Submit your Article

For the first time in Nepal’s political history, the 2015 constitution gave local governments the right to present their annual budgets, raise taxes and establish local treasuries. The constitution also envisioned federal grants—fiscal equalization, conditional, special, and matching grants—for these local governments.

This meant a large volume of funds has started trickling down to the coffers of local governments. Yet many of them are still unable to carry out their fiscal responsibilities. Some are struggling to present their budget on time while others are unable to manage their expenditures.

Federal affairs expert Khim Lal Devkota recommends stern action against the local bodies that fail to bring timely budget.

“We should closely monitor local governments’ budget-handling,” he says. “If they fail to spend, the federal government should cut off their grants and transfer the funds to well-performing local bodies.”

Only around half of the local governments currently meet their budget presentation deadlines. Some introduce their budget weeks past the deadline while dozens of others cannot do so for much longer. This delay directly affects local-level development and governance.

The Intergovernmental Fiscal Arrangement Act-2017 makes it mandatory for all municipal governments to present their annual budget by Asar 10 (June 24). The date was specified so that development works could begin in July. But this isn’t the case in many local bodies.

According to the Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration, 14 local governments are yet to introduce their budget for the current fiscal 2021-22.

Thirteen of these local governments are from Madhes province and one from Bagmati province. Similarly, in the previous fiscal, four local governments from Madhes and one from Sudurpaschim failed to present their budget.

The Office of Auditor General (OAG) says both incomes and expenditures of local governments lose legitimacy if they fail to bring their budget by the legal deadline.

The National Natural Resources and Fiscal Commission, a constitutional body handling fiscal issues of all three tiers of government, has made timely budgets a condition for allocating federal grants to local governments. It has also suggested that the federal government cut performance-based equalization funds to delay-prone local bodies.

“But the federal government is yet to implement the commission’s recommendation,” rues Krishna Bahadur Bohara, the commission spokesperson.

There are a host of reasons resulting in budget-presentation delays in local governments—disputes between the chiefs and deputies of local bodies being the most prominent of them. This problem is particularly acute when candidates from different parties occupy the chief and deputy positions.

In the fiscal year 2020-21 more disagreements were reported between local body chiefs and deputies in Madhes province compared to any other other province, as per a study of the Democracy Resource Center (DRC), a Kathmandu-based think-tank.

In the fiscal year, the study shows, nearly half of the local governments in Madhes failed to present their budgets by the June 24 deadline and nearly 26 percent had not presented their budgets even by mid-August. By contrast, over 95 percent of local governments in other provinces had presented their budgets by mid-August.

The study also suspects that for the fiscals 2019-20 and 2020-21, budget-planning and project-implementation may also have been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.

There are many instances of budget-presentation being delayed due to disputes between local government chiefs and deputies, with each wanting to allocate funds in their electoral constituencies. A case in point is Chhinnamasta Rural Municipality in Saptari district of Madhes. Chhinnamasta is yet to present this year’s budget, after failing to bring the budget last fiscal as well.

Surya Narayan Mandal, chairperson of the rural municipality, refused to talk to ApEx. Usha Kumari Mandal, deputy chairperson, meanwhile, blamed the chairperson for the budget-delay.

Political disputes aside, many local governments are also struggling with staff-shortage. Though it has been five years since the local governments were elected, the Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration is yet to supply the required staff to local governments.

The DRC study says both the federal and provincial governments have failed to provide enough help to local bodies in order to enhance their capacity.

Local governments are failing not just on timely budgets. Even the local bodies that have approved their budgets on time are hamstrung by skewed fund-allocation and low capital-expenditure. This is so mainly because many local governments have been ignoring fiscal rules while planning and allocating budgets. 

According to Local Level Plan and Budget Formulation Guideline 2017, local bodies should prepare a thematic list of ward-level projects prioritized by ward committees and the projects deemed necessary at the local level. But, instead of following the guideline, local leaders are busy shoring up their electoral constituencies.

The latest OAG annual report says local governments on average spent only 65.68 percent of the total budget, indicating that they are preparing their budget without serious planning. Similarly, 43 local governments overshot their budget ceilings while 57 are yet to undertake their fiscal audit.

Mounting arrears is another problem that plagues local governments, which, according to the OAG report, accounted for 4.05 percent of arrears. The report has identified several flaws in procurement, grant and expenditure management, and fiscal monitoring and reporting process, among other concerns.

The OAG has also identified the culture of local governments spending more money on small development projects to appease a particular group of voters as a problem.

Experts stress the need for supporting mechanisms to address these anomalies in local governments.

Says Devkota, the federal affairs expert, soon after the local governments were elected, he and others had proposed a dedicated think-tank to provide ‘knowledge support’ to local governments.

