The state does not have the basic capacity . But the government has shared the dream of transforming the country in five years with the slogan 'Nepal First: Nepali First' through the National Commitment 2083/84. Even if only a part of that dream can be fulfilled, it should be considered an achievement . How will that dream and the path to unimaginable prosperity be built ? In this article, I will discuss what 'Nepal First: Nepali First' will give us and where it will lead .

There is no room for excitement from the recent discussions seen in Nepali politics . Because disputes have generally surfaced in the identity of the country . The question is what is the agenda that the government has put forward to turn a 'buffer state' into a 'living bridge' . Another question is how will it help us . The desire to call Nepal a bridge is not new . This is a topic that has been under discussion since 2013 . For the time being, it is almost impossible in terms of both the global environment, regional politics and our economic and political situation.

Hearing the broad slogan ‘Nepal First: Nepali First’ automatically seems attractive. It promises to put the interests of the country and the citizens at the center of the state. But there is always a big gap between the popularity of the slogan and the effectiveness of the policy. In recent years, we have heard many slogans. One of them is ‘Prosperous Nepal, Happy Nepali’ put forward by the government led by KP Sharma Oli with the support of two-thirds of the parliament at the time. The fate of that slogan is fresh in the memory of Nepali society. There has been no change in the continuity of service delays, lack of employment, high prices, regulatory instability and political division that are common in the daily lives of citizens. Against this background, even though the government claims to link ‘Nepal First: Nepali First’ put forward through ‘National Commitment 2083/84’ to results, some basic questions and risks are clearly visible within it.

The question is what is the agenda that the government has put forward to transform a ‘buffer state’ into a ‘living bridge’. Another question is how will it help us. Nepal’s desire to be a bridge is not new. This has been a topic of discussion since 2013. The first problem is seen in the excessive ambition of the goals. The state does not have the basic capacity to make possible the goals of an average seven percent economic growth in five years, a per capita income of three thousand US dollars, a total economy close to one trillion US dollars, fifteen hundred thousand jobs, and reducing multidimensional poverty to ten percent. What and where is the action plan to improve administrative capacity, investment volume, project implementation speed, expansion of export capacity, and the actual state of public finances? It is not wrong to set goals, but if there is an imbalance between goals and means, it becomes a situation of ‘Nepal first’ rather than ‘slogan first’. The bigger risk is that under pressure to meet such ambitious targets, the government is more likely to seek short-term popularity, embellish or distort data, and engage in immediate performance-oriented work rather than long-term institutional reforms.

The concept of tax stability sounds investment-friendly. But the risks inherent in it cannot be ignored. A promise to keep tax rates and terms stable for ten years may provide certainty to investors, but it can reduce flexibility in revenue management required for sudden changes in the state's revenue needs, emergency spending, natural disasters, international economic shocks, or structural reforms. Tax stability, if not coupled with fairness in tax administration and expansion of the tax base, risks becoming 'a convenience for those with large access, a burden on small taxpayers'. A large part of the Nepali economy is still informal. Formalizing it is not easy. Paperless processes and integrated services do not solve all problems at once. Because the root of informality lies not only in the process, but also in the lack of trust, compliance costs, fear of bribery, and the social experience of considering relations with the state as a ‘trouble’.

Another sensitive issue in the economy is the declaration of an end to cartels, artificial scarcity, and rent-seeking. This is the right direction, but such distortions cannot be written on paper. It is intertwined with protectionism within the state, the financial structure of political parties, the weakness of regulatory bodies, and the opacity of public procurement. If the state really tries to break the cartels, it must face resistance from powerful interest groups. To face such resistance, the government needs institutional courage, legal capacity, and public trust. If the government is weakened here, the slogan ‘Nepal First’ may just become a new language for bargaining with the market instead of market reform.

A critical perspective is also needed on infrastructure and energy-related goals. Goals like upgrading the East-West Highway (the government seems to want to keep the memory of the Panchayat fresh by renaming it as Mahendra Highway) to international standards within three years, 30,000 MW of installed capacity within a decade, prioritizing large reservoir projects, and becoming a clean energy export center are strategic. But what we must remember is that Nepal's long-term problem is the ability to complete projects rather than project selection. Delays, cost escalation, contract disputes, local dissatisfaction, failure of rehabilitation, and weak environmental management have been seen repeatedly in large projects. If large projects are started and left unfinished, the nation's resources will be depleted and the trust of citizens will be further weakened. When discussing energy exports, the issue of ensuring cheap and stable energy supply to domestic industries should remain primary, otherwise there may be a contradictory situation such as expensive electricity for citizens and uncertain supply to industries, and boasting about exports abroad.

