Importance and Challenges of Federalism in Nepalese Prospective

Importance and Challenges of Federalism in Nepalese

Prospective
Reported by: Sudershan Basnet

Federalism is a system of government in which a written constitution divides power between

a central government and regional or sub-divisional governments. Both types of government
act directly upon the people through their officials and laws. For the general understanding
Federalism is a system of government in which entities such as states or provinces share
power with a national government. 
Federalism in Nepal is a new governing system which is going to be implemented. Especially
Nepalese Constitution 2073 clearly stated that Nepal will be the federal country and where
central government will be divided into three levels that are Federal Government, Provincial
government and Local Government. Nepal is a multi lingual, multi language, multi ethnic
nation so due to these vary it has many challenges has going to be appeared and it has many
importance too. Both importance and challenges has been highlighted below.
Importance of Nepalese Federalism:
 Against Centric Ruling System – One of the most important points of federalism in
dividing the power between the national government and state governments, and spreading
the national government’s power among two branches that are Local government and
Province Government.
 Expands Opportunities – Federal system expands the opportunities for citizens to
participate in the various levels of government. It creates an opportunities to political,
administrative and as a whole to the local governmental bodies. 
 Conflict Management – By allowing different communities and state to create their
own policies, they allow for people with irreconcilable differences, or very strong
disagreements, to live in separate areas and create their own solutions, or policies, that would
be totally disagreeable to the other people in other states or regions of the country.
 More Responsiveness towards Citizen – The local and province government can be
more responsive to the citizen needs. A government entity is to its citizens; the more likely it
is the respond to the needs of citizens. States are more likely to listen to citizen needs, and
respond to them, than the national government would be.
 Equal Development – One of the main adjectives of the federal system is to develop
equally and as per equitable manner to the grassroots level. Nepalese constitution has been
assumed that all the sector would be developed by participating of local people at all the
development phases.
 Protection of Diversity – Constitution of the year 2047 B.C. stated Nepal as multi
lingual and multi caste based country but it didn’t protect the rights of all people such as
various ethnic group, indigenous people, women, madeshi, dalit etc.  But the new Nepalese
constitution believes that federal system will protect all the right of them and will respect
their cultural aspect by formulating favorable laws and policy in the local level.
 More Democratic Practices: Power decentralization is one of the major activities of
democracy. Nepalese constitution is going to provide all the major central governing task to
the local level through federal system they are; executive power, judiciary power and
parliamentary power. Thus, this is a best democratic practice in the world. This type of power
 distribution process will help people to be more responsible and more ‘we’ feelings to the
national development process.

And we are presented here some Challenges of Federal System in Nepal that are given below.

Administrative Challenges

      *   Debate in Restructuring: One of the major tasks has been still remaining to give a final
number of provincial state and draw the lines between constituent units on the basis of
ethnicity, language or geographical features or resource distribution. And there is also
conflict about the naming process. Madeshi parties are demanding one Madesh and one
Pradesh which is really impracticable. Likewise other national parties also lobbying for the
province associate with ethnicity and caste based system which will be the more complicated
to address their voice who are not covering their right equally.
         * Inequalities between different states: It allows for inequalities between different state or
province. For example, instead of education funding throughout the country being the same,
since it is a state issue, some states will spend more, per capita, on education than other
states, causing what could be considered a disparity. The same goes for other things, as well,
such as taxed, health care programs, and welfare programs.
        *  Against the National policies: the states can fight against the existence of certain national
laws by challenging them in court, or going out of their way to not enforce those national
laws, or even deliberately obstructing enforcement of national law.
     * Difficulties for the Human Resource Management: Of course after implementing the
federal system there will be huge requirements to the all bureaucratic and non bureaucratic
sectors. Thus, during the settlement of human resource, current bureaucrats can avoid the
central decision and central government cannot hire capable person in a single time.

Economic Challenges
       *  Financial Burden: Other major bad aspect of the federal system is financial burden. Huge
amount will be expenses for the infrastructure development and for all the elected members
in three levels i.e. Central level, province level and local level. According to current political
discussion; Estimated 1200 assembly member are expected if that discussion has been
finalized, amount of the governmental expenditure will be higher.
       
