All political parties in Nepal have made the end of corruption and good governance a major issue. These issues are reflected in the statutes and manifestos of those parties, and come up mostly in the leaders' speeches. Transparency is an important condition for ending corruption and good governance. However, the matter of ending corruption and good governance in the country has become too broad, the financial affairs of the party itself are not transparent.

His reluctance, lax monitoring by regulatory bodies, legal loopholes, and less interest in party income and expenditure in public debate seem to play a major role in this. In this article, the audit report of UML, Congress and Maoist Center, Janmat and National Independent Party for the financial year 2079/080 has been studied and their income and expenditure have been analyzed from the point of view of transparency.

The party was banned during the Panchayat period. After the restoration of the multi-party system through the 2046 public movement, the debate began to arise that the party's income and expenditure should be audited and that it should be made public. In order to facilitate the management and regulation of parties, he also enacted laws such as Political Party Quit Act-2054, Political Party Registration Act-2058 and Political Party Act-2058 through Parliament.

The Political Party Act-2058 stipulated that the party should submit the income-expenditure audit to the Election Commission and make it public within 6 months of the end of the financial year by an auditor accredited by the Auditor General's Office. But in practice, it seems that the party did not take this provision seriously from the beginning. It is clear that the party does not want to be transparent as there are many examples of not submitting the audit report at the time of

, not making it public, and submitting the audit report for three years at a time and this sequence has not stopped yet. That the provisions of this law were also flexible can be understood from the fact that only one hundred rupees was fixed as a fine. But the non-transparent culture inherent in the parties is responsible for not being able to follow this properly. 

The Political Party Act-2073, which was issued after the country entered the Federal Democratic Republic, continued almost the old provisions. The new law made only a few changes such as the amount of fines, the limit of the amount to be disclosed, the limit of bank transactions, etc.

Meanwhile, the Election Commission has also given the party a framework for submitting the audit report. The commission has the power to impose a fine of up to 50,000 and to terminate the party itself. This act also specifies the sources of income and the persons and organizations that support the party. However, there is no mechanism for effective monitoring of benefit transactions after financial assistance. Therefore, donors are more likely to receive other benefits in return for financial support to the party. In order to break the story, it is said that when receiving financial support of more than one lakh rupees, the name, surname, address, occupation, permanent account number of the person or organization providing such support, and the source of such financial support and whether or not such amount will be taxed must be disclosed. The parties have misused this provision the most and they have adopted various measures to circumvent this provision. One of those measures is to show higher income from levies and membership fees without disclosing the number of organized members.

Next, he has kept a lump sum for all the donors to give small donors i.e. less than 5000. The Election Commission also seems to have failed to regulate it. Even though the legal provisions are carrying the burden of Kora Adarsh, the practice of the party is going elsewhere. The association of various business houses with the leadership of the party and the opportunity given to them in the party and parliament even without political contributions exposes the perversity of financial support to some extent. Such financial support is also linked to policy maneuvers and appointments. 

The law clearly states that party membership and renewal fees should be mentioned in the statute, but Congress, UML, Maoist Center and RSVP have mentioned that membership and renewal fees should not be written in the statute and will be as specified in the regulations. Only Janmat Party has mentioned in the statute the fees for ordinary membership, active members and renewal. 

As mentioned above, the source of income of the parties is determined by the law itself. The party has been earning income from membership fees, levies from organized members, donations, publication sales, investment income, property sales and interest. Among the five parties covered in this article, UML is the party with the highest income in 2079/080, while RSVP is the second largest party in terms of income. Then there are Congress, Maoist Center and Janmaat respectively.

The main share of UML's income is 56.47 percent under the heading of special financial assistance. However, the accounting report does not mention what special financial support is and who is providing such special support. Even the Election Commission did not ask the UML to be more clear about this. Congress has 72.82 percent of its total income from donations and support. However, the source of the donation and support is not mentioned.

Congress has said that all the donors have donated less than five thousand to hide the way to make the records of the donors public. In this way, it is seen that while he received Rs. 4,999 per person, 5,313 people helped him. If there is a different amount, the number of people who help will increase. 

The Maoist center seems to derive almost all its income from eight lakh organized members as claimed by the party. 99.81 percent of the income is in the periodical Lebi title but the remaining 0.19 percent of the income is not disclosed. Based on the report, Maoist is the only party that does not receive donations and support. The Rashtriya Swatantra Party has kept the details of donations and support from Rs 1 to lakhs in the transparency section of its website.

Janmat also earned the highest income from membership levies and renewal fees in 2079/080. Although it is a fact that the 'donations' taken by public appeal for proportional MPs were publicized in the media and even accepted by the party, there is no mention of this in the income-expenditure report of the said party. After the party tried to remove Mahottari's Goma Lab Sapkota, who became a member of Parliament proportionally through public opinion, the news that she had paid about 30 lakhs to become a member of parliament came out.

Other MPs must have explained it. But the public opinion about who had paid what and how much money has deceived the Election Commission and the public by not including it in their income. 

The parties have also earned income from the titles prohibited by the Political Parties Act, 2073. UML came into controversy in 2078/079 by mentioning that money was taken for political appointments. After this came out in the media, the Election Commission was forced to ask for an explanation, but even the Commission was not transparent about what explanation was asked and what the answer was. Even in its annual report, the Commission has not mentioned anything about it, while many other details have been mentioned about the cancellation of parties, public audit.

However, Shantimaya Tamang Pakhrin, a member of the party's Central Accounts Commission, says that UML is taking ten percent from the salaries of political appointees. However, UML did not mention that it took money under the title of political appointment in 2079/080.

