Two days after summoning the first ever meeting of the Inter-province Council, a constitutional mechanism to resolve disputes between the provinces and the center, in early September, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli decided to abruptly cancel it. He was reportedly furious at the nine-point declaration made by the chief ministers following their conclave held in Pokhara—right before the meeting—that squarely blamed the federal government for withholding authority and resources required for the smooth functioning of the provincial structures.The prime minister’s anger may be understandable from a party functionary point of view given that six out of seven chief ministers are his subordinates in the party, but not acceptable for the head of a federal government. Regardless of party affiliations, chief ministers are heads of autonomous subnational governments elected by people of the province.
Beyond the fire and fury of the news headlines, the nine-point declaration offers a clear roadmap for ending the gridlock at the provincial level. The provinces have three interrelated problems: absence of laws, lack of personnel and meager resources. The provincial government by now ought to have most laws enabling to maintain law and order, deliver services and implement development projects within the provinces, but they don’t. The onus lies with the federal parliament to pass most of these laws, clearly delegating the authority as provided in the Constitution.
The center has been sitting on the provincial civil and local civil service bills that would have enabled them to do their own hiring. Provincial governments have no control over the existing officials deputed by the center, as an interim measure; moreover, they are transferred frequently without consulting the provincial authorities. It makes sense for them to demand that the center allow them to do temporary hiring while they wait for the laws to be passed in the federal parliament.
The provincial governments also have no control over the law and order apparatus in the province. Even on this front, Kathmandu is sitting on a law to create provincial police force—while meddling in the affairs of the subnational governments through the Chief District Officers (CDOs) who continue to defy the provincial governments by virtue of being under the federal government. The chief ministers have merely requested that CDOs also report to the provincial government alongside the federal government until a provincial police force is created.
Resource distribution is another issue that is creating friction between the two tiers of government. The Natural Resource and Fiscal Commission, as stipulated in the Constitution, is long overdue. Without it, distribution of natural and other financial resources have been left to the mercy of federal government. This has also prevented clarity on local and provincial taxations—prolonging an uncertain fiscal environment for citizens and businesses. Among other things, the declaration made by the chief ministers also demands an apex body under the prime minister’s leadership to implement federalism, besides calling for establishment of a permanent secretariat for Inter-Province Council. Nothing in their demands appears to be out of line.
Perhaps the problem lies elsewhere. The prime minister and much of his party were reluctant federalists prior to the unification, more so in the case of province two. But one had hoped that the reality of governing a nascent federal system, alongside the obligation of delivering prosperity, would force them to appreciate the importance of delegating authority to subnational structures. As one of Oli’s party subordinates and Chief Minister of Gandaki province Prithivi Subba Gurung correctly pointed out recently, the fear of province two is being used as a justification to deprive all the provinces of autonomy enshrined in the constitution.
Federalism will fail if the center continues to employ half-measures that only seem to increase financial burden on the taxpayers without attendant benefits of the system O