“But there was no initiative to implement the proposal. Local governments have been performing marginally better in recent years, but there are still many budgetary issues that need to be addressed,” he says.

Elected local representatives cite lack of coordination among the federal, provincial, and local governments as the main reason for delays in budget and development projects.

Bhim Prasad Dhungana, mayor of Nilkantha Municipality in Dhading district, says the federal and provincial governments don’t take the issues of local governments seriously.

“Lack of coordination has led to problems like budget duplication. There have been several instances of federal, provincial and local governments allocating budget for the same project,” he says.

In 2017, when Nepal joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), India had expressed its reservations through various channels. 

Nepal assuaged India’s concern by telling its leaders that projects under the BRI would be limited to connectivity and hydropower and would not affect India’s security. 

Now it is China that is expressing reservations over the $500 million American grant under the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact, putting Nepali leaders in a spot. India, meanwhile, has maintained a studied silence on the controversy. 

A senior Indian official has said India does not have any say on MCC matters as it is a bilateral issue between Nepal and the US.  

But a senior ruling party leader in Nepal told ApEx that Indian leaders have intimated to their Nepali counterparts that Nepal should ‘independently’ decide.

One project under the compact is a cross-border electricity transmission line between Nepal and India, a part of which is to be built on Indian soil. 

According to the senior ruling party leader, India is silent on the MCC controversy also because the country has a massive investment in Nepal’s hydropower, which can be exported to India via the new transmission line.   

New Delhi-based political analysts see the political and public divisions in Nepal over the compact as a sign of growing Chinese influence. The MCC itself is not a concern for India, they say, as it is not going to impact Nepal-India bilateral relations.

“As it [MCC compact] has become highly controversial in Nepal, India does not want to comment on it. Franky, India is not bothered about whether or not the compact is endorsed,” says Nihar R. Nayak, a Nepal-India relations expert. “Regarding the American role in the region, there is a good understanding between India and the US.” 

Perhaps India reckons any kind of comments on the compact, a highly charged topic in Nepal, could backfire. “India has adopted a silent approach while dealing with Nepal in recent years, as the public sentiment in Nepal can quickly turn on an outsider’s remark on domestic issues,” says Chandra Dev Bhatta, a foreign policy expert.

“Yet India being taciturn does not mean it does not have any say on issues like the MCC compact. India will have to face the consequences if the geopolitical games in the region get out of hand.” India, Bhatta adds, would also not want to completely lose its influence on Nepal.  

While India is silent, countries allied with the US, such as the UK, Japan, Korea and Australia have asked Nepal’s leadership to endorse the compact. Ambassadors from these countries have been meeting Nepali leaders to convey their ‘implied message’ on the compact.  

Suresh Chalise, a former Nepali ambassador to the US, says the constituents of AUKUS and QUAD obviously want to push the MCC compact forward.  

“These countries want to promote clean energy in this region to tackle climate change and the transmission line [under the MCC] serves this purpose,” says Chalise. So it is only natural for the ambassadors of these countries to be actively pushing the compact.  

While the US has pressed Nepal’s political parties to get the compact endorsed by February 28, China has denounced what it has called “coercive” American diplomacy. 

Wang Wenbin, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, on February 18 said China opposes coercive diplomacy and actions that pursue selfish agendas at the expense of Nepal's sovereignty and interests. 

“China is glad to see the international community conducting development cooperation with Nepal to contribute to its economic growth and livelihood improvement,” he said. However, such cooperation should be based on full respect for the will of the Nepali people and “come with no political strings attached”. 

Media reports also suggest that the Chinese side has been urging the Nepali leaders not to ratify the MCC compact.

Over the past few years, Chinese officials had been mum on the compact; but of late, Chinese government media, including the vocal Global Times, have been publishing stories portraying the compact in a bad light.  Now, Chinese officials are publicly opposing MCC compact. 

In their conversations with Nepali leaders, US officials have conveyed that the delay in ratification owing to ‘external pressures’ would be unacceptable. The compact’s rejection, they have hinted, could also hamper US-Nepal bilateral ties. 

Senior Maoist leaders including Pushpa Kamal Dahal have been vocal about American pressure on them to back the compact. Some party leaders even claim the US officials threatened economic sanctions were the compact to be rejected.  

The US officials have objected to such claims of Maoist leaders. They have, however, said that some leaders could be held accountable on human rights violations and corruption cases, but that there will be no sanctions. 

Prakash Sharan Mahat, spokesperson of Nepali Congress, disagrees that the US is putting pressure on Nepali politicians for the compact’s ratification.

“As far as I know, the US is just telling Nepali leaders to take a prompt decision. There is no pressure,” he says. 

