The election manifesto of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) stated that within three months of forming the government, a discussion white paper will be prepared regarding constitutional amendment proposals to establish national consensus. A task force led by the Prime Minister’s political advisor, former member of parliament Asim Shah, has been formed to draft the discussion paper. The task force includes leaders from almost all political parties and has already commenced its work. The issue of preparing a constitutional amendment white paper is also included in the government’s policy and programme presented in Parliament on Monday. The provision in the policy and programme stating that ‘the strengthening of the federal democratic republican system of governance is the guiding principle of the government’ sends a message that the government is committed to implementing federalism.

The RSP manifesto mentions an improved provincial structure. However, what it means by ‘improved’ is not detailed. The party’s top leaders have not spoken on this matter either. Yet, one truth remains: Improvement in the provincial structure is necessary. Whether that improvement stems from citizens’ concerns or from the perspectives of provincial chief ministers and others, changes must be made.

The need to improve the provincial structure is also echoed by the Shram Sanskriti Party (SSP). The Nepali Congress, in its election manifesto, has likewise emphasised the implementation of provincial rights and proposed limiting the number of provincial ministries to seven. The CPN-UML has not explicitly addressed reforms to the provincial structure. The Communist Party of Nepal, led by former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, as well as Madhesh-based parties, have also indicated the need for reform. Thus, despite differences in approach, political parties across the spectrum appear to agree that improvements are needed in the provincial structure and its functioning.

Grievances at the citizen level

There are several questions and concerns among citizens regarding the provincial structure. For example, it has become too expensive; the number of provincial lawmakers is excessive; it has become a place to sustain and support party cadres; and ministries have been placed at every window. There is also a complaint that central leaders interfere too much; no Chief Minister has been able to work according to their own discretion. Central leaders interfere even in minor matters, whether it is appointing committee chairs in the provincial assembly or selecting ministers.

At the citizen level, there is also a grievance that the provinces have not functioned in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution, and no results have been achieved so far. Federalism was meant to mainstream excluded classes, communities and geographical regions. It was meant to be tied to the identity of castes, ethnic groups, languages and various communities. However, the provinces did not understand this spirit. They merely followed whatever the federal government did.

There has been no stability in the provinces, with repeated changes in power. Provincial governance has become akin to a spoils system. Consequently, there has been no consistency in policies or plans. The provinces began operating in isolation, with no coordination with local units. They started sending ‘pocket’ plans, failed to enact laws necessary for local units, and there has been no accountability, good governance, or transparency.

The provincial structure is not excessively costly. However, some of the grievances raised by citizens are legitimate, and meaningful reform is both necessary and inevitable.

Grievances at the CM level

When discussing the concerns of Chief Ministers and provincial officials, several issues emerge. There is no revenue base proportionate to the functional responsibilities; that is, fiscal transfers have not been aligned with expenditure. Although provinces have the authority over peace, security and police, ‘police adjustment’ has not yet been completed. Essential federal laws have not been enacted. The federal government handles the posting and transfer of principal secretaries and secretaries, yet there is no collaboration. Transfers of these officials are done arbitrarily. There is federal interference in matters of staff, laws and programme implementation. The federal government operates various projects that encroach upon the provinces’ jurisdiction. Coordination entities such as the Inter-Provincial Council, the National Coordination Council and Sectoral Committees are not proactive, and decisions from their meetings are not properly implemented. Even though provinces possess state power, they are treated merely as decentralised units of the federation, among other concerns.

The grievances raised, including those by the Chief Minister, must be taken seriously and addressed. Whether voiced by citizens or political leaders, reformation and strengthening of the provincial structure is the only viable path forward.

The broader consensus

There is now a broad consensus among political parties that the current provincial structure is not functioning effectively. On issues such as reducing the number of provincial ministers or limiting the number of ministers, there appears to be little major disagreement among political parties. Agreement on these points is achievable.

However, the biggest challenge facing the provinces is the lack of political stability. To address this, there is growing discussion that the electoral system itself requires reform. The RSP, for its part, argues that the structure of the provincial assembly must be fundamentally changed, requiring an entirely new line of discussion. The RSP has called for a complete overhaul, but it has not clearly explained what such a change would entail, how it would be implemented, or which specific constitutional provisions would be affected.

One proposal that has recently entered the discussion is the creation of a provincial assembly composed of the chiefs and deputy chiefs of local governments. Under this model, the provincial assembly would perform legislative functions, including approving policies, programmes and budgets, as well as enacting laws. Elected local officials would attend assembly sessions when required and otherwise continue carrying out their responsibilities at their respective local levels. This approach could significantly reduce costs, strengthen coordination between provincial and local governments and promote greater uniformity in legislation.

This remains a very preliminary idea. Before any concrete conclusions can be drawn, we need to examine and better understand its various dimensions, such as its strengths and weaknesses, how provincial powers would be exercised under such a system, and its broader constitutional and practical implications.

Political parties themselves have acknowledged in their manifestos the need to reform the provincial structure. Citizens have voiced their grievances, and Chief Ministers and other stakeholders have also raised similar concerns. Together, these concerns make it clear that the current provincial structure faces significant challenges. Therefore, some form of reform or improvement is necessary.