By allocating development budget to lawmakers, the provincial government has not only stepped into the jurisdiction of local bodies, it has also violated the Constitution.
-Krishna Acharya : Centre for Investigative Journalism-Nepal
Interfering in the constitutional rights of local bodies on development projects, five provincial governments, in line with federal government, have allocated budgets under controversial constituency development and lawmakers’ fund program.
All provincial governments except province 3 and 4 unveiled their annual fiscal budget last week, in which millions of rupees have been allocated to constituency development and lawmaker’s fund. Along with budget allocation of provincial governments, federal and provincial lawmakers will spend a total of 10 billion 585.5 million rupees. There was widespread criticism against allocating funds directly to lawmakers after reports of misuse of funds related to constituency development budget and fund lfpr lawmaker scheme. Despite that, the finance minister has found a way to allocate funds to lawmakers.
Although there are several criteria for its planning and implementation, the fund for lawmaker scheme is certain to prompt disputes between the local officials and lawmakers. It will also promote parallel mechanisms, hurt fiscal balance of local bodies and encourage misuse of money. Planners, financial officials and constitutional experts see the programs not only as a way to misuse funds, but also as means to interfere on the development rights given to the local level.
“Lawmakers should cooperate in the planning and implementing the project while fund will be spent through government mechanism. The Constitution has not considered such responsibility for lawmakers,” said Bipin Adhikari, a constitutional expert. “This program formed a parallel mechanism by removing the rights of local bodies given by the Constitution.” On May 29, the federal government allocated Rs. 40 million to carry out development programs under the supervision of lawmakers in 165 federal constituencies. A committee of all lawmakers of each constituency is set to form for the implementation of the program.
Like the federal government, the provincial government has also allocated fund to set the committee with lawmakers as coordinators and implement the program. Earlier, the funds used to be allocated based on the economic indicators such geography, population, human development index and literacy. Financial imbalance is likely to increase if it is allocated as per the constituency. The following is the fund allocated to constituencies and lawmakers. Province 1: Rs. 2 million, province2: Rs. 5 million, province 5: Rs. 135 million, Karnali province: Rs. 50 million and province 7: Rs. 2 million.
Some provinces have used circular language to describe the fund while others have used straight language. Rs. 4 billion is allocated for programs covering five provinces every year. Apart from this, more than 6.6 billion rupees will be spent in 165 constituencies that have been sanctioned by the federal government, with each constituency receiving Rs. 40 million.
“The Constitution has clearly defined the rights and jurisdiction of government, parliament and judiciary in all three levels,” said Adhikari, the constitutional expert. “Whether in the name of lawmaker development fund or constituency development, this is an infringement on the rights of local bodies.”
The Federation of Rural Municipalities and the Federation of the Municipalities, formed after local elections, have been protesting against the allocation of funds for lawmakers and their constituencies. They protested saying it curtailed their rights and argued that running development projects were not lawmakers’ jobs. Hom Narayan Shrestha, President of the Federation of Rural Municipalities, said allocating funds for lawmakers was against the Constitution and they will continue to protest against it. “A committee under leadership of lawmakers has been formed,” said Shrestha, who is also chairman of the Jugal Rural Municipality of Sindhupalchok. “But the Constitution does not recognize the committee.” He said, “The respected lawmakers can contribute to the development through local level. But instead of protecting the Constitution, they have violated it.”
The two Federations had put pressure on provincial governments to not allocate the funds under the category. “We appreciate province 4, which refrained from allocating the fund under the category. The rest have challenged the spirit of the Constitution. This will be challenged at the court,” Shrestha said.
The program, which began in 1996 with a fund of 2 lakh rupees, has grown bigger now. According to economists, since the funds under the category need not have to be based on financial indicators, it will create imbalance in the financial sources. “Darchula district has its own needs, but only one constituency received the funds, ” said former General Auditor Sukh Dev Khatri. “Kathmandu has different sets of demands, but the fund here is allocated to 10 constituencies.”
Until last year, directly elected lawmakers and those elected through proportional representation received funds under two categories. Under constituency development program, they received Rs. 5 million and Rs. 30 million under constituency infrastructure development program, which started 4 years ago. This year, Finance Minister Yubaraj Khatiwada raised it to Rs. 4 million by increasing the program of Rs. 3 million.
Every year, the General Auditor’s Report has raised questions on its efficacy by pointing out irregularities such as spending the budget in areas where their cadres are dominant, spending it arbitrarily and he misuse from lawmakers themselves.
“Questions about the program have been raised in the past. Despite that, it was allowed to continue, which promotes financial corruption,” said Khatri. “This program is being implemented without any preliminary estimate, preparation and action plan. Such programs will have no impacts.”
The lawmakers strongly opposed when there were efforts to make the criteria tough for the fund and the prime minister himself intervened. Khatri said it demonstrated that lawmakers were not interested in development, but were after money. Neither the federal government nor the provincial government has formulated a working procedure to implement the fund. It is certain that a committee in connection with federal lawmakers and another for provincial lawmakers will be formed.
On the basis of this, there’s an increasing possibility that three-parallel mechanisms to oversee development works carried out by local bodies, provincial lawmakers and federal lawmakers will be set up. “The federal government would have initially reconsidered such programs,” said Shanta Raj Subedi, a former Finance Secretary. “But our lawmakers have been spoiled. Next year, the fund is likely to increase. The disease has moved from federal government to the province.”
