Budget and politics
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Nowhere is the truth of this proverb more evident than in the turbulent world of Nepali politics. As the budgetary deadline of mid-November draws near, the political parties appear more divided than at any time since the start of the peace process in 2006. The sources of the current divide are the same ones: substantive constitutional issues like federalism and inclusiveness and regrettably, the same-old petty differences over power sharing that has been undermining the political process post 1990. The polarization between the governing and opposition forces has grown to such a level that many opposition leaders now even refuse to talk to the leaders from the ruling collation, unless their bottom-line of PM Bhattarai’s resignation is met. But the ruling coalition remains firm that the country should go for new polls under current leadership.
The governing parties have been quick to brand the opposition ‘highly irresponsible’ for trying to block the country’s lifeblood. The caretaker government, the opposition retorts, has no legal ground to issue another partial budget, much less a full budget. This acrimonious debate on budget revolves around a fundamental question: Should the country’s budget be linked to the broader political process? Most economists are for a complete divorce between the normal budgetary cycle and broader political issues. A few hold that the two are inextricably linked. But there is unanimous view that a complete budget is a must to give the flagging economy a much-needed boost. We agree.
Without a complete budget, development efforts will be stalled. With the government withholding vital investment, the private sector will also resist from big commitments; and the help from donors will further dwindle. Hence there is no doubt that the normal budgetary cycle, under normal circumstances, should not be interfered with. But these are no ordinary times. The opposition’s fear that in this period of transition, the caretaker government might look to further prolong its tenure if it allows full budget is not unfounded. Nor is its apprehension that the Maoist-led government will look to pack in populist measures with the upcoming polls in mind (even though NC and UML’s misgivings on the budget too might be linked to their electoral calculations). Moreover, the government might take the unrelenting opposition to budget as yet another obstructionist tactic. There are genuine concerns on either side.
But national interests often demand that parties forge ahead as one on important issues even amid their broader differences. The parties should never lose sight of the only desirable outcome to the current budget debate: a complete budget. This won’t come about unless both the ruling and opposition parties are ready to make some compromises. Like it or not, if the budget debate is to be settled, it will most likely be through a ‘package deal’. One thing is clear: the country cannot afford another partial budget, much less the inconceivable no-budget scenario. The failure to agree on this all-important issue will taint not just one party; the whole political class risks being discredited if the parties continue to put their partisan interests before the country’s vital needs.