Anyone who has heard CPN-UML chair and Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli talk about federalism and delegation of power and responsibilities under it will instantly know that he is a reluctant federalist. He seems to believe that the seven chief ministers unnecessarily blame the federal government for the failure to make use of their own powers. The reason for the paucity of civil servants in the provinces, moreover, is not due to the federal Parliament’s inability to promulgate the Federal Civil Service Act, as provided for in the new constitution. Oli rather believes the provincial governments and their offices do not treat the officers deputed from the centre well. The same with the lack of police personnel in the provinces. The local level bodies fare no better. A recent study by the Federalism and Localisation Centre, a Kathmandu-based think tank, shows that of the 67,719 vacancies at local bodies around the country, only 43,807 positions have been filled. And despite their added responsibilities under the new dispensation, the number of civil servants at the local level has actually gone down compared to the pre-federalism period.

Meanwhile, Nepal’s pro-monarchy forces, who seemed to have been dormant following the post-2006 progressive changes, have found a second wind. They are capitalising on the lack of delivery of successive governments, and the resulting public disenchantment with the top leaders of the big parties. Yet these forces also point to the ‘complete failure’ of the federal system, which in turn necessitates the return of monarchy. Like it or not, the fate of federal Nepal is directly linked to the fortunes of the parties who helped usher in the new system. One reason politicians from across the political spectrum are seen as utterly incompetent is the great injustice they have done to the new federal setup. Why are they reluctant to delegate power and responsibilities outlined in the constitution they themselves promulgated? When they fail to do so, their loud commitments to doggedly protect the new system sound hollow and only add to growing cynicism of the ‘lying’ political class.

The vacancies at the provincial and local levels directly impact people, as service delivery slows down and even routine works are held up. How can the ruling parties, who are adding to instead of removing public woes, then hope to get public support? When the status quo is not working, it is also natural for people to look for alternatives, whether in the new political forces or old ones like monarchy. On the other hand, a sure way for the old parties to regain their credibility is to strengthen the system they helped bring about. They must recall the spirit with which the federal system was instituted: to take vital services to people’s doorsteps and empower marginalised communities. If these two goals can be realised, the public skepticism of the new system will abate. Plus, when the system starts working, the politicians who back it are more likely to be lauded than lambasted. The pro-monarchy protests should be enough of a warning.