The US embassy on February 19 said in a statement that whether Nepali leaders ratify the compact is “a decision for Nepal to make, as a sovereign democratic nation, and Nepal’s decision alone”.

The compact was tabled in parliament on February 20 amid protests by the CPN (Maoist Center) and CPN (Unified Socialist), both parts of the ruling Nepali Congress-led coalition. 

Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba has expedited efforts to put the MCC compact to the vote in the parliament meeting scheduled for February 24. 

The Unified Socialist has decided to vote against the compact. Meanwhile, the Maoist Center is yet to publicly state its voting intent.  

With his coalition partners up in arms against the compact, Prime Minister Deuba has reached out to the main opposition CPN-UML for support. 

The February 28 deadline issued by the US for the ratification of the MCC Nepal compact is just days away. The Americans are waiting with bated breath—as is the whole of Nepal for that matter.

In 2014, the Supreme Court (SC) directed the government to change electoral laws to give voters the option to reject all candidates if they do not like any of them. The NOTA (‘none of the above’) option on ballot papers enables voters to officially register a form of protest over the political parties’ candidate-selection process.

The SC ruling stated that as voters were exercising only ‘yes votes’, it was important to allow them to cast ‘no votes’ as well. A joint bench of Justices Kalyan Shrestha and Prakash Wosti argued that the right to reject was an integral part of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the constitution as well as by international treaties and conventions. But political parties are yet to change electoral laws to this effect, largely out of fear of their candidates being rejected.

‘White vote’, ‘blank vote’, and ‘against all’ are other nomenclatures for NOTA adopted in different countries like India, Ukraine, Spain, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and in some American states. When voters choose NOTA option in their ballot papers, they deem none of the available candidates worthy of elected positions.

It has been eight years since Nepal’s apex court order, but major parties continue to demur. Following the order, the Election Commission, in 2016, had incorporated this provision in the drafts of election-related laws. But parties opted to remove it after parliamentary deliberations in 2017.

Ayodhi Prasad Yadav, the chief election commissioner at the time, says he had tried to convince parties to incorporate the provision, but to no avail. He had visited India to study the procedures of NOTA option in elections and concluded that it could be easily implemented in Nepal as well.

“Honoring the Supreme Court verdict and with a view that it would strengthen the democratic rights of Nepali people, the Election Commission had pushed the NOTA option, but major parties were not willing,” says Yadav. “Such a provision cannot be implemented without agreement among the political parties.”

Save for a few fringe parties, none of the big parties has seriously entertained the notion of NOTA option for elections.

According to constitutional lawyer Radheshyam Adhikari, after debating the issue in parliament, the parties concluded that they should wait for some time considering the low level of voter education.

“In our context, electoral practices are yet to take root at the ground-level. We are still disseminating voter education on how to correctly select candidates,” says Adhikari. “In this situation, the implementation of NOTA could further confuse voters.”

Adhikari, nevertheless, is hopeful that after some periodic elections, higher voter education-level will allow for disapproval votes.

Bibeksheel Sajha Party, led by Rabindra Mishra, is among the small number of parties that demand NOTA voting option. The party has even incorporated the option in its statute.

“As per the Supreme Court’s ruling and successful practice of many democratic countries, we should not delay the implementation of NOTA option, which is a voter-right,” says Prakash Chandra Pariyar, a secretariat member of Bibeksheel Sajha Party. 

Election experts say the adoption of the NOTA option would bring a systemic change to the current electoral process, which is becoming increasingly costly.

Under the current system, there is a culture of political parties picking candidates who can spend the most to win elections. As a result, competent candidates seldom get the opportunity to represent their constituencies.

Neel Kantha Uprety, former chief election commissioner, says people always want to vote for competent contenders.

“With the NOTA voting opting, parties will be compelled to pick their candidates more judiciously. It will also minimize the influence of money in candidate-selection,” he says. “If a large number of voters select NOTA, parties will have to acknowledge that there was a problem with the candidate in question, which in turn will lead to an improvement in the quality of candidates in the field.”

Pariyar of the Bibeksheel agrees with Uprety. He says the principle of lesser-evil dominates Nepal’s current election system.

“Voters are compelled to pick a candidate who is equally if not worse than other contestants in the fray. With the NOTA option, they will get to tell the political parties that they want better candidates,” says Pariyar.

Normally, NOTA votes do not get a majority, although that cannot be ruled out. If the majority does vote for NOTA, there would be a re-election. But in a democracy even the voices of minorities are respected.

In 2013, the Indian Supreme Court mandated that both the federal and provincial governments offer a NOTA option for voters. It was subsequently implemented by the Indian government.