Conflict regarding revenue system: The economic related policy can be disputable when
8      *  
revenue, tax and other charge are going to collect and share with central government. Due to
lack of proper policy related to tax and revenue, local or central government will be confused
where tax and revenue will be collected? And by whom?
   * Difficulties for resource mobilization: It’s been a debating issue about the proper resource
distribution and utilization of natural and available resources. One state cannot share their
income or benefit which is collected from their internal resources that can be natural and
industry. Generally in the prospective of Nepal, we can analyze that Biratnagar and Birganj
are main industrial area of Nepal but their provincial government cannot share her benefits to
other states that can be conflicting issue future. And another aspect regarding the resource
utilization, if other state can wants to use resources from another state, the owner state can
take high interest.

Political Challenges
    *  Unqualified elected member: It’s a major challenges of federalism practice in Nepal
because majority of the elected member are not so qualified in legal aspect and about
 planning, implementation process. We cannot imagine that federal system will be
implemented within  a short period from an uneducated and unqualified personnel. They need
to study and need consultation from the expert which may take long time.
    *  Use as playground: Nepal is like a baby child about the federal governing system. All the
politicians are new players regarding federalism so in the mean time international affairs can
use our state against the central laws and policy. Like India can play role in Madesh reason to
make favorable environment and China can create the same situation in Northern part as well.
      *  Alliance for federalism: Anti federalism party still existing in our country like Rastirya
Janamorcha Party is always bargaining to make an unitary governing system but majority of
the party are supporting federal system so that it has bit challenges about it as well.

Local government
WRITTEN BY: 

 The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

See Article History
Alternative Title: municipal government

Local government, authority to determine and execute measures within a

restricted area inside and smaller than a whole state. Some degree of local
government characterizes every country in the world, although the degree
is extremely significant. The variant, local self-government, is important for
its emphasis upon the freedom of the locality to decide and act.
There is more than a technical importance in the difference between the
two terms, because they are related to the distinction sometimes drawn
between deconcentration and decentralization. Local government is often,
but not necessarily, related to the former; local self-government to the
latter. These distinctions are important, even if they are blurred.
Deconcentration broadly means that, for the sake of convenience, some
functions have been devolved from a central government to administration
on the spot. Power is still administered through officials appointed by and
responsible to the centre, and authority and discretion are vested in the
centre. On the other hand, decentralization represents local government in
areas where the authority to decide has been devolved to a council of
locally elected persons acting on their own discretion with officials they
themselves freely appoint and discipline.
The term local self-government has been traditionally used of local
government in the United Kingdom and Germany. Thus, the Basic Law (the
constitution of Germany) says, “Municipalities must be guaranteed the right
to regulate all local affairs on their own responsibility, within the limits
prescribed by the laws.” On the other hand, the amended constitution of the
French Fifth Republic says, “In the conditions provided for by statute, these
[local communities] shall be self-governing through elected councils and
shall have power to make regulations for matters coming within their
jurisdiction.” This expresses the spirit of deconcentration.
Play Video
However tightly bound to the central office’s authority and regulations local
officials may be, a degree of discretion is unavoidable. Often, again, the
fairly pure organs of local self-government, such as the boroughcouncils in
the United Kingdom, are obliged to execute the purposes of the central
government. Primarily units of local self-government, they are
simultaneously units of local obligation acting as ordered by the central
government for services such as education and policing.
Facts Matter. Support the truth and unlock all of Britannica’s content.Start
Your Free Trial Today
Thus, modern local government has a twofold aspect—it is a mixture of
both deconcentration and decentralization, of central convenience and an
acknowledgment that not all authority ought to be exerted by the centre.
The mixture is revealed by the extent to which some of the powers
exercised by local government units are exercised compulsorily and under
fairly strict control by central authority with financial assistance, while others
are not. This mixture produces the high complexity of modern local
government. Further, local government is a departmentalization of the
state’s work, based on the territorial distribution of services, as contrasted
with (1) division into departments at the centre or (2) decentralization of
functions to public corporations. In local government, territorial distribution
of power is the essence.