The proposals for agricultural reform are also emotionally appealing. But there are doubts and many complications in their implementation. Measures like farmer loan cards, crop insurance, contribution-based pension, and subsidies only to genuine farmers through identity cards are right. But the politics of identity cards still remains in our local structure. There is an old disease of bias in beneficiary selection and delay in the insurance claim process. When you hear the concept of a chemical fertilizer factory, it sounds like self-reliance. But there is no doubt that it will become a new center of loss in terms of raw materials, cost competitiveness, management capacity, and environmental standards. The goals of irrigation expansion also get stuck in the institutional arrangement of operation and maintenance more than construction. We have experienced that despite building many structures, we have not achieved the expected production increase due to disputes in water distribution and management.

Proposals like making information technology a strategic industry, developing an indigenous language model, having our own satellite, integrated citizen applications, and artificial intelligence education from the school level seem to be future-oriented, but even in these, the gap between 'vision' and 'capacity' is large. Indigenous technology development requires a research culture, university capacity, collaboration with the private sector, data governance, privacy protection, cyber security, and an environment that keeps talent in the country. In our country, technology projects are often limited to purchasing equipment and creating applications. Long-term operation, security, updates, and human resource management are weak.

The goal of 'ending politicization' towards governance reform is the biggest and most controversial. Steps such as banning political affiliation in bureaucracy, teachers, professors, and public institutions, abolishing political trade unions, reducing the number of ministries, implementing the time card system, eliminating middlemen, and investigating the assets of those who have held public positions since 2046 may seem harsh and decisive. But harshness alone does not lead to reform. Legal process, impartial investigation, strengthening independent institutions, and protection of civil rights are essential for reform. If a measure like asset screening turns into bias, retaliation or selective justice, it polarizes society more than it reduces corruption and pushes the state apparatus into an atmosphere of fear. Restrictions on political affiliation stifle freedom of expression, collective bargaining and the right to express legitimate discontent. The question of how to balance this is important. If the trend towards narrowing rights increases, the slogan may turn towards control rather than nationalism.

The concept of turning a ‘buffer’ into a ‘living bridge’ in diplomacy is attractive, but domestic governance and economic credibility are the basis for putting it into practice. To make plans such as trilateral economic partnership, foreign investment, energy trade, capital mobilization through Nepali diaspora, and large annual diaspora bonds successful, not only state commitment is required, but also fiscal discipline, transparency in project selection, clarity of returns and political stability. Bringing diaspora capital is not just about emotional appeals. What they need to believe is where the money is spent, how it is returned, and how stable the policy is.

Proposals like making information technology a strategic industry, developing an indigenous language model, having one's own satellite, integrated citizen applications, and artificial intelligence education from school level seem to be future-oriented, but even in these, the gap between 'vision' and 'capacity' is large. The objectives related to social justice, education, health, inclusion, and disaster management are commendable. Simply saying that education is free and compulsory is not enough. A concrete program is needed to improve school quality, teacher management, learning achievement, and reduce educational inequality. The goal of increasing the health budget is ambitious. But even if the budget increases, the impact of spending will be weak if the procurement system, service quality, drug availability, and the structure to retain doctors in rural areas are not strengthened. Concepts like digital health identity raise questions of privacy, data security, and accessibility. Although issues such as inclusive testing and equal wages may seem good in the announcement, they are difficult to implement in practice due to the actual structure of the labor market, informal employment, and institutional culture.

It is natural for citizens to have hope when the slogan ‘Nepal First: Nepali First’ comes up. But the harsh truth shown by the history of governance is that governments fail not because the slogan is weak, but because the institution is weak. Slogans and commitments in themselves are not bad. The problem begins when slogans start becoming an alternative to governance. Institutional building is considered secondary. Institutions are rules, procedures, efficient bureaucracy, impartial regulatory bodies, a reliable justice system, a transparent public procurement process, fact-based planning, and a mechanism for correcting mistakes. In the absence of these, slogans become synonymous with despair.

Now this trend is not only in Nepal and is not new. In recent years, populist politics has become strong all over the world. Where emotional messages like ‘us first’, ‘making the country great again’, and ‘manufacturing at home’ draw crowds. In the United States, Donald Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ campaign used this sentiment very powerfully. It created an image of ‘speaking for the people’ by directly linking issues of industry, immigration, trade deficit, and national pride to public sentiment. But the lesson to be learned from there is not slogans, but institutions. In the United States, no matter how loud the slogans are, systems and institutions such as courts, parliament, federal and provincial structures, and independent media can prevent, correct, or limit many decisions. This does not mean that everything went right there; society became more polarized, some policies created long-term disputes, and a crisis of trust also increased. But it is important that institutional ‘checks and balances’ did not allow the state to be completely swayed by the will of one person. This shows that populist rhetoric can change the direction of governance. तर संस्था कमजोर भयो भने त्यसले राज्यलाई अझ छिटो असफलतामा धकेल्छ ।

