The policies and programs of the government of Nepal for the next fiscal year have been passed by both houses of the federal parliament. The policy and program to be presented by the President is an old reference to be discussed in the Parliament. But in recent years, there has been a debate on whether to address the positive and reasonable suggestions that have come up in the discussions in the parliament or whether to proceed as it is.

  Because the ruling party has started taking a stance that it should be passed without any amendment in recent days. If the amendments are made to insult the speech of the President, then what is the justification other than to inform the parliamentarians of the discussions in the parliament that took weeks of time, energy, labor and wealth? In fact, this is the government's program, not the President's.

Since this program is in the hands of the government from the process of creation to implementation, it should and can be revised or modified at any level and during. In doing so, these amendments or modifications do not discredit the Honorable President.

On the other hand, if there is a policy that is in the interest of the majority through amendment, and the inclusion of reasonable topics suggested in the parliament will increase, the dignity of the position synonymous with democracy will increase. In this article, there is an attempt to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the policies and programs presented by the government.

Looking at the policies and programs of the financial year 2082/083, the various 11 points presented at the beginning from 'A' to 'T' are understood as programs that the government has tried to bring to the people with force. In this, the system and the government's concept about the constitution, from countering any kind of regressive-resurrectionist anarchic activity against the constitution and the federal democratic republican system, to reviewing the constitution, strengthening its strong points and correcting the weak points, to proceeding with the amendment process based on consensus.

In recent days, it can be seen that there has been an attempt to establish a new commentary of ensuring 'policy stability' as an attempt to break the political narrative of instability that is being tried to be imposed by force in Nepal. In point 'C' of the said document, it is said to ensure policy stability while continuing political stability in the policy of healthy competition, mutual dialogue, cooperation and coexistence.

There can be no doubt about the government's determination on the system and constitution mentioned in the first three points and the policy of trying to tear down the commentary that is being presented incorrectly, which is necessary for today.

The last point of these 11 states that the foreign policy of the government is to develop strong and balanced international relations with national independence, sovereignty and geographical integrity and the paramount interests of the Nepali nation and Nepali people at the center. 

Apart from these 7 points, some are populist and ear friendly. It seems that some of them have selected the terminology that gives the opposite meaning to the concepts that are tried to be covered in points 'A' and 'B' above while respecting the system adopted by the current Nepali state. Such populism/populism and contradictions are more visible especially in the field of education.

Point 'E' mentions making policy and legal arrangements to solve the challenges seen in school education. In the following letter, mentioning university education, it is said that university education should be focused on knowledge, research and development. After that, in point 'C', entrepreneurship friendly education and for that, extensive improvement in the current curriculum, learning and teaching methods, the launch of youth-focused start-up programs with special priority for the Gen-G generation, etc.

By keeping the school education in the single agenda of the local government through schedule-8 of the constitution and calling it to the parliament through the president in the policy and program of the federal government, it is clear that the centralized thinking of the government is dominant and contrary to the concept tried to be covered in points 'a' and 'b' above. This fact has also reduced the importance given to the name of constitution and systemism. In point 'J', there is an expectation of coordination of union, state and local level in development programs.

In the development program, to eliminate duplication between the union, state and local levels, this document succeeded in making reference to the integrated project bank system, why did it fail in terms of education itself? Is it a mistake made by not knowing or not being able to think or is it a product of the dominant centralized mentality? An official government opinion is needed on this.

The presence of the word 'centre' in some points of this document indicates that a line that works in the spirit of federalism is still not informed, liberal in the spirit of the words used in the constitution or that the government itself does not accept the constitution. Because the essence of the union cannot be carried and contained by the center, nor is the 'centre' recognized by the constitution. For example, let's look at Article 67, it says - 'from the local level to the center'.  Through

point 'Jh', it is said to expand faceless services to make public services more effective and to develop citizen apps as the main digital tool to provide services and to make all services online as possible. It can be called a program that the government must do and can do if it wants to, but there is a risk of being limited to this slogan when trying to do it in the clutches of the current bureaucracy. Even though

has started, it cannot be said that in the name of Bhoomi app, the customer has to face delays and hassles in the Malpot office compared to the earlier manual work. Even though this system cannot be implemented in government offices, only in banks and financial institutions, it seems that banking and financial institutions will also be freed from the hassle of repeatedly printing and copying the same documents and submitting them.

Moreover, the thrust of policies and programs is seen in how to address the delays and shortcomings in the construction of policies and programs. This time, there has been a commitment that we are ready to change the pattern, speed and culture of development in order to correct the shortcomings that have appeared in this regard. The reforms that the two big parties have not been able to do together are especially in the capital expenditure of the budget allocated through the Government of Nepal.

According to the data of the Comptroller General's Office, the government's capital expenditure as of May 30 is only 1 trillion 18 billion 31 crores. For the current financial year, the government allocated 352 billion 354 million for the capital title. Compared to the annual allocation, the capital expenditure so far is 33.58 percent.

Standards for making public expenditure frugal and effective, 2078 was repealed and according to subsection 1 of section 11 of the Appropriation Act 2081, new public expenditure standards for making it frugal and effective, 2081 were also brought.

It is mentioned in the standard that 'while implementing the project, a minimum of 10 percent within the first quarter period and then a minimum of 10 percent every month will be achieved in such a way that 100 percent results are achieved by the end of June'. Even though binding conditions such as "the concerned ministry must monitor the development project online and ensure that it is spent in accordance with the allocated budget", there was no room for improvement.

The dilemma that Nepal is facing now is whether Nepal's intention to be 'underdeveloped' today, the lack of funds to spend on policies or the lack of ability to spend. Only a few like me think that our main problem is not lack of funds, but lack of capacity. Looking at the recent experience, it is not found that political-administrative leaders who could not improve their spending ability after being in the government and administration for a lifetime after bringing many new policies and laws.

They are the ones who know how to budget more money, how to allocate funds, how to ensure the availability of grants or loans. A lot is to be found in the recent Public Expenditure Standards, 2081. Without seeing or ignoring the data of spending ability and results, if they are enough money, it seems that Nepal will be revolutionized within a few years.

Statistics say, in the last 50 years, only twice has expenditure been seen to be higher than allocation. Since the political changes and the implementation of the new constitution in the country, the budget system (allocation and expenditure) seems to have become more unbalanced.

From the year 2031/032 to 2071/072, it seems that less than 80 percent of the budget was spent only 3 times in the period of 41 years. However, in the 9-year period from 2072/073 to 2080/081, more than 80 percent was spent only 3 times.

2073/074, 2077/078 and 2080/081 only 80 percent budget expenditure is seen in the data. Analyzing only the capital budget, only two financial years (2069/070 and 2074/075) have exceeded 80 percent progress in the last 13 years. Otherwise, by the time Baisakh comes, the current situation, ie around 30/40 percent of development expenditure, and after Baisakh, the practice of spending money wherever possible under pressure.

Looking at the capital expenditure of the past 6 years, even if the budget is made as much as it is, the final expenditure is around 2 billion. Our capital expenditure capacity is only two and a half billion. In the financial year 2074/075, two trillion 70 billion rupees more was spent. Since then, the cost has been decreasing every year.

2 trillion 41 billion in 2075/076 with a budget of 3 trillion 14 billion, 1 trillion 79 billion in 2076/077 with a budget of 4 trillion 8 billion, 2 trillion 29 billion in 2077/078 with a budget of 3 trillion 53 billion, and 2 trillion 16 billion in 2078/079 with a budget of 3 trillion 78 billion, it can be said that Nepal's capital spending capacity is only 2.5 trillion. It has also seen a decreasing trend.