The history of local government in Western Europe, Great Britain, the

United States, and Russia exhibits the growing awareness of its
significance. This awareness is a product of a development of parochialand
town life which began long before the modern state emerged between the
15th and 17th centuries. Any central control over these and other areas
was, until the 18th century, rather scanty. Notable exceptions
were France under Jean-Baptiste Colbert or 17th-century Prussia, where
local authorities were already overlaid by the heavy hand of the
central intendants in the former and the war commissariat in the latter.
Many Germanic states, such as the Hanse towns, were nothing but cities.
In England and especially New England, the local units—parishes, towns,
and cities—emerged from their origins as spontaneous self-governing
units. This was also the case in Russia, although there the tsars took strict
control of the cities through their provincial governors and over the mir—the
village-cum-agricultural unit—through taxes, the police, and the boyars.
The state colonized some cities from the beginning. The various local units
were gradually integrated by the state, which exacted obligations from them
regarding peace, crime and police duties, taxes, military supplies,
assistance to the poor, and highways. By ordinances or statutes or judicial
decisions, local units were subordinated, so that the idea of an inherentright
to self-government was extinguished. By the 19th century all local units had
become legal creatures of the state, subsidiary in authority and acting
independently by sufferance alone.

Colbert, Jean-BaptisteJean-Baptiste Colbert.© Photos.com/Thinkstock

The local freedoms of the 19th century were challenged by (1) speed of
communications, which reduced administrative time, (2) demands of
a planned economy, (3) growth of nationwide political parties with social
welfare programs uniform for all parts of the nation, (4) growth of
a consciousness favouring a national minimum of services, (5) realization
that the best technical administration of modern utilities requires areas
knitted together by a central plan that differs from the traditional ones, and
(6) needs of civil defense against air attack. These are powerful forces
working against claims to purely self-regarding government. On the other
hand, local freedom is supported by need for (1) intimate local knowledge
and variation, (2) intensity of local interest and enlistment of loyalty and
cooperation, (3) small areas for easy impact of the citizen-consumers upon
officials-producers, (4) an accessible area of political education, (5)
counterweight to the abuse of central power, and (6) the democratic value
of a plurality of political experience and confidence. In all plans,
decentralization, whether to a regional agency such as the Tennessee
Valley Authority in the U.S. or to traditional units, is pressing, necessary,
and fruitful.

Tennessee Valley AuthorityArea served by the Tennessee Valley Authority.Encyclopædia Britannica,

Inc.

Characteristics Of Local Government

The chief characteristics of local government, which may be studied by
comparison of the United Kingdom, Germany, the U.S., and Russia, are
(1) constitutional status, (2) areas and authorities, (3) powers, (4) finance
and local freedom, (5) organization, and (6) central controls.
Constitutional status

