As the preparation of the budget begins, MPs become active in planning development in their constituencies. They hold different ministries and pressure the ministers to plan. A collective effort to include the Local Infrastructure Development Partnership Program known as the Parliament Development Fund in the budget.

In a meeting held by the Finance Committee of the Federal Parliament with the officials of the Ministry of Finance and the National Planning Commission on the budget for the next financial year, MPs demanded that every MP be given a budget for infrastructure construction and that physical infrastructure programs in all constituencies should be included in the next year's budget.

In the coming days, such a demand is sure to gradually turn into pressure. Looking at the past experience, the finance minister is forced to include the program in the budget because he cannot bear the pressure. However, the Minister of Finance should have the courage not to directly or indirectly include such programs in the budget, which are controversial and more likely to be misused. He should also be supported by the leadership of political parties.

After the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli dissolved the House of Representatives on the night of June 7, 2078, the budget for the fiscal year 2078/79 was brought through an ordinance on June 15. Since there was no MP, the program of giving money was naturally not included in the budget. Since 2079/80 was the year of general elections, the program was cancelled.

The subsequent finance minister had the opportunity to continue the cancellation of the program. But Finance Minister Prakasharan Mahat of the Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led government revived the program through the 2080/81 budget statement. However, the Supreme Court on August 6, 2080 gave an interim order not to implement the budget of the Local Infrastructure Development Partnership Program.

Due to the same order, such a program was not directly included in the 2081/82 budget statement. Instead, plans of around 5 crores of MP's choice for each constituency were requested in advance and included in the budget as much as possible.

MPs have presented the development plan as their agenda since becoming candidates in the elections. Even after winning, they are under pressure from the people of their constituencies to come up with a plan. After being elected once, in order to win the next term, they are forced to show development work in their constituencies. That is why they insist on keeping the local infrastructure development partnership program in the budget.

Since plans and budgets reach the prime minister, minister and those who have access to more and do not reach the area of ​​parliamentarians who have no access, when such a program is held, MPs tend to have the psychology of being able to show their face to the people. That's why the pressure increases. Such pressure is sure to continue as long as the standards of evaluation and expectations from the election candidates to MPs remain the same. But it is analyzed that such plans do not have concrete work and only scatter the budget. On the other hand, MPs are found to have prepared the basis of economic games for the workers of their constituencies.

The question of whether or not to continue such programs is linked to the understanding of the MP's basic responsibility. The main job of an MP is to make policies and laws. To monitor the activities of the government. When MPs themselves are interested in carrying the budget, they themselves are under scrutiny. It loses the moral basis to question government irregularities. As this happens, the organs of the government become arbitrary and the parliament becomes a ghost. After getting used to

budgeting, MPs can't really get involved in policy making and monitoring. Selfishness conflicts. The principle of separation of powers becomes relaxed. This undermines the very essence of the parliamentary system. On the other hand, states have their own procedures for the work from realizing the need for planning to construction in any place. There are mechanisms with their own responsibility and accountability.

If the development budget is not evenly distributed, then the collective role of MPs is to prepare the basis for development plans to work at the same rate in all geographical areas through policies and laws. Such a role cannot be fulfilled if we carry our own regional plans.

Currently, there are three levels of government, which are responsible for the implementation of small to big plans. Planning carried out by MPs is usually done by the local level. Budget should not be given to parliamentarians even for the respect of federalism.

Nepal needs a planned development strategy. There is a need for a plan that ensures multilateral benefits, has a positive impact on the lives of more people, increases employment and business opportunities, and creates a cycle of development. At least federal and state governments should emphasize on strategic planning. But if the policy of selecting plans and budget mobilization is authorized by the parliamentarian, only the model of budget abuse will be expanded, not development.

A country with a weak economic capacity like ours should be very smart in managing the budget. Do not be interested in programs suspected of abuse. Since it has been in the list of high corruption for years and was also included in the 'grey list' of wealth laundering just two months ago, the program that is personal to the MP but does not ensure full utilization should not be included in the budget.