भारतमा २०१४ मा नरेन्द्र मोदी सत्तामा आउँदा ‘भारतमा निर्माण’ भन्ने अभियानले व्यापक उत्साह जगायो । यसको सार विदेशमा निर्भरता घटाउने, उत्पादन र रोजगारी बढाउने र उद्योगलाई आकर्षित गर्ने थियो । यो पनि एक किसिमको राष्ट्रिय गर्व र आर्थिक आकांक्षाको मिश्रण थियो । केही क्षेत्रमा पूर्वाधार, डिजिटल सेवाको विस्तार, लगानी आकर्षणका पहल र प्रत्यक्ष कर संरचनामा सुधार जस्ता कदमहरू देखिए । तर त्यससँगै अर्को पाठ पनि स्पष्ट भयो कि नारा मात्रले उत्पादन क्रान्ति स्वतः आउँदैन । उत्पादन बढ्न श्रम बजार, भूमि व्यवस्थापन, न्यायिक प्रक्रियाको गति, नीतिगत स्थिरता, साना तथा मझौला उद्यमको वित्तीय पहुँच र राज्यस्तरको प्रशासनिक क्षमता लगायतका संस्थागत आधार चाहिन्छ । भारतमा ‘भारतमा निर्माण’ ले बहसलाई उत्पादनतर्फ धकेले पनि, रोजगार सिर्जनाको गुणस्तर, नीति–निरन्तरताको विवाद र नियमनको जटिलताजस्ता समस्या निरन्तरका चुनौती रहेका छन् । यहाँ पनि निष्कर्ष उही हो– नाराले एक किसिमको गति दिन सक्छ, तर संस्थागत सुधारबिना त्यो गति स्थायी हुँदैन ।

नेपालका लागि यी दुई उदाहरणहरू महत्त्वपूर्ण छन् । किनकि ‘नेपाल प्रथम : नेपाली प्रथम’ पनि भावनात्मक रूपमा शक्तिशाली छ र यसले प्रश्न उठाउँछ कि राज्यको प्राथमिकता के हो ? तर प्रश्न उठाउनु मात्र पनि पर्याप्त छैन । उत्तर दिने संयन्त्र चाहिन्छ । यदि हाम्रो राज्य संयन्त्रमा निर्णय गर्ने निकायहरू पारदर्शी छैनन्, नियम सबैका लागि बराबर लागू हुँदैन, ठेक्का र खरिदमा अनियमितता सहजै हुन्छ, न्याय पाउन वर्षौं लाग्छ र नियामक संस्थाहरू राजनीतिक वा व्यावसायिक दबाबमा चल्छन् भने ‘नेपाल प्रथम’ नारा मात्र रहन्छ । 

सबैभन्दा संवेदनशील विषय शासन सुधारको दाबी हो । राजनीतीकरण अन्त्य, बिचौलिया हटाउने, सम्पत्ति छानबिन, कर्मचारीतन्त्रलाई पेसागत बनाउने लगायतका काम सो दाबीअन्तर्गत पर्छन् ।   सबैभन्दा संवेदनशील विषय शासन सुधारको दाबी हो । राजनीतीकरण अन्त्य, बिचौलिया हटाउने, सम्पत्ति छानबिन, कर्मचारीतन्त्रलाई पेसागत बनाउने लगायतका काम सो दाबीअन्तर्गत पर्छन् । लोकप्रियतामुखी सरकारहरू यहाँ प्रायः दुई कारणले चुक्छन् । पहिलो, उनीहरू सुधारलाई ‘कडाइ’ भनेर मात्र बुझ्छन् र प्रक्रिया तथा अधिकारको सन्तुलन बिगार्छन् । दोस्रो, उनीहरू सुधारलाई ‘चयनात्मक’ बनाउँछन् । केहीलाई मात्र कारबाही, केहीलाई संरक्षण । दुवै अवस्थामा संस्था बलियो हुँदैन । डर र अविश्वास बढ्छ । भ्रष्टाचार नियन्त्रण सफल हुन छानबिन निकाय स्वतन्त्र, प्रमाणमा आधारित र अदालतसँग समन्वित हुनुपर्छ । कर्मचारीतन्त्र सुधार्न पारदर्शी बढुवा, कार्यसम्पादन मूल्यांकन र राजनीतिक हस्तक्षेपबाट टाढा हुनु जरुरी हुन्छ । यी कुरा बिनानारा कडा भए पनि नतिजा कमजोर हुन्छ । र, अन्ततः सरकार आफ्नै घोषणाको भारले थिचिन्छ ।