Advertisement
In the United Kingdom the local authorities are subordinate corporations
formed by acts of Parliament or charters. Their powers and immunities
derive from statute and judicial interpretation. They have many obligatory
duties and a vast field of permissive powers. Each authority is independent
within the sphere of power authorized by the central government; there is
no hierarchy of authorities. Local councilors are freely elected
and constitute the local executive as well as the legislature. There is no
appointment or ratification of local executives by the central government,
though certain important local officials require
qualifications stipulatedthereby. The local authorities combine many
functions and are not, like school or sanitary districts in the United States,
single function or authorities created for a specific purpose. Local finances
—called rates—are locally raised in amount and appropriated in detail with
little interference by the central government.
Though local authorities have considerable freedom to use their permissive
powers, and even their obligatory ones, they operate within judicial controls
lest they act beyond their powers or are negligent, and they are under
continuous central administrative controls. A condition of local central
partnership characterizes the system. The local units are powerful. They
exercise an important influence over the central administration through their
members of Parliament and through their increasingly
large representation on advisory councils and committees officially
attached to the several departments. The Local Government Association is
a nationwide body that assists the different classes of local authorities.
German local government (omitting the Nazi era) attempted to unite the
tradition of free and enterprising civic life with the full popular
enfranchisement that came first only in 1919. Its hierarchical system, with
strong central oversight reaching back to the 18th century, was a little
eased during the Weimar period. The position of the local executive,
whether Bürgermeister or Magistraz, which was ratifiable by the central
government, was disrupted by the universal suffrage of 1919, which
replaced the oligarchic three-class system. A very wide scope of authority
was accorded to the Gemeinde (community), whether rural or urban, by the
basic laws, such as the Prussian Stadteordnung of 1808,
the Kreisordnung of 1872, and the Provinzialordnung of 1873. Though this
authority came to be limited by financial stringency, German cities showed
great enterprise and developed many utilities. The Nazi system in general
kept the framework of areas and authorities but abolished all elections and
substituted appointed councilors and executives dominated by Nazi
officials. After World War II the several states were quick to revive local
self-government, and the constitution guaranteed it. This system was
extended to the East after the country’s reunification in 1990.
Advertisement
In the U.S. the main features of the constitutional status of local authorities
are the variety of arrangements in the various states and the large degree
of freedom of the local units, which derive from early English townshipforms
reinforced by migration into new lands. Nevertheless, that freedom is
subordinate and defined by state statutes and charters giving corporate
status. The special charter, referring to individual cities; the general charter,
which is a state-wide municipal code; and the charter, which confers status
by classifying the local units for privileges, are various means of trying to
give the local units a status which relieves them of the need for repeated
application to the legislature, while subjecting them to a firm pattern of
permissions and limits. Amendments, however, still require suppliancy to
the legislature, and growth requires powers in addition to the general grant.
Home rule charters, granted by the state legislature, allow the city to draft
its own charter by a local convention, sometimes requiring legislative
ratification, sometimes not. Another system allows the local units to choose
from among several forms of charter provided in a state general law. There
is much independence and vigour, no hierarchy, little central administrative
control, and much judicial control to hold the units within their charter and
statutory position.
The local government system of tsarist Russia was one of absolute
centralized hierarchy, executed through the governors of the 78 guberniya,
with police, military, and taxation powers and the scantiest recognition of
rights of local government. Provincial and village governments were
dominated by the landlords who had an ex officio right to chairmanship of
local administration, especially of the zemstvo, set up in 1864 to govern the
provinces under strict control of the imperial governors. The zemstvo (with
an indirect and unequal class franchise), nevertheless made progress in
educational, health, welfare, and agricultural development in spite of tsarist
control. The Soviet constitution of 1936 and the decree on the city soviets
(1933) and specific economic and social planning decrees gave
extraordinarily wide specified powers to the local units but very rigorously
subjected them to hierarchical control of the next higher authorities upward
to the central government of the various republics, and in some cases to
the union itself. Authority and direction were heavily centralized and were
animated in the last resort by the All-Union Ministry of State Administration
and the public prosecutors. All units, from lowest to highest, were
manipulated in unity by the ubiquitous activities of the Communist Party,
the members of which were required by the rules to form cells for
administrative “fulfillment.” After the collapse of the Soviet Union, local
governments in Russia enjoyed a brief period of devolved power, but the
ascent of Vladimir Putin to the presidency saw a dramatic re-centralization
of authority.
Generally speaking, then, local government as local self-government is
discernible more fully in the British and American environment than
elsewhere, to some degree in the German, and hardly at all in Russia. Yet
centralization and control of units originally holding authority themselves
are not inconsistent with vigorous first-line activity by the local units in the
matters entrusted to them.
Areas and authorities

Local authorities in England and Wales are (from smaller units upward):

