. It is not clear what kind of amendment will be made in the constitution.

If you listen to the arguments of many of those who stand in favor of federalism restructuring, it seems that 'removing the regional structure and reducing the local level'. There doesn't seem to be much discussion of how relevant this removal and reduction debate really is.

was initially designed to create 565 local levels. But after increasing political pressure, the number of local level was increased to 753. Even if this 'politics of numbers' is to be left out, it seems that in some cases geographical accessibility and citizen's convenience are ignored while dividing the local level.

On the contrary, it seems that the issue of which party is dominant in that area is more emphasized when dividing the ward and municipality. The boundaries of several wards and municipalities have been drawn in such a way that the areas with the density of Congress voters are on one side, the areas with more UML voters are on the other side and the areas with more Maoist voters are on the other side.

Moreover, it seems that a blueprint for restructuring has been drawn in the belief that the former Village Development Committee (Gavis) should not be broken up as much as possible. 

Many villages are geographically close to another ward office or municipal center. But if the people of those villages have to go to their ward or municipality, they have to travel a long distance and the infrastructure including roads is also poor in many places.

It seems that this has increased the distance between the local government and the settlement. There does not seem to be any debate on the issue of correcting these issues and finding a way to provide services to the people as easily as possible. At the same time, it seems that the comment that 'the economy cannot afford' is being made. 

After the Local Self-Government Act came into being in 2049, it brought a kind of federal framework into practice. At that time, the power to allocate was centralized while the power to spend was decentralized. But even then local elections could not be held more than twice. After the second election was held in 2054, there was no election thereafter. Since then, until 2074, it became a practice for employees to do most of the work on local bodies.

By creating an all-party mechanism at the district and local levels, witnesses were kept in the allocation process, but all the executive powers went to the hands of the personnel administration. Even today, if we look at the pattern of rural infrastructure, most of the examples are found between 2049 and 2055.

Therefore, at that time the periodical elections of local bodies were not stopped and if that mechanism had been alive, our level of development would have gone much further till now. At that time local bodies were weakened under one pretext or another. Now again, there is a feeling of trying to attack the local level by creating a new commentary based on unrealistic arguments. 

Even now some people are arguing that 'federalism cannot be sustained' in this structure. Now, if we reduce the number of municipalities, what will really be reduced or saved? Even if 753 local levels are reduced to 300 now, what will be saved? Will you reduce the number of municipalities and keep the wards the same or reduce the number of wards as well? There does not seem to be a debate on such matters.

If we look at the work pressure and jurisdiction, most of the ward presidents and ward employees seem to be 'big' even now. Even though he works from morning to evening in a ward with a high population, he is unable to provide 'intelligent' service to the citizens. People are looking for a ward president even in areas where development is underway. In

monitoring, ward presidents are awaited not only at health and education programs but also at weddings, fasts and kazkiriyas. He should be represented in the management of health institutions and schools in his municipality and in organizations where he is an ex-officio member. Citizens have to be facilitated through various mobile services.

All these works are apart from the public service provided by sitting in the ward office. There are 4 members in a ward. They too have had enough. The reality of increasing the number by dividing some wards is seen at the lower level. 

If the number of wards will not be reduced, what is the meaning of reducing the local level? In common language, the Mayor/President, Vice Mayor/Vice President and Administrative Head will be reduced? Even if the size of the local level is increased and the number is reduced, service delivery cannot be reduced.

Therefore, it is not possible to cut a large number of employees except for a few branch heads. In this way, even if the number of local level is reduced from 753 to 300, the number of 453 chiefs or presidents and the same number of deputy chiefs or vice presidents will decrease. In the case of employees, the number of administrative heads and some branch heads will decrease by the same number. 

We cannot reduce public spending across the board by simply reducing the number of local levels. But there is a lot of potential to increase internal income by making maximum use of local resources. Where we can promote tourism services.

We can increase the use of forest resources like wood and herbs. If there is an accessible place for irrigation, we can use it for agriculture. There is a need to discuss how natural resources, cultural heritage and heritage can be effectively used to increase the resources of the local government. Today we are using imported goods without using the resources available in our village. On the one hand, our wealth is going out and on the other hand, the national resources have not been properly utilized. 

As the sole right of the local level, many laws related to the issues provided in Schedule 8 of the Constitution have not been made yet. If the local government tries to improve the education sector, the situation is that they are stopping the work by showing the Act of 2028 and the regulation of 2059. The local level has become an obligation to fight the case even to use the rights given to it by the constitution. This situation is not created because of the local level.

It is still argued that because the capacity of the local level is weak in some matters, the authority should not be transferred to the lower level. But this argument is completely regressive. No person or organization can develop their skills and abilities until they are empowered to act. If the municipality, which was formed after the local elections, had been able to exercise the rights given by the constitution from the first day, the capacity would have been developed very well in the past 7 and a half years.