In the 2014 Indian general elections, the NOTA option received approximately 1 percent of all cast votes. A little over 1 percent of the Indian voters chose NOTA in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. While 2.08 percent of the voters in Assam and Bihar chose NOTA, the ratio was just 0.65 percent in Sikkim.

The new voting right in India was gained after a long struggle. In 2004, People’s Union for Civil Liberties, a human rights group, had filed a legal petition asking for measures allowing voters to express their views without any pressure.

A year after India’s top court granted such a right, Nepal’s top court followed suit. 

“The voters should not be influenced to vote for a certain candidate and there should also be no imposition of certain ideologies on them,” Nepal’s SC said in its ruling.

It also cited Article 25 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 that calls for universal and equal suffrage, and guarantee of free expression. 

Adhikari, the constitutional lawyer, says many people of voting age do not exercise their franchise as they do not like the candidates fielded by the political parties.

“If the right to reject is implemented in elections, such voters will get a chance to express their disapproval of candidates. They should get to express their disillusionment with politics through the electoral process,” he says.

On February 13, 98 lawmakers from the ruling parties registered an impeachment motion against Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana. The sudden move smacked of political opportunism. 

The judiciary had been in crisis for the past five months. The political parties were indifferent, all the while looking to exploit the crisis for their vested interest. They got to do so on February 13.

The impeachment motion was registered just before the hearing of a case against 14 lawmakers of CPN (Unified Socialist), a ruling coalition partner. The main opposition, CPN-UML, had filed a case questioning the legitimacy of the lawmakers who were expelled from the mother party.

The ruling coalition wants the Supreme Court to decide in its favor. If the court scraps the status of 14 lawmakers, there will be questions over the legitimacy of the incumbent government.

Similarly, ruling parties want to overturn the judicial appointments of KP Oli-led government while the UML’s case against Speaker Agni Sapkota is also under deliberation.

That the impeachment motion was registered against Rana to influence these court cases is clear enough, say observers.

For the impeachment motion to clear through parliament, it must have the support of two-thirds of the lawmakers. Thus the motion can’t be endorsed without the main opposition, UML, on board.

Last year, UML chair KP Sharma Oli came down heavily against Rana and four other Supreme Court justices who delivered the verdict to reinstate parliament and appoint Sher Bahadur Deuba as prime minister. Now, Oli is defending Rana and opposing impeachment, saying the motion is a blow to the judiciary’s independence. 

Similarly, PM Deuba, who was against impeachment just three months ago, has changed his mind and is now in favor of impeaching Rana. Also linked with the impeachment case is the much-debated Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Nepal compact, says a Nepali Congress leader who spoke on condition of anonymity. 

“Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal had pledged to support the MCC compact after the agreement among ruling parties to impeach Rana,” says the NC leader. “That was the trade-off but Dahal backtracked.”

According to another ruling party leader, CPN (Maoist-Center) and CPN (Unified Socialist) are willing to table the compact if PM Deuba commits to keep the coalition intact.

It is an open secret that the UML will support the compact’s endorsement if PM Deuba breaks the coalition.

Nepali Congress Central Working Committee member Min Bahadur Bishwakarma says ruling partners are engaged in all kinds of political bargaining. 

“On the one hand, the Maoists and Unified Socialist want to see the MCC endorsed amid their protests. On the other hand, they also want to stay in the government,” says Bishwakarma.

Charan Prasai, a human rights activist, says the impeachment’s timing indicates that it is politically motivated.

“There are cases in the apex court that are directly linked to the fate of the coalition government. Media reports also suggest Rana was suspended so that the new acting chief justice will serve the coalition’s interests,” says Prasai. 

Prasai adds that it is no secret that chief justice and justices frequently meet politicians to bargain on under-deliberation cases. The two sides maintain communication through middlemen. Lawyers knock on the door of politicians to become SC judges, and they in turn deliver verdicts favorable to their political patrons.

Prasai is of the view that the nexus between executive and judiciary deepened after then Chief Justice Khilraj Regmi was appointed government head in 2013 with the brief of holding the second Constituent Assembly elections. After this, judges and politicians started to mingle freely and to see how they could support each other. “It has now become normal for politicians to interfere in courts through judicial council and engage in bench buying,” says Prasai.

The same is the case in bureaucracy. Senior bureaucrats frequently knock on the door of politicians for promotion and favor. In return, politicians seek their support for policy and monetary corruption. This is how many former bureaucrats get appointed to key constitutional bodies. The Election Commission, the National Human Rights Commission, and the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority are thus highly politicized.

Says political analyst Lokraj Baral all state mechanisms have deviated from their constitutional duty and morality. “Heads of state bodies such as the judiciary, Election Commission, and bureaucracy are in hock with politicians for personal benefits,” says Baral. Businessmen and politicians also maintain close connections and these businessmen influence decision-making of ministries and other state organs. As businessmen provide monetary support to political parties, politicians often take policy decisions favorable to them.

