Budgets Without Governance

Two weeks after the federal government unveiled its budget, all seven provincial governments presented their budgets for fiscal year 2026/27). Together, the provinces proposed budgets totaling nearly Rs 293 billion, with most prioritizing physical infrastructure while also allocating resources for agriculture, tourism, healthcare, education, information technology, job creation, and social development. Yet, despite the passage of two weeks, budget deliberations have failed to begin in most provincial assemblies. Instead of debating development priorities, the assemblies have been paralysed by internal disputes within the ruling parties. The impasse has deepened as opposition parties have seized the opportunity to press their own demands. From Koshi to Sudurpashchim, discussions on next year's budgets remain stalled. Political wrangling among the country's traditional parties has not only emboldened critics of Nepal's federal system but has also intensified doubts about its effectiveness. At a time when both the performance and relevance of provincial governments are under increasing scrutiny, it is especially troubling that the deadlock stems largely from divisions within ruling parties rather than disputes between government and opposition. Differences among coalition partners are inevitable, and disagreements over budget priorities are part of democratic politics. However, such conflicts should never paralyse legislative institutions. Even more concerning is the spectacle of lawmakers opposing a budget introduced by a government led by their own party, forcing repeated postponements of assembly sessions in an effort to win over dissatisfied members. This reflects not merely political disagreement but deeper weaknesses in governance and an unhealthy political culture.