Lawmakers question the relevance of the Vice President’s position

KATHMANDU: Lawmakers have questioned the significance of the post of Vice President.

Participating in a discussion on the allocations made for the Office of the President in the budget for the fiscal year 2023/24 in the House of Representatives on Sunday, they stated that alternatives should be considered as the state is spending substantial resources on the post that do not have any significant responsibilities. They suggested amending the constitution to designate the role of the Vice President to the Chairperson of the National Assembly.

“After four terms and seeing three Vice Presidents, can we even recall five noteworthy tasks performed by this post?” questioned Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) lawmaker Manish Jha. “We can eliminate this position and assign the duty to the Chairperson of the National Assembly.”

Janata Samajwadi Party (JSP) lawmaker Ranju Kumari Jha also stated that the responsibility of the Vice President should be given to the Speaker of the National Assembly.

Interestingly, the current Vice President, Ram Sahaya Prasad Yadav, was a JSP leader before his election to the post of Vice President.

Jha also proposed reducing the benefits provided to honorable positions such as Vice President and President after retirement.

Similarly, Rashtriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) lawmaker Roshan Karki suggested cutting the administrative expenses of the Vice President and allocating the amount as a grant to farmers affected by lumpy skin disease in their cattle. “What is the role of the Vice President? Besides inaugurating programs and visiting various temples, the Vice President does not have any specific responsibilities. Why allocate such a large budget for the post?” she questioned.

Karki stated that it was ironic that the word ‘or’ in the constitution was misinterpreted to deny the position of Vice President to women.

Likewise, UML lawmaker Raghuji Pant suggested making the National Assembly Chairperson an ex-officio Vice President. He also criticized the misuse of taxpayers’ money in providing facilities to the advisors of the President and Vice President. “There is no need for separate advisers as the advisers of the President are the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers.”

He also expressed dissatisfaction with the appointment of a foreign affairs adviser by the Vice President.