Political Analyst Bishnu Dahal says the nexus between politicians and businessmen and between politicians and criminals can be seen from grass-roots to center levels. There is ‘setting’ everywhere, badly affecting state institutions, says Dahal.

Dahal says the ruling parties were preparing to impeach the chief election commissioner Dinesh Kumar Thapaliya due to his firm stand in favor of timely elections but backtracked due to public backlash and decided to impeach the chief justice instead.

American Ambassador to Nepal Randy W. Berry has said that they have not threatened Nepali leaders on the issues relating to Millennium Challenge Corporation(MCC) Nepal compact.

Speaking with a group of journalists, the US envoy said: “We have not threatened Nepali leaders – that is false. But we are just asking Nepal to fulfill its commitments.”  He said American officials have had discussions with Nepali leaders – but not in the way characterized by some media and online portals.

“Whether the Nepali leaders ratify MCC is a decision for Nepal to make as a sovereign democratic nation and Nepal's decision alone.  After years of delays on following through on Nepal’s promise, we simply ask that ratifying the agreement be brought to a vote so the people through their elected officials have their say,” Ambassador Berry said. 

Unfortunately, this development program has been mired in disinformation.  This is disinformation about a program that is based on transparency, accountability, and democracy – who would be against that?, he added.

“In the initial days, the patriarchal society was reluctant to accept our leadership, an attitude that greatly dismayed and discouraged me,” says Sanju Kumari Chaudhari, deputy-mayor of Kohalpur municipality in the mid-western district of Banke. Many underestimated her, arguing women could not take up such a big responsibility.

But five years on, Chaudhari appears buoyant. “With the confidence I have gained, now I am capable of taking up the responsibility of mayor,” she says.

As their tenure draws to a close, ApEx talked to more than half a dozen local women leaders to learn of their experiences. Their experiences were varied but all of them spoke of having to battle patriarchy, with the society still reluctant to accept women leaders.

Says Menuka Kafle, vice-chairperson, National Association of Rural Municipalities of Nepal, women representatives are often questioned on their competence and knowledge.

“But in the past five years women leaders have proven themselves, in many cases performing better than their male counterparts,” says Kafle.

Gita Adhikari, deputy mayor of Damak municipality in the eastern district of Jhapa, also singles out the patriarchal mindset as the prominent challenge women leaders faced in the past five years.

They were also crippled by lack of experience, lack of clarity about their work, and in many places, denial of basic facilities such as vehicles for easy movement.

They gradually overcame such barriers as various organizations reached out to them with training and orientation programs.

Lack of education was another stumbling block for many women representatives. A study carried out by Asia Foundation in 2019 showed that the majority of women leaders had only basic education.

Only 12 percent of the surveyed women representatives were illiterate; another 22 percent were barely literate i.e. they could do basic reading and writing. The report emphasized the need for capacity building and a supportive environment for women in local bodies.

The 2017 elections were a watershed in women’s representation in politics and state mechanisms. A record 41 percent were elected in local governments.

Of the total 35,041 local representatives, 20,689 were male, and 14,352 female. Still, male chairs made for an overwhelming majority: of 6,473 ward chairs, there are only 62 women.

The parties mostly picked male candidates for mayoral posts and female candidates for deputy mayors in order to honor the constitutional position that one among the two should be female.

At the ward level, the Local Level Electoral Act 2017 has reserved two seats in each of the nearly 7,000 ward committees for women, one of whom has to be a Dalit.

Altogether 6,567 Dalit women were represented across the country but there was a lack of Dalit candidates in 175 wards. Over the past five years, an overwhelming number of women have served as deputies and members of the ward committees.

In 753 local governments, seven women are mayors and 11 are chairs of rural municipalities. In the first part of this series (see ‘A case of clashes egos, unclear roles’), we investigated efforts to minimize the role of women deputy mayors and legal bias against empowering deputies.

Some deputy mayors complain about not being allowed to exercise their legal rights. “I did not face such problems given my sound academic background,” says Adhikari. “But most other women representatives did.”

Adhikari, however, does not believe deputies don’t have any executive rights. “There is a lot of scope if women can be assertive. In many places, women’s handling of covid was greatly appreciated. Moreover, there is more transparency and less corruption in places with women at the helm,” she adds.

Says Meena Poudel, a political analyst, women who have served in local governments have mixed feelings about their roles. Some are encouraged and ready to take on bigger leadership roles while others are fed up by the many obstacles. “Along with giving women more space, the political parties are also obliged to create an environment for them to perform their duties.”

Political parties are still hesitant to allow local women leaders from contesting for chiefs of municipalities and rural municipalities. They reckon women do not have sufficient resources, particularly money, to win elections.