some 9,000 parishes and town councils; scores of district, borough, and
city councils; and dozens of metropolitan boroughs. There is a tendency in
all countries to rely more upon such unions where the services are of a
large-scale nature compared with the traditional units having responsibility.
Local authorities are mutually independent: unanimity is required for joint
schemes, which are amply permitted in the statutes. Even some counties
are far too small for large-scale administration, while extremes of size in
area and population may be encountered in each of the above-named
classes of authorities.
The areas of local government in Germany include more than
11,000 Gemeinden (communities). Upward from the Gemeinden are
the Kreise(equivalent roughly to counties in England and the U.S.); above
those are the Regierungsbezirke (administrative districts), units of central
government control and police authority. There are also numerous joint
authorities for roads, schools, health, fire, agriculture, water, gas, and
electricity. The Gemeinden exhibit an enormous diversity of area and
population. There is a rather special kind of holding company local
authority, the Amt, to administer the common affairs of
some contiguousvillages while they still remain separate Gemeinden.
More-important area changes require parliamentary statute.
Whereas all other nations combine most local government functions in
single compendious areas, the U.S. has distributed many of these—
especially education, health, and parks—to special authorities. The area
structure of local government in the U.S. varies in foundation according to
the historical settlements. In the southern and south-central region, the
chief unit is the county (or parish in Louisiana); in the north-central, the
combined county and township; in New England, the town. The constitution
of Alaska vests powers of local government in boroughs and cities. In some
states, the people of each county may vote to divide the county into
townships. In the early 21st century there were approximately 3,000
counties or parishes. The smallest had fewer than 100 inhabitants, the
largest (Los Angeles county, California) more than 10,000,000.
Inset in the county is the city, with its own powers, in direct relationship with
the state government. Sometimes both city and county conduct for two
concentric areas many similar services with substantial duplication of staff
and organization. Cities are the areas of the heaviest integration of local
government services. As elsewhere, there is tension between city and
county, and, after the 1930s, federal authorities became an important direct
supporter of city unemployment, public works, municipal utility, and housing
schemes. Towns, which are mostly but not exclusively
semirural communities and are fairly populous in New England, New York,
Pennsylvania, and the north-central states, play the part of the counties
elsewhere and have city functions and sometimes city status also. As parts
of a township or a county, there are inhabited centres called villages or
boroughs. The state legislature usually requires that such a subdivision
reach a certain level of population before it may become self-governing.
In Russia the tsarist areas were replaced by territories, regions and oblasts,
and districts (raions), cities and boroughs (within cities), and settlements
and villages. At the top of the pyramid in the Soviet Union was the supreme
soviet of the union republic. The upward relationship may be expressed in
Lenin’s phrase “centralized supervision with decentralized activity.” Within
cities of 100,000 or more inhabitants there were subordinate soviets, of
which Moscow had 240. Cities of more than 50,000 and especially
important places of lesser population received a status independent of the
raion hierarchy and were directly subordinate to the republics. Attached to
these cities were surrounding rural settlements which fully participated in
the city government but possessed village soviets also. The breakup of the
Soviet Union and the passage of the 1993 constitution saw considerable
power devolve to local administrative regions. The creation of federal
districts in 2000, however, represented a reassertion of control by the
central government; presidential envoys in each district ensured that
Moscow’s authority remained paramount at the local level.

Powers

Broadly speaking, the large geographic units in the hierarchy are

concerned with financial and administrative supervision of the primary
units, the provision of environmental and institutional and police services,
and technical and financial supplements and assistance to the smaller
authorities. Authority to act is always a combination of specific grant and
general grant by the central authority, sometimes with modifications by the
administrative supervisory authorities and the courts.
Officers of the New York City Police Department and their various means of transportation. Courtesy of
the New York City Police Department

In Great Britain the specific grant of power is supreme. Powers are granted

to the various classes of local authorities by general statutes or by special
addition to individual local authorities in private or local acts. The powers
granted by general statute are either permissive (e.g., administering
libraries) or compulsory (e.g., administering schools or hospitals). The
powers appear in the great statutes such as the Municipal Corporations
Act (1835) and the Local Government Acts of 1933 and 1972. The
permissive powers offer remarkably wide opportunities for initiative. Where
local authorities petition Parliament for private acts, they may obtain the
opportunity to pioneer, if they prove desirability and financial capacity, and
successful administration is sometimes followed by granting extension of
powers to all authorities.
 local government; SkyCycleSkyCycle, a proposed dedicated roadway for bicyclists, was developed
to address the congestion in London's streets and to provide safe car-free routes for cyclists. © Foster +
Partners/Exterior Architecture

In Germany the municipalities are given by the constituent statutes a

general authority to do whatever is proper for the good of the municipality.
However, what is proper is legally challengeable by citizens and
administratively by the central departments. Initiative is limited by the
claims of other communities, private enterprise, and the state organs. In
Germany from 1890 on, the cities proceeded remarkably with municipal
enterprise.
In the United States counties have specific grants. The cities receive their
powers in the charters. These are stated specifically, but in broad outline,
while additional powers are granted from time to time.

