It has been almost a decade since the federal government system was implemented in Nepal. The constitution divided the powers, resources and responsibilities in a way that empowered the central and local levels. The intention was good—to bring services closer to the citizens, make policies according to local needs, and create a prosperous province through inclusive governance. But in practice it is still limited to paper.

In the eyes of most of the citizens, the provincial governments are seen as weak, stagnant and ineffective. Sometimes there is no budget, sometimes there is no staff, sometimes there is no authority - the provincial governments are entangled in this circle of complaints. This grievance is even deeper in remote districts far from the capital Kathmandu. The citizens there say - we are reminded that it is federalism, but one has to come to the capital to get services. In the last two years, during the trip to 6 provinces, while talking to government offices, local leaders, journalists, civil society and local people, the same question kept coming up - is federalism moving in the right direction?

Responsibility without authority

The constitution has entrusted many areas such as forest, land policy, education, and health to the provinces. However, the union has not yet relinquished its right to implement. Employees report to the federal ministry itself, the budget comes late and conditional. There is freedom to make policy, but not to make decisions. Such a situation has made the provincial government a 'guidance guardian body', not the people's government. 

For example, I was attending a meeting with a provincial secretary. According to that secretary, he had the authority to sign off on environmental impact assessments when he was a joint secretary in the federal government. However, when he became the secretary of the state government, the same authority did not remain with him. Another officer of the same province sarcastically said, "He can sign after returning to Kathmandu, but he cannot sign while staying in the province." This shows that, in the practice of federalism, not only the position or the status of an individual, but the institutional thinking and the structure of authority still reflect the dependence on the center. The centralized mentality is so deep that the provinces are still dependent, non-judgmental and only directive guardians in the name of implementing federalism. 

In some provinces, the situation seems more serious. There is no doctor in the hospital, there is a shortage of teachers in the school. Local roads and infrastructure may not be repaired for years—but even for such needs, the budget door waits for the union government's approval. When service delivery is not dependent on the primary need, then the question begins to arise in the mind of the citizen - was federalism made to bring public service closer? Or has another level of power structure been created? Why is the federal government the same?

Nepal's political structure remained centralized for a long time. The tradition that the decision of the king or the prime minister is final has not disappeared even now. Even if the person changes, the thinking is the same - 'power is not to be shared, but to be accumulated.' Political leadership, at whatever level, seeks ways to make itself powerful. This trend is weakening federalism. Also, many federal leaders do not think that the province will be strong as they have never joined the provincial government.

The administrative structure is also the same. Important institutions are still concentrated in Kathmandu. When employees are sent, they are not given the support and stability they need. Sometimes the employees consider themselves as representatives of the federal government and not the state government. Once, when I met a joint secretary of a province, he introduced himself as 'Deputy Secretary'. Although he was appointed by the federal government, he still seemed to be stuck on the federal payroll. This was no ordinary dialogue—it shows how deeply entrenched the centralized mentality is. Due to this situation, federalism is only in name. In this, the need for mindset, tradition and structural transformation is evident.

disappointed people 

The impact of such a governance system ultimately falls on the people. You still have to go to the capital to get services. Plans remain confined to closed files, people's representatives are unable to make decisions in their own government. And the people ask - 'Is this the state government or not?'

People do not see the difference between the rights between the Union and the state. In their eyes, the closest government is always responsible - that is the provincial government. When plans are not implemented, services are delayed or government presence appears weak. People's anger is diverted directly to the province. It is not easy to explain to the people even if the fault is for not getting rights. As a result, trust in the state government goes down. In some places, the local level has played a more effective role than the province in terms of service, accountability and access. It is natural that people's expectations are weak when such a comparison is made.

What can provinces do?

Despite the limitations of communication, resources and authority, provincial governments can take initiatives in some areas. They need to create a clear and strong identity for themselves. Many citizens still consider the state government to be a branch of the Union or a structure in name only. To remove such confusion, the province should conduct a public campaign to inform citizens about their rights, scope and responsibilities. By prioritizing its policies according to the local context, the state government needs to demonstrate its relationship with the people in practice. Apart from that, the state government should collectively raise its voice to implement the rights given by the constitution but blocked by the union. Today's provinces have similar problems—staff management, lack of resources and limited decision-making capacity. Therefore, it is very important to set up a joint strategic dialogue front at the Chief Minister level and demand a clear map and deadline for the implementation of rights from the Union Government. Such a move would not only clarify the federal practice, but also create a sense of unity among the provinces.

Even until those powers are achieved, state governments can demonstrate transparency and accountability in their performance. Although resources are limited, public trust can be strengthened by making policy transparent, decision-making open and citizen-oriented. Providing regular information on budget utilization, plan implementation progress and quality of public services can bring the state government closer to the people. Small efforts – such as state-level monitoring systems, digital budget trackers or open dialogue programs – can win public interest.

Likewise, collaboration and coordination with local governments is another important area of ​​activity for the state government. Currently, most services are implemented through the local level and the lack of coordination is leading to duplication of resources and implementation conflicts. Therefore, the province should develop a common program with a spirit of cooperation, not directives. By clarifying the mutual roles of policy and budget, many improvements in service delivery are possible.

Along with that, dialogue and collaboration with civil society, media and the private sector should be increased. Public participation and public pressure should not be seen as a weak point by the provincial government, but as a strength for reform. There is a need to communicate with the youth, universities and professional organizations to create the public spirit of 'our state, our government'. Open discussion of successes and challenges through the media strengthens the province's legitimacy and social presence.

Finally, the state government can challenge the union by presenting its own successful practices and results. Instead of always complaining about not getting rights, they should prove that they are a competent and responsible government by making small changes in the fields of education, health, agriculture or employment. Through successful practices, the province can continue to strengthen its steps as a "government that brings results and shows by working" rather than just a demanding body. States like Kerala in India in health and Quebec in Canada in culture and language can strengthen federalism by successfully experimenting at the state level. The provinces of Nepal can also demonstrate the profound practice of federalism through their policy successes based on their local context.