“The experience of the past five years shows that women can both win elections and perform their duties well,” says Chaudhari. “So the political parties have no excuse not to give women more leadership opportunities.”

Women’s presence in local governments has yielded some positive results. “They have tended to raise issues of gender violence and women’s health and education, which tend to be ignored by male representatives,” says Poudel.

Similarly, women have not resisted from taking austerity measures, cutting spending in non-productive sectors.

Women find it easier to share their problems with elected women representatives. They also find it easier to work on women-led social initiatives, which in turn has increased their social participation.

In the next local elections, women leaders are sure to press for more women candidates even as parties remain reluctant to go beyond the minimum constitutional limit of 33 percent.

One of the vital roles played by women in the past five years is as chairs of vice-chair-led judicial commissions, which are mandated to settle small disputes at local level. A study by the Municipal Association in 2021 suggests that women leaders are good at dispute-resolution through reconciliation.

Historically, women have had a poor presence in local bodies. In the 2010 municipal elections, Sadhana Devi Pradhan won the elections of Kathmandu municipal. In the first elections of local bodies held in 1991 after the restoration of democracy in 1990, only one percent of women were elected, a threshold that reached 21 percent in 1994 elections after the fielding of 20 percent women candidates was made legally mandatory. The number of female representatives is increasing in governance too.

Female representatives are earning public trust

Binod Poudel

Using data from citizen surveys (conducted by Kathmandu University, Interdisciplinary Analysts, and the Asia Foundation) and politicians’ surveys (conducted by Yale University, London School of Economics, Nepal Administrative Staff College and Governance Lab), we are beginning to better understand the functioning of local representatives. With respect to deputy mayors, two findings have already emerged.

First, deputy mayors are earning the trust of their constituents. Back in 2018, when local representatives had just assumed office, citizens had seen mayors more favorably than deputy mayors. But that is not the case now. This is consistent with India’s experience, where citizens have come to support local female politicians after seeing them perform.

Second, there seems to be an alignment of policy priorities between citizens and deputy mayors. While the alignment is not perfect, it is certainly not worse than the alignment of priorities between citizens and mayors.

In a survey last year, the majority of deputy mayors we interviewed expressed their intention to run for mayors in the next local elections. (The remaining forty percent had yet to make up their mind.) This kind of confidence among deputy mayors would have been unlikely had they not done well in office.

Poudel is a Kathmandu-based researcher on local bodies

Over the past few weeks, the US has been consistently pressing Nepal’s major political parties for parliamentary ratification of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact, under which Nepal is entitled to $500 million in grant. The effect of such pressure is starting to show.

The dispute over compact has sowed discord in the ruling coalition while the main opposition, CPN-UML, is also under pressure to reveal its official position. Speaker Agni Sapkota, meanwhile, has been postponing House meetings over UML’s parliament obstruction threats, hanging the compact’s fate in balance.     

The US wants a final decision on the MCC Nepal compact before the March meeting of the MCC Board of Directors, to be chaired by Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken. Sources say the US is likely to turn on the heat on the Nepali leaders until the compact is approved.

Despite pressures from Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and the US, two coalition partners—CPN (Maoist Center) and CPN (Unified Socialist)—have not budged from their anti-compact positions. They want to change some of its provisions even though they have not specified them.

With the two major partners in the coalition vacillating on compact ratification, PM Deuba of Nepali Congress, which is in favor of the US grant, has reached out to the main opposition, UML, asking for its support.   

NC Leaders close to Deuba say the prime minister is even willing to break the coalition if the UML lends its support for the compact’s ratification. Ever since the UML was ousted from power last July, the party has been saying that the ruling coalition should first have a uniform view on the compact. The party says it currently has no position on it.

Rajan Bhattarai, head of UML Foreign Affairs Department, says despite some reservations the party had tried to push the compact when it was in power.

“But we are not in power now and our position on the matter does not mean much. Right now, there is no point in saying yes or no to the compact,” says Bhattarai.

But Speaker Sapkota has blamed the UML for disrupting the House and blocking the MCC bill from getting tabled, which Bhattarai denies.

Leaders close to PM Deuba say that if the UML lifts House obstruction and makes its position clear on the compact, NC will put pressure on Sapkota to table the bill in Parliament.

Additionally, Congress leaders believe that if the UML comes out openly in the compact’s favor, the Maoists and CPN (Unified Socialist) are likely to follow suit. They say the latter two do not want to be portrayed as standing in the way of compact ratification.

Though the UML is unlikely to go against the compact in the voting process, there is still a chance of resistance. Some UML leaders are against the party leadership issuing a whip on the compact. Given that the issue has deeply polarized Nepali public, they believe individual lawmakers should be allowed to use their conscience when voting on the compact.

