Nowadays many people ask the question - is federalism expensive? Can Nepal afford the expenses? Can carry the weight of the province? How appropriate is it for taxpayers to bear the cost of a burdensome and federal government system that cannot provide services according to public demand? How sustainable is this system in terms of economic viability?

In this article, the justification of the federal government system and especially the expenditure of the state government is discussed. Before that, it is necessary to discuss the questions that are being raised about the cost effectiveness of any type of government and government system. Around the world, there is a growing negative perception of the expanded role of governments. As a wave of change, governments of established right-wing conservatives have been formed from the US to Hungary, Turkey and India. From Japan, Germany, France, Canada to Latin America, the emergence of right-wing parties favoring reduced government as an alternative political force has strengthened the belief that the current role of government should be reduced. 

'Why Nothing Works?' By discussing the government plan of Biden's then American central government and the local government of New York, the services they wanted to provide, the physical structures they wanted to build, they discussed why those plans were not completed, why they could not provide services and why the structures were not built or why they remained incomplete. Progressive democrats, on the one hand, want an expanded government to do everything, while on the other hand, they say that the role of government should be limited. Because they also believe that a strong and centralized government controls people's diversity, aspirations for an inclusive identity and human rights. This book holds the idea that the progressives, unable to accommodate their own ambivalence, inaction and conflicting views, are turning out to be supporters of a worthless, expensive and burdensome governance system among their supporters. 

Let's look at the context of Nepal. Our constitution envisages a socialist-oriented democratic state and declares about three dozen human rights. But has any government been able to deliver the services or build the structures it promised itself? Has the development budget or capital allocation been spent? Has it been able to achieve rapid economic growth or people's satisfaction? Or is Kanika sowed and entangled in the dust of self-interests? Not too much light. It is enough to look at the rough statistics published by the government. In the last ten years, the ratio of capital expenditure to total government expenditure is only about 20 percent on an average and in the last few years capital expenditure has been decreasing further. The growth rate of GDP in the last decade is only 4 percent. In the last five years, the rate of new road construction is only 250 km per year, while rail and water transport are barely noticeable. 64 lakh Nepali citizens have gone abroad for employment. 

The central government has not been able to spend the expected capital. Although some social development indicators are satisfactory, physical infrastructure has not been built, employment has not increased and economic growth is slow. There is no prioritization, the completion level of the work is low, the quality is even poorer. Corruption is rife in the press, and Nepal's ranking on government effectiveness (World Governance Index) is pitiful. Looking at the details of the corruption scandals of the ministers and high-ranking people sitting on the chair, it seems that they have been able to decide who to keep and who to remove the Prime Minister. The coalition government and the political equation are getting worse.

Corruption is not the only reason why the central government is unable to manage effectively and win the hearts of the people. A scandalous and controversial mood is also a strong reason. It is also important to discuss the reasons and risks of officials showing indolence or indifference to wasting time without doing work. Due to the invisible pressure of the regulatory agencies, the pressure activities of the parliamentary committees, the conflicting and resistant attitude of the civil society towards government decisions, some exemplary laws and laws adopted by the state and the prerequisites of controlling and mandatory delays, the current government cannot act like Jung Bahadur, cannot take decisions. Adjusting the opinions of all parties, solving underlying conflicts, protecting the environment, doing justice to gender and minority groups, not upsetting anyone, compensating at the market rate, but completing the construction of large structures quickly in a short time is becoming uncomfortable and difficult from a managerial point of view. Can the government that came to power for a short period of one or two years satisfy everyone and build big projects? Can you win the hearts of the people? Can't imagine. Central government is also burdensome and expensive.

The cost of federalism and people's dissatisfaction

Open society, diverse thinking and aspirations, universally available information networks, declining citizen interest towards integrated governance systems and the decline in the ability to provide social services or build physical structures at low cost and time, integrated governance systems are also problematic. It is criticized not only by those with right-wing tendencies, but also by those with liberal and progressive views who seek a welfare socialist role for the government. A federal system of government with scattered government units would be more expensive, burdensome, and a system of government that would deliver little at a high cost.

