When parliamentarians take on the role of budget mobilization in their own right, the government's jurisdiction is encroached upon, and parliament's monitoring role is narrowed. In order to strengthen the principle of 'balance of power' in the parliamentary system, all parties should live within their respective responsibilities and scope.
While the members of the Federal Parliament are facing public criticism for increasing the pressure to get the budget for the 'Parliamentary Sector Infrastructure Development Programme', the members of the Provincial Assembly have also started a similar initiative. Even the Supreme Court has banned such a program saying that there is no transparency and accountability as it will be spent on MP's expenses.
However, the MPs of the state have put pressure on the Chief Ministers to bring a similar program by changing the title and format. All the Chief Ministers have been positive to allocate the budget so that the members of the State Assembly can spend directly or to include the plans as per their recommendations in the budget statement.
With such pressure and preparation, it is clear that not only the members of the state assembly, but also the government is insensitive to governance reform with accountability and transparency. On the one hand, there is a theoretical principle that parliamentarians in legislative roles should not be involved in financial mobilization. Also, if a program that has been disputed in previous practices is introduced, more questions will be raised about the credibility of the government and parliament.
Members of the Koshi Provincial Assembly are lobbying to increase the constituency-focused budget to 50 million in the coming financial year 2082/83. Similarly, since the Madhesh government has included in the current financial year's "Red Book" a scheme equal to 50 million for the directly elected state assembly members and 15 million for proportional members, there is pressure to continue it in the coming year as well.
There are preparations to allocate 50 million rupees to the directly elected provincial assembly members and 30 million rupees to proportional members in Bagmati. The government of Gandaki has made similar preparations for the next financial year as the plans of Rs. In Lumbini, lobbying is being done to arrange a budget of at least 5 crores so that the state assembly members can spend it.
Karnali is preparing to allocate the budget only for the plans included in the project bank from the next financial year. To select projects, a district-level project proposal selection recommendation committee has been formed under the leadership of directly elected senior members of the provincial assembly.
In the current fiscal year, the Far West government submitted plans worth 40 million by directly elected state assembly members and plans worth 20 million by proportional members to the Chief Minister's Office. The budget was allocated for that. There is a demand to continue the same this time as well.
The government has the responsibility and authority to bring development projects and allocate the budget. If there is disagreement, they can express their views in the Parliament or State Assembly meeting, and if they disagree, they can also reject the budget. After the budget is passed by the House, the government is responsible for implementation, and the parliamentarians are responsible for monitoring it. In the case of
budget, this is also the theoretical basis for separating the roles of the government and the legislature. When parliamentarians take on the role of budget mobilization in their own right, the government's jurisdiction is encroached upon, and parliament's monitoring role is narrowed. In order to strengthen the principle of 'balance of power' of the parliamentary system, all parties should live within their own responsibilities and scope. Another reason why
legislators should not engage with government budget mobilization programs is related to budget abuse. The government and its organs become more arbitrary when the parliamentarians who are to be monitored carry the budget. In addition, the infrastructure development program of the parliamentary area, which is spent on the MP's expenses, has basically become a means of providing financial support to the workers, development is an appearance.
This weakens expectations of good governance, quality of development is not guaranteed. The Supreme Court has raised this concern in its interim order on August 6, 2080 not to implement the Parliamentary Area Infrastructure Development Program initiated by the Federal Government. It is said in the
order, "In a country with limited economic capacity, which is detrimental to the accepted practice and recognition of development planning and implementation, it does not seem to be compatible with the concept of planned development and good governance to spend a large part of the national budget (i.e., billions of funds from the Union and the provinces) on the personal support of certain people's representatives."
It seems that the issue of transparency and accountability to be adopted while spending government funds will also be considered. It is not appropriate for parliamentarians to increase pressure for a program that does not ensure good governance.
MP Development Fund was launched by Bharat Mohan Adhikari, Finance Minister of the Manmohan Adhikari-led government with the budget presented on 11th December 2051. Since then it has been kept in the budget under many names and shapes. But since it is contrary to the concept of the theoretical role of the government and the legislature in the parliamentary system and is also an example of misuse, such a program has been opposed at the public level in recent years.
The state assembly member also increasing pressure for similar programs is just an imitation of the distortion carried by the federal parliamentarian. The desire of parliamentarians to mobilize the budget has neither preserved dignity nor strengthened the law. Both levels of the House and the government should be clear on this.
