Some Members of Parliament (MPs) have been pushing hard with their demand with the government that they be provided higher amount of money so that they can spend more for different development projects in their respective parliamentary constituency. At present, the government provides Rs 1 million for each MP for this purpose and now the demand is to make it Rs 50 million for each constituency.

 

Though the argument they are forwarding is seemingly pious, in closer scrutiny, this is not so. An MP is a lawmaker, not a development worker. An MP can facilitate the development projects by bringing appropriate laws and carrying out regular monitoring of such projects. What do the experts think? Siromani Dhungana of New Business Age gathered the opinions of some of them. Excerpts: 

 

 

‘‘It is unfortunate that lawmakers are interested in project execution instead of policy-making’’

 

This is a malpractice and it began when the government started to provide Rs 1 million to each lawmaker. There should have been strong opposition from citizens and civil society immediately after that provision was introduced. We remained mute spectators while there was alleged misappropriation of this fund by many lawmakers. 

 

As far as the ongoing debate on providing Rs 50 million to the lawmakers is concerned, we should note that it is not entirely a new concept. It is continuity of the provision of providing Rs 1 million. It is unfortunate that lawmakers are interested in project execution instead of policy-making. Obviously, their keen interest in this is because there is opportunity for them to generate personal benefits. The practice of providing certain amount to the lawmakers in similar fashion has been adopted also in our neighbouring country India. 

 

If the amount is spent in a responsible manner, this system may be very useful to those constituencies represented by not so influential Mps that have low power to influence the budget process. For example, lawmakers representing remote area constituencies can use the amount in building water supply systems, renovate school buildings, open blocked roads and in similar other development activities. This is clearly an ideal situation. But I do not think lawmakers will be sincere enough to use the amount in such projects. Given the weak supervision and monitoring situation in the country, I doubt that the fund will be spent in a transparent and accountable manner.

 

 

‘‘Our demand is not baseless’’

 

I was the person who constantly raised the demand in the parliament for providing Rs 50 million to each constituency to be spent on projects selected on recommendation of the respective MPs. If the provision is passed, parliamentarians do not have to knock at the ministers’ and bureaucrats’ doors for small projects. 

 

Our demand is not baseless. Why do people hate politics? The answer is: MPs are not able to deliver their promises made during election hustings. And it is for sure that MPs are not able to deliver their promises due to lack of resources. The provision of Rs 50 million will make them able to deliver their promises, which will help enhance public trust on politics and politicians. As far as the issue of lawmaker and development worker is concerned, we have to play both role in a country like Nepal. Ps are also directly linked to development projects.

 

The provision will be helpful also to formulate the development projects based on the need of local people. In order to ensure transparency, we have proposed that the elected MPs will lead the Constituency Development Programme and MPs nominated under Proportional Representation system and other stakeholders can be members of the supervision committee. District Development Committee will handle the accounts.  

 

In fact, this is very necessary programme to ensure that democracy in the country is well functioning and to regain respect of MPs and politics. This concept is not about giving money to MPs but delivering development to people.

 

 

‘‘Incumbent lawmakers should not be allowed to influence voters by using public money’’

 

This demand put forth by lawmakers is completely irrational. Parliamentarians are not supposed to carry out development activities. Rather they should be formulating policies to support development process. Further, they should frequently monitor the projects being implemented by executives to ensure effectiveness Local development is the responsibility of local representatives. MPs are trying to limit the rights of local bodies and locally elected leaders by demanding Rs 50 million for Constituency Development Programme. Lawmakers should not try to limit the power of Mayors of the Municipalities, Presidents of District Development Committees and Chairmen of Village Development Committees. Identification of local development needs is the duty of these Mayors, Presidents and Chairmen. Lawmakers should instead push forward to hold elections for the local bodies. Further, democracy is not all about unfair advantage. Incumbent lawmakers should not be allowed to influence voters by using public money. How can we expect a fair competition if a sitting MP who had the opportunity to use this fund is contesting election against other candidates? Thus, there is risk of harming the sanctity of the election process. A democratic government should not take such decision.

 

If MPs are serious enough about local development, they should make local bodies such as Municipalities, District Development Committees and Village Development Committees more effective. They should demand a system that all money will be channelled through Municipalities, DDCs and VDCs.  

 

It is worth noting that the lawmakers are elected with the main purpose of formulating laws so that development as well as good governance can be facilitated. Execution of development programmes is basic duty of the Executive branch of the State. The Parliament is to watch all activities being carried out by the Executive branch. When both these activities are carried out by the same branch, the democracy will be jeopardised. And it will pose serious challenge to accountability and transparency. We cannot call it a democracy where leaders are not committed towards basic norms of accountability and transparency.