How do political parties raise expenses? Where does the money come from to organize a big event? What is the source of the party leader's extravagant spending in the election? Appropriate answers to such questions are never clearly given by the respective parties and leaders, but everyone can guess. Opaque power and resources invest heavily in parties and leaders.

parties and leaders also play a role in bringing those businessmen-businessmen-friendly policies, providing political protection as needed.

This kind of financial operation is completely opaque and beyond the control of the state agencies, which has become a means of corruption, due to this realization, the demand that the money reaching political parties and candidates should be made systematic, transparent, regulated and subject to monitoring and testing by the state agencies. And, as an alternative, the option of subsidizing the party from the state fund has been put forward.

These issues are included in the draft of the amendment of the Act on Political Parties prepared by the Election Commission and the report recently prepared by the Commission led by Rameshwar Khanal. It is necessary for all stakeholders to start homework on this option as it can be helpful in reducing many of the ills of the country.

Donors with whom the party, leader or candidate take financial-material support are automatically soft towards them. He is also responsible for protecting his wrongdoings. As a result, the country has become a political patronage of corruption. In the election, the competition is not about the agenda, but about the money. Most of the candidates have the experience of having to spend several times more than what was set by the Election Commission. As a

, Congress leader Shashank Koirala publicly said in March 2078 that he spent 60 million in the 2074 House of Representatives election despite the limit of 2.5 million. After winning the election, the MP is obliged to collect the expenses incurred in the election and to pay the expenses for the next election.

It is clear that there cannot be a big financial joho from MP's salary or allowance alone. For that, people's representatives should abuse their influence. All parties, leaders or parliamentarians cannot be lumped together, but this is the scenario of collusion between parties/leaders and interest groups as understood by the common people.

In such a background, if funds are provided to the party from the state fund, citizens will have access to the income and expenditure of the political party. After receiving funds from the state, the party will be audited by the Auditor General. Being an organization run by citizens' taxes, it takes taxes to be accountable to citizens. This will make the party's finances transparent. But only the amount given by the state may not cover the expenses of the party.

For such situations, arrangements can be made to receive donations through the banking system with conditions and limits. If it is arranged that the candidates cannot spend their personal expenses in the elections, there will be no financial burden on the people's representatives. Parties and leaders do not have to make secret efforts to collect money. There is no need to carry the agenda of interest groups for money. In such a situation, the leadership of any party can make a constructive contribution to making the party more popular, freed from the burden of financial management. Election candidates also spend their time and energy on an agenda, not on the bottom line. In many countries of the world, even now, the state subsidizes parties. This practice is found in many developed countries including Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland.

is mainly based on the votes obtained in the elections and giving grants to parties such as MP seats. Although it seems like a new debate for us, it is a subject that many countries have practiced and gained experience from decades ago. The grant-making basis adopted by them can be applied as per our reference. Although

has many positive aspects, there are also aspects that we need to pay extra attention to. Firstly, it is generally practiced to give state grants based on the votes received by the party in the last election, and advocates of such a system in Nepal also use this basis. This may not create an equal basis for competition between the parties in the upcoming elections. As a

, the subsidy received by the party that comes first in an election is as much as the subsidy received by the third or fourth party. The new party will not get the subsidy. At that time, it may be difficult to compete with the first party of the previous election. As a result, a syndicate of some parties may be established. What happens to the independent candidate when the system is adopted that the candidate cannot spend? Such questions arise.

Another issue, even in the situation where the provision of state subsidy to the party is applied, there is a question of integrity. Our political parties and leaders are adept at using loopholes in the constitution and laws. The situation will become more dire if the state also gives money and the parties can collect donations/support in a non-transparent manner.