PM Deuba seems to be in a fix. He is not getting the support of his own coalition partners but he cannot rely on the opposition either.

“The prime minister is determined to endorse the compact, irrespective of its implications for the coalition. That’s why he has been reaching out to the main opposition,” says Nain Singh Mahar, a Congress central working committee member.

The US is also doing its part to woo the UML. On February 8, US Ambassador to Nepal Randy W. Berry called on UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli at the latter’s residence in Balkot, Bhaktapur. In the meeting, the US envoy sought UML’s help in the compact’s endorsement.

Political parties are also under pressure to decide the compact’s fate after a joint letter submitted by PM Deuba and Maoist Center Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal to the MCC was leaked. In the letter, the duo had committed to ratifying the compact by February-end.

The US has said that it will not wait for Nepali parties to endorse the compact.

After the letter signed by Deuba and Dahal became public on February 6, the heads of three major parties had gathered in Baluwatar, where the main opposition leader, Oli, urged the ruling parties to come up with a clear position.

Meanwhile, the announcement of local elections on May 13 has also complicated ratification. Parties now see the compact through the prism of elections. Not only in the Maoist and Unified Socialist, there are also voices in the NC that it would be wise to deal with the compact after the elections.

Coalition partners Maoist Center and Unified Socialist have already proposed putting the issue on hold until after the elections. Many political leaders believe a final decision on the compact now could impact their local poll prospects.

At the same time, there is also concern about possible consequences on Nepal’s economy if the US decides to withdraw the compact. 

Government Spokesperson Gyanendra Bahadur Karki said in a recent interview that withdrawal of the compact could have repercussions on the country’s economic development. A former Nepali ambassador to the US also declined to rule out an adverse impact on the Nepali economy if the MCC falls through.

Political parties are well aware of this. They are also worried about risking Nepal-US diplomatic ties.

PM Deuba is of the view that if the MCC bill is tabled in Parliament, it will give a message that Nepal has moved a step ahead towards its ratification. Some NC leaders suspect that the US could wait if the bill is tabled in the Parliament.  

But a member of the Speaker’s secretariat says there has been no headway on tabling the bill as the UML continues to obstruct the House.

“If there is an all-party consensus, the Speaker is ready for an alternative. But right now, he firmly believes the political environment for tabling the bill has not been created,” the secretariat member says on condition of anonymity.

Amid uncertainty over the compact, politicians are busy in intra-party parleys to discuss possible way outs. The Maoist party has called its central committee meeting for February 10, with the compact among key agendas. To support compact endorsement, the party will have to change its official policy.

Several influential leaders of the Maoist party have taken a hardline position on the compact, which has put Dahal in a difficult position.

Similarly, NC and UML are also holding intra-party parleys. Except for NC, other parties are in a moral crisis due to the public posturing of their leaders against the compact.

On the one hand, they do not want to project themselves as anti-MCC, and on the other, they want to take the credit for any possible changes in the compact.

In countries with a bicameral system, the upper house of parliament performs certain distinct duties to those undertaken by the lower house. Nepal has had a bicameral parliament since the 1950s, except for a brief hiatus during the partyless Panchayat regime (1960-1990) and the recent political transition (2006 to 2015).

The 2015 constitution has given continuity to the bicameral setup in the form of the National Assembly (NA) as the upper house and the House of Representatives (HoR) as the lower house of the federal parliament. On its website, the NA lists ‘providing expert service’ as one of its major functions. Except for this single task, the two houses perform similar tasks, such as formulation of laws and holding the government to account.

In many democracies, the functions of two houses are clearly articulated by the law so that they perform distinct tasks. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the main duties of the upper House of Lords are ‘examining bills, questioning government action, and investigating public policy.’ Its roles and responsibilities are clearly distinguished from those of the House of Commons.

In Nepal’s case, however, the upper house is struggling to establish a separate identity and there is growing disenchantment about its performance. The very idea of a bicameral legislature is being questioned, particularly after the recent assembly elections that elected mostly partisan, non-experts. 

So do we really need the National Assembly, then? Senior journalist Hari Bahadur Thapa, who also researches Nepal’s parliamentary system, says the core concept behind the assembly is to bring together a mature group of experts with deep knowledge on statecraft. The goal is to get them to offer expert guidance and advice to the government as well as the HoR.

“In a sense, it is a group of senior technocrats who delve into policy and law-making rather than engaging in day-to-day politics,” Thapa says. “But Nepal’s upper house has failed to measure up to its expectation.”

There are various factors behind the NA’s sub-par performance. Chiefly, the major parties are using the assembly to adjust leaders who have lost elections or those who have somehow not gotten respectable positions in the party structures.

