No matter how much they advocate legislative role and separation of powers at other times, during Baisakh-Jeth, MPs probably forget about it and try to present themselves as 'carriers of development'. In order to include the 'Parliamentary Sector Infrastructure Development Programme', commonly called 'Samsad Development Fund', in the budget, the Finance Minister, the Prime Minister, and their party leaders increase pressure. The government and opposition parliamentarians who differ on other issues also stand together in this purpose.

Not only the opposition, but also the parliamentarians of the ruling party oppose the budget, so often the finance minister puts such programs in the budget. This time too, Finance Minister Bishnu Paudel has prepared to allocate 21 crores for each constituency. While there is still time, lawmakers should step back from pushing for controversial programs. The Prime Minister and the Finance Minister should also take into account public opinion and be able to get MPs to agree. A strong government formed by the first and second largest parties in the House of Representatives should have the courage to end the bad practice.

MP Development Fund was started with the budget presented by Bharat Mohan Adhikari, Finance Minister of Manmohan Adhikari led government on 11th January 2051. In that budget statement, ``in consideration of the spirit of honorable MPs of the House of Representatives and their responsibility in building the development of their region'' for the rest of the financial year, ``to build development in their constituencies under the direction of each MP'', 501,250,000 was allocated at the rate of 250,000. In the budget presented by the official on June 27, 2052, a total of 662 million 50 thousand was allocated at the rate of 250 thousand per member (total 265) including members of the National Assembly. Since then, the program has received both support and opposition. In recent years, this program has been criticized for encroaching on the original role of parliamentarians and expanding the lawlessness. However, finance ministers have not been able to resolutely rule it out. Instead, directly or secretly, they ensure the budget or project for the parliamentary area.

MP Development Fund, Local Infrastructure Development Partnership Program or Parliamentary Constituency Infrastructure Development Program, whatever the name may be, is meant to be given to the MP(s) of the respective area to select the plan and mobilize the budget in the original target constituency. Asking MPs for a plan in advance and allocating the budget is also smart. Such efforts are linked to the question of understanding the responsibilities and roles of Parliament and MPs. MPs are legislators, not agents of development. Their main job is to give law and government to the country. But there is a complaint that the speed of Parliament is slowing down in making laws. A bill does not become law for years after it is registered. Bills are stopped in the parliamentary committee without proper reason. It is unnatural for parliamentarians who are unable to focus on streamlining their core work to be interested in budget mobilization in the name of development. Their interests, concerns or concerns can also be taken positively in terms of development. But they are not going to mobilize the budget for development themselves. Parliamentarians should make policies or laws and guide the government for implementation on issues such as how to develop the development model in Nepal, how to do sectoral development in a proportionate manner, and how to distribute the benefits of development in an equitable manner. If it is not implemented, an answer should be sought.

The constitution has ensured that the executive power rests with the Council of Ministers. Therefore, he is responsible for service delivery from development to construction. It is the responsibility of Parliament/MPs to facilitate it legally and policy-wise. It is the responsibility of parliamentarians to raise questions and seek answers if there is a weakness, lack of transparency, or irregularity in the work done by the executive authority. But when the parliamentarian forgets his main responsibility and starts wanting to develop and mobilize the budget, first of all, there is an interference in the work area of ​​another. Secondly, transparency is lost when the question-asking organ becomes the answer-giving organ. Parliament does not have the moral strength to demand answers from the government. As a result, it helps the executive to become arbitrary. This leads to imbalance of the power balance envisioned by the parliamentary system.