Head of Fund and Financial Management Branch of Maoist Center Dorprasad Upadhyay says that there is an arrangement that one day's salary must be given to political appointees. Maoists who mentioned 99.71 percent of the total income, the reason why 0.19 percent of the income is missing from the audit statement may also be for non-disclosure of such income. In such matters, the Commission should also pay attention to the information received in the public domain, but the Commission is also relying on the details submitted by the parties. In this way, the practice of giving a certain part of the salary to the party in the political appointment is indirectly encouraging corruption. 

The expenditure of the political party appears to be higher than the income. Only RSVP has spent less than its income. Congress has spent more than twice, UML nearly twice and Janamat has spent ten times more. Even though they show loans and mortgages as the basis of excess expenditure, there is no mention of the amount of loans or mortgages taken from whom. When such details are not transparent, the relationship between the political party and those who give them loans or grants raises more suspicion. Parties generally spend more during elections and conventions. Apart from that, office operation, publication, meeting, transportation etc. are regular expenses every year. 

In 2079/080, by spending 116 million 7 thousand 58 rupees, UML seems to be in the forefront as well as in terms of income. Then there are Congress, RSVP, Maoists and Janmaat respectively. Since it is an election year, the main expenses of other parties have been in the election itself. UML has spent 39.4 million 48 thousand 806 rupees in the elections. Then there are Congress, Maoists and Janmaat.

But the Maoists are in the forefront in spending the largest share of their total expenditure. Out of the total expenses, the public opinion spent 46.25 percent, the Congress 48.57 percent and the UML 34 percent, while the Maoists spent only 68.30 percent of the total expenses on the election. The expenses of the RASWPA, which went to the polls in the year of its establishment, is more than 50 million.

29.18 percent of capital expenditure and 14.84 percent of personnel expenditure in the total expenditure of RSVP has been the lowest in the election. This party has spent only 3.10 percent of the total expenditure on elections. Congress and UML have not shown any expenditure on training, while the other three parties have also mentioned spending on training. The expenditure of RASWPA is more than 5 crores. 

Although the election expenses have been shown, the parties have not given sufficient details for the basis thereof. The details of the party have completely disproved the news of panic among election professionals. When reading the report of the party, it seems that the commission and the public should accept the inevitable answer that the election expenses are covered by the donations given by the voters who love the party. Because even till date the parties have not disclosed the details of the huge amount of money received for creating terror, nor has the Election Commission questioned them about it. It has been more than two decades since the law came into being that the

party should conduct an audit and make it public on time, and if it does not do so, the law will take action ranging from fines to party termination. However, every year, news such as not providing details on time, incomplete details and the commission asking for clarifications are published. Apart from the general fines and the cancellation of some parties that do not have representatives, even the Commission does not seem to have made a concerted effort to stop the irresponsibility of the parties. However, in 2078/079, the Commission went to the party's office asking for the assistance of an expert team from the Office of the Auditor General and examined their audit report. 

There is ample reason to assume that the audit of political parties is merely a formality. Not making the details of organized members public, showing levies and membership fees as the main income, misrepresenting the sources of donations and support funds as small donors and not providing income and expenditure verification statements are just a few examples. The main team did not provide the necessary documents to the expert team of the Auditor General's office on time.

As the Congress, UML, Maoist and RSVP did not provide the required documents on time, the expert team did not include their details in its study report. It can also be understood that the big parties are not helping to make income and expenditure transparent. If there was no mandatory legal system to submit the annual income-expenditure audit to the Election Commission, it would have been less likely for the parties to complete the formalities. 

The leader himself has openly stated that the commission is spending more than what was set by the election commission. However, this matter is not included in the audit report released by the party of the same leader. With such a double character, it seems that they are not serious about transparency at all. There are many written provisions in the law to make the parties' income and expenditure transparent. However, rather than establishing the rule of law, they are determined to limit the legal system to only paper procedures. The commission has also been unable to bind the parties tightly within the legal framework. 

The responsibility of bringing the income and expenditure of the parties within the legal framework is basically that of the Election Commission. However, as long as the commission's commissioners remain political appointees, they are most accountable to the party. Therefore, even when there is a clear violation of the law, the commission becomes a silent spectator and has to hide the information itself. Although weak parties can be dismissed, the Commission's attitude towards big parties seems to be soft.  Although the

parties have submitted the audit and avoided all questions, the public has many questions. The party is often accused of taking money from businessmen and working for their benefit. UML has taken land of land from Pain Bahadur Gurung in recently and announced the party office in that place. However, UML has been asked by the UML who provides the proper answer to this is how to question within our own parties. Lands should be taken by also sources and including sources, we have to make it public through the audit report. The audit report on the next year, the report of Gurung's reports, the report of Gurung's substantation and office is yet to see. & Nbsp;

office officials claim that their incur-expenditure is transparent. They talk about 5 people in the trade banks, calling public educational relations, call on public urging, cannot afford to offer income and expenditure bank provint certificates. This also appears to be clear in their statement and taxes. If there is no referction to the various options that make

parties transparent. As a candidate electrical system is expensive, the parties moved to a group of some electoral system. But there is little argument that the government should provide to the parties. Other options may be debate. The law, the law of law may also be discussed. The main thing is that the groups of the parties in which they build law and violate themselves need questions and debate. For this, the party himself needs to be enough interests of the election body and citizen society. & Nbsp;

transparency of political party is attached to directly with the good governance and corruption of the supervisted system. The parties and the voters are responsible for the parties to calculate their income and transparent to expenditure. Anyone will not be the opinion of the party and the cost of spending in elections. However, for superficial and formalities, the parties are provoking the audit of their lifetimes. When there is no transparency, the parties should be vigilant in the public and a passion for good governance. The common common interest is equally important in the income and transparency of electricity for voting, trust and expenditure. & Nbsp;