For instance, Bam Dev Gautam of CPN-UML and Narayan Kaji Shrestha of CPN (Maoist Center), both of whom lost the 2017 parliamentary elections, are currently assembly members.

Influential political leaders want to be MPs as non-parliamentarians cannot become ministers for more than six months.

In the 59-member NA, an electoral college elects 56 members while the three remaining members are nominated. The three nominated seats have been reserved for experts. But as the government recommends these nominees, they are usually political appointees as well.  

Right now, Khim Lal Devkota, Bimala Rai Paudyal, and Ram Narayan Bidari occupy the nominated seats in the NA. Among the trio, only Devkota is not affiliated to any political party.   

NA member Prakash Pantha concedes that political parties are abusing the assembly to adjust those who lost the 2017 elections.

“The onus lies on political parties to honor the spirit of the constitution while selecting candidates. They should set the criteria for assembly candidates, emphasizing expertise over political allegiance,” he says.

Daman Nath Dhuganga, former speaker of parliament, agrees that the problem is in candidate-selection.

“The parties are reluctant to follow the constitution and are putting partisan interests above national interests,” Dhuagana says. “But then the National Assembly’s leadership is also struggling to assert its authority to safeguard the independence of the house. It is rather submitting to the wills of political parties and their leaders.”

The NA’s leadership was tested when the country faced a constitutional and political crisis after Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli dissolved the HoR in December 2020.

In the absence of the HoR, the assembly, which is a permanent legislative body, should have held the government to account. But it did no such thing. NA chair Ganesh Prasad Timalsena, who is from the CPN-UML, ran the House only for a few days to avoid criticism. After this instance, criticism of the assembly reached new heights. The upper house was accused of being no more than a government rubber-stamp. 

Another reason behind a weak assembly is the constitution itself. The national charter has not given the upper house any exclusive law-making right. As per the constitution, the government can present bills in the two houses of parliament but the assembly can neither approve nor disapprove the HoR-endorsed bills.

The provision of expert assembly members was envisioned to revise flaws and errors in the bills forwarded by the HoR. But then there is a paucity of experts in the NA to analyze the contents of such bills and offer corrections.

The NA must return a bill sent by the HoR within two months, either after endorsing it or recommending changes. When the HoR passed a passport-related bill in 2019, the assembly had pointed out several flaws in it and corrections were duly made. But such corrective measures are not possible without enough experts on board.

The NA’s performance has also been hamstrung by the inadequacies of funds and resources. A recent study report by Democracy Resource Center, an NGO, has pointed to the assembly’s lack of financial, physical and human resources, directly impacting the legislative process. The report titled ‘Legislative Procedures of the National Assembly’ says the assembly is short in computers, high-speed internet and office space.

Despite these inadequacies, the NA members can still work largely unhindered by the larger political upheavals. Unlike in the case of HoR members, assembly members do not have to toe party whip or serve specific electoral constituencies. This freedom allows the NA members to focus on issues of national importance.

Journalist Thapa says it is the assembly’s responsibility to ensure that the bills and decisions emanating from the HoR are not politically motivated, which has not been happening in Nepal.

“The upper house has failed to demonstrate the desired maturity and expertise and has been acting subordinate to the lower house,” Thapa says. “It has been found wanting on crucial tasks such as improving coordination between provincial and local governments.”

But despite the NA’s shortcomings, Thapa is averse to what he calls the radical idea of dissolving the upper house and adopting a unicameral system. “That would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater,” he says.  

Thapa suggests reforming the NA, for instance by tweaking the current appointment system. “But as the custodians of the democratic process, things won’t improve much unless our political parties internalize the importance of a free and independent upper house.”

The Westminster parliamentary government has a long history in Nepal. Even before the establishment of democracy in 1951, the then Rana regime had envisaged a bicameral system in Nepal’s Interim Constitution 1947. The 1959 constitution also provided for a bicameral system. It was only during the Panchayat period that the country was under a unicameral Rashtriya Panchayat. The 1990 constitution again adopted bicameralism. 

After the political changes of 2006, the role of the country’s parliament was taken up by a Constituent Assembly elected to draft a new constitution. Between 2006 and 2015, Nepal had another period when it did not have two chambers of parliament with the CA performing the tasks of a legislative body as well. In 2015, the country once again adopted a bicameral system through the new constitution.

Balaram KC, a former Supreme Court judge, believes the bicameral legislature should not be discarded just because the current upper house has not been up to the task.

“Getting rid of the upper house could have bad consequences. The monopoly of a single chamber is never desirable. The idea does not sound democratic,” KC says. “As a democratic society, we should instead build pressure on our leadership to reform the house. Our political parties should also be responsible.”