The Soviet constitution granted to all local authorities the power to “direct
the cultural, political, and economic construction of their respective
territories” and the power to make decrees within the laws of the union and
the republic. The local governments were generically unbounded in these
powers, but in all they were minutely subject to central plans. With the
exception of the brief interlude between the collapse of the Soviet Union
and the adoption of the 2000 constitution, this broadly remained true in the
Russian Federation.
The powers actually exercised by modern local authorities in the early 21st
century were immensely in advance of anything known in the early 19th
century. Then the main services were road construction and maintenance,
policing, public assistance, the removal of health nuisances, and perhaps
fire fighting and public education. In Great Britain the work of the local
authorities came to include the modern social services and municipal
enterprise. In other countries the situation was similar or was becoming so.
The powers usually exercised by local authorities included education up
to high school and technical schools (in the U.S. sometimes colleges and
universities); public health in a variety of environmental and personal
services; housing provision and management; town planning, zoning, and
building regulation; poor relief and, in the U.S., local administration of social
security services; parks, open spaces, and playgrounds; agricultural
improvement and land drainage; roads and bridges; streets; public lighting;
fire fighting; policing (larger authorities only, except in the U.S.); lower-
instance justice; foods and drugs and weights and measuresinspection;
enterprises supplying gas, electric power, public transportation, and water;
and land purchase.



Officers of the Metropolitan Police Department in Tokyo, Japan, checking for unlawful activities such
as the use of a mobile phone while driving.© Metropolitan Police Department, Tokyo; all rights reserved, used
with permission

High LineDiscussion of the High Line park in New York City and scenes from the groundbreaking
ceremony for its third section in September 2012.Great Museums Television

Finance and local freedom

The finances of local authorities have a bearing upon their administrative

freedom. Two of the crucial points are: (1) their authority to raise revenue
and (2) freedom of budget making. Revenue may be raised by authority of
general codes or special statutes. In Great Britain and the United States,
the principal financial limitations are on loans. In the former, previous
administrative authority is required; in some states of the United States,
limitations of total indebtedness are prescribed. German cities have wide
financial freedom, though loans require higher sanction. Local budgets
generally need no superior approval. Grants from the central authority and
the form they take are instruments of control, regulation, and stimulation.
Organization

Local government statutes generally prescribe certain kinds of internal

organization: mayor, chairman, aldermen, and committees and
commissions for executive and legislative operations and management of
the permanent staffs. In the U.S. system there are four conspicuous forms
of organization: the town meeting, the commission system, the council and
mayor system, and the city manager system. In the first, the meeting of
taxpayers settles main lines of policy, chooses selectmen and officials,
accepts the budget, controls administration and checks expenditures. It is
unwieldy for large cities. These then may be administered by a small
number of commissioners who are elected simultaneously as heads of the
executive departments and are collectively the general government of the
city. Elsewhere a council and some officials and the mayor are elected at
the same time.
In the city manager system, an elected council appoints an executive, a
career official, to energize, manage, and appoint other officials and to co-
ordinate and make the budget. This official operates side by side with the
elected mayor. The city manager serves the council, and the local statutes
give the office a strong status, but it cannot be stronger than the authority
of the council. In general, the United States system is distinguished by its
use of the initiative and the referendum, especially necessary in the
commission form.
In the Soviet system the local soviet elected a presidium or executive
committee from its members. This body was the formulator of policy as well
as being the executive; the council discussed and ratified. The presidium
was assisted by experts or interested citizens co-opted onto its committees.
This practice of co-option was originated in Britain, and many other
countries subsequently adopted it. In the post-Soviet era, city councils,
mayors, and administrators replaced former local soviets, but the amount of
power wielded at the local level varied widely from region to region.
Central control

The intensity and techniques of administrative control by central authorities

are indexes of the limitation of local self-government. General tutelage,
characteristic of Germany, operates through continuous organized
hierarchical vigilance and intervention downward from the designated
central department to the lower levels of local authorities. In Great Britain
statutory rules and orders made by the designated central department are
parts of tutelage.

The sanction of administrative schemes is a more severe and specific form

of central control. It is strong though not fully comprehensive in England. In
Germany it is more comprehensive, and in Russia it is almost total through
the agencies and structures already mentioned. In the U.S., higher sanction
is rare; it applies to welfare and public works schemes assisted by the
federal authority and occasionally to highways, education, and hospitals
financially assisted by the states.
Submission of periodic reports is universal. The growth of standards,
scientific definition, forms, and statistical analysis after the middle of the
19th century was a powerful instrument of centralization, since both local
and central officials can be of one mind in reporting and deciding answers
to governmental problems. Audit of local accounts by central officials is
severe and important in England. In Germany it is hierarchical, going finally
in each case to the special courts of accounts. In the U.S., though
accounting and fiscal practices are in some cases state-regulated and the
election of local auditors required, external and compulsory audit hardly
exists.