The budget announcement has become an annual festival for the Nepali media, hence also for the people, whether they like it or not. Of course, giving priority to the budget speech is not confined to our country. It is almost a global phenomenon. India’s latest budget by its Finance Minister (FM) Pranab Mukherjee got huge coverage in their media. But in other countries, they can implement most of what they commit. In our case, it is just the opposite because the government doesn’t last long to implement its vision. And the government to replace the existing one in probably less than a year will negate almost all the policies and programs of this budget. In such a fluid political situation, the promises made in the budget burst like water bubbles. So the question arises: Is the time and space given by the media to cover the budget worth it?
Instead of competing in providing more and more space to the budget speech and its highlights, the media should have reported about what did NOT happen in the last fiscal year and what is NOT likely to happen.
Political instability has a serious bearing on our budget. Parties do not think twice to scrap or deny enough appropriations in the developmental projects but the finance ministers are compelled to invest unjustifiably more than our capacity in unproductive sectors. Last year, the elected Maoist government’s FM Dr Baburam Bhattarai announced Rs. 500 a month for Rautes, the aboriginals from the hills. In a display of one-upmanship, Finance Minister Surendra Pandey on Sunday increased the amount to Rs. 1000 a month. I bet Bhattarai would not have doubled the amount had his government lasted to present this budget.
Pandey has come up with another interesting proposal to provide Rs. 100,000 if a marriage between a Dalit and a non-Dalit takes place. This well-meaning program is likely to create a lot of problems as the government has no mechanism to ascertain whether such marriages are fake or genuine. It won’t be a surprise if the unemployed youths collude to swindle money by producing fake marriage papers. The idea would certainly have worked if the government had decided to disburse the money after the birth of the first child. Also, the idea of giving Rs. 50,000 if and when a marriage involving a widow takes place is praiseworthy. The government should only make sure that these two programs, which it has launched with the intention of promoting social welfare, does not backfire and promote social ills.
The long-term infrastructure commitment made by the temporary government normally turns into a farce. The Maoists last year made a pledge of generating 10,000 MW of electricity in 10 years but people did not even see a stone laid in the name of hydro power plants during their tenure. And, lo and behold, here comes an announcement of 25,000 MW of electricity in two decades. This announcement itself speaks volumes about how unattainable the goal is.
FM Pandey himself in the budget speech admitted that in the past, many policies and programs were formulated but they never saw the light of day, thus seriously affecting the government’s credibility. But despite recognizing the problem, he did not hesitate to announce long-term plans, something that the future governments are not likely to continue.
Pandey would have earned accolades had he focused more on immediate needs like security, rule of law, drinking water, garbage management, et al. He certainly has spoken about it but without convincing appropriations. If Pandey really wanted to make the 22- party coalition a success, he should have addressed the aforementioned issues with effective appropriations in the budget and strengthening of the institutions related to these fields.
Moreover, it has become a tradition for the FM to announce programs and plans of all the ministries as his own. If the budget was presented by the prime minister himself, like the president in the USA, the claims would have looked much convincing. In our case, the FM only provides funding for the plans and programs of other ministries. Taxation and customs are the only areas of his jurisdiction. Interestingly, these are the only policies, which are implemented right from the next day, until another budget announcement changes them.
If people had been more vigilant and kept track of the difference between our politicians’ words and deeds, our government’s commitments would have been more realistic, attainable and also comprehensible. Even if the general public forgets things in the short term, it is the duty of the media to remind people. They have various digital and traditional means to tattoo what the government has announced. So, instead of competing in providing more and more space to the budget speech and its highlights, they should have reported about what did NOT happen in the last fiscal year and what is NOT likely to happen.
prateek@myrepublica.com
Related story
Much ado about nothing