It is natural that the cost of the separate legislature, executive and bureaucracy of 753 municipalities and 7 provincial governments in Nepal is more than the integrated governance system, there is no need to calculate. Salary expenses, new office building construction expenses, office operation and logistics expenses have to be borne more. Duplication of roles between governments, low revenue collection capacity of provincial and local governments, lack of staff, lack of capacity development and political conflict over intergovernmental power distribution have weakened the federal governance system. The idea that federalism was imposed unnaturally in Nepal is also discussed. There is also talk that the local and especially the provincial governments are entangled in the confusion of roles, but they are not able to provide the services they can and they are not able to leave an impression as a government unit in the daily life of the citizens. Therefore, the cost of federalism has become expensive, the idea that the state cannot bear the cost of federalism in a sustainable manner has been formed in some circles.

The demand for federalism and inclusiveness

When discussing the cost of federalism, what was the purpose of using federalism in Nepal, this topic should also be looked at. The people's movement of 2062/63, the Maoist rebellion before that and the height of the Madhesh movement seen in the interim period led to the emergence of an inclusive governance system in Nepal. Ensuring inclusive democracy not only brought republic but also ensured secularism and federal system of governance. The Constitution of Nepal, 2072 adopted a three-level government system of the Union, State and Local Government. Established recognition of identity. Guaranteed to create special protected or autonomous areas for social, cultural protection or economic development that are not covered by the state or local level but are in search of collective identity. A large number of federalists were not satisfied with the Constitution of 2072 and continued to fight. However, the identityist movement is now dead and the implementation of the existing constitution is awaited. The concept of federalism in Nepal was not introduced for the purpose of reducing government costs. Instead, it was brought to resolve political and social conflicts, bring backward communities into the mainstream, make all citizens equal and provide the right to autonomy. It was brought to facilitate national integration. Just as the public welfare liberal governance system should not be evaluated on the basis of cost, in the same way, no cost can be spent to examine the identity aspiration of the minority, backward communities, the desire for equality, and the feasibility of autonomous provincial and local governance. 

What's next?

Any government is expensive. Taxpayers are responsible for bearing the expenses of the government. Citizens themselves have established and enlivened for themselves by their votes the need for government as a necessary medicine to avoid the extreme right-wing separatist jungle raj and to benefit from a political, social, welfare state based on equality. Are ready to bear the cost. By accepting the federal system embracing regional and local autonomous governance system and establishing regional and local identity, they have sought a sustainable solution to the various underlying conflicts of the society. He understood the interrelationship between development and peace. But it is necessary to restructure (re-engineering) governments to reduce expenses, increase the utilization of tax money and hand over the responsibilities that citizens themselves can carry to citizens and society. By adjusting and coordinating the federal, provincial and local governments and reducing government costs through information technology based methods, it is necessary for the government to reach the doorsteps of citizens and deliver services effectively. Remember, in Nepal during the Rana period (Gounda Goshwara, regional positions), Panchayat period and later multi-party period, the concept of district, zone, development area was adopted in both the administrative structure and the political system. Municipalities were formed in some places during the Rana period, while the concept of development zone was also used during the early reign of King Birendra. It seems that a large section of the anti-federalist line has totalitarian despotic thinking and tries to disguise federalism as an imported unnatural system through false propaganda.

Finally, let's look at some of the scenarios that appear when questioning the rationale of federalism. First, what happens if federalism is abolished or the provincial structure is removed? Will unified government be popular or less expensive? World statistics do not show this scenario. Will the conflict with the identitarians resurface? Will Nepal not fall into instability again? Can development structures be built quickly? Will a unified government be able to deliver citizen services effectively? If possible, why would the regional development concept of the decade of Bikram Samvat 2030 be brought? It is hard to say that federalism and provincial structure are necessary to avoid the vicious cycle of instability and conflict seen in this scenario.

Second, what if the status quo remains? Can the financial burden of federalism be sustained? Can citizens get a smooth service amid its dual managerial dilemmas? Will corruption be reduced? Can the government be held accountable without reforming the governance system? It must be said that this second scenario also seems to be on the other side, for a long time, the state and the taxpayers cannot sustain the current expenditure flow. Therefore, the middle way is an agile federal governance system with restructuring and in which the aspirations of identitarians are voiced, federalism is also protected, but it is effective in terms of accountability and transparency.