By Our Political Analyst
The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) did not present its election manifesto as a routine document. It called it a commitment paper. Published on March 5, it promised a different way of governing. Transparency, accountability, and clean politics were placed at the centre. Voters, especially young people, took that seriously.
Now the party leads a near two-thirds government under Balendra Shah. That kind of mandate usually removes excuses. It gives room to act, pass laws, and push reforms. Yet within a week, a gap has already appeared between promise and practice.
The issue of asset disclosure shows this clearly. Clause 16 of the manifesto commits party leaders to make their asset details public before assuming office. This goes beyond existing law. The law only requires submission of asset details to state bodies, not public disclosure. The party knew this and still chose to promise more. That raised expectations.
So far, ministers have not made their asset details public. Party leaders say the process will happen. Co-spokesperson Ramesh Prasai has pointed to the recent oath-taking and said disclosure will follow. Technically, the government is still within the legal timeline. Officials have up to 60 days to submit their details, with an option for extension.
But this is where the problem lies. The manifesto did not promise legal compliance. It promised higher standards. By its own words, disclosure should have happened before taking office. That has not happened. This early delay signals how difficult it will be to translate promises into action.
The challenges are both political and structural. First, the system itself does not fully support what the party has promised. The Prevention of Corruption Act requires submission but keeps those records confidential. To make disclosures public, the government must either change legal provisions or create a new administrative practice. That takes time and political consensus.
Second, the party is now part of the same system it once criticised. Running a government is different from campaigning against one. Decisions involve negotiation, compromise, and coordination with institutions that move slowly. Even with a strong majority, internal resistance and bureaucratic habits can slow reforms.
Third, political risk cannot be ignored. Public disclosure of assets can expose not just opponents but also allies. It can create internal discomfort within the ruling coalition. Leaders who supported transparency in principle may hesitate when it applies to them directly.
Still, the party also has clear advantages. A near two-thirds majority gives it legislative strength. If it chooses to amend laws or introduce new rules on transparency, it has the numbers to do so. Few governments in recent years have had this level of control.
Public support is another factor. The party’s rise has been driven by frustration with corruption and weak governance. That support creates pressure, but it also provides political cover. Acting on transparency promises can strengthen that base rather than weaken it.
There is also a clear roadmap. The government’s 100-point agenda includes forming a committee to investigate the assets of public officials and senior bureaucrats dating back decades. If implemented properly, this could support the broader promise of accountability. Voices outside the government are already pushing in that direction. Harka Sampang has argued that asset verification should begin with current office holders. He has called for the prime minister and ministers, including Rabi Lamichhane and Sudan Gurung, to disclose their property and sources of income first.
That argument is simple. Credibility starts at the top. The manifesto also includes a longer-term promise. It commits leaders to disclose how their assets change during their time in office, backed by independent audits. If implemented, this could create a new standard in Nepali politics.
But again, the same question remains. Will it be done? The risk of failure is not abstract. The party has built its identity around being different from traditional forces. If it fails to meet its own standards, the damage will be deeper than for other parties. It will not just be seen as ineffective, but as no different from those it replaced.
For young voters, this matters even more. Many supported the party because it promised a break from old practices. If those expectations are not met, disillusionment will grow. That could reduce trust not only in one party but in the broader political system. On the other hand, even partial success could have a strong impact. Starting with public disclosure by ministers would send a clear signal. Following through with legal reforms and independent audits would reinforce it. Small but consistent steps can build credibility over time.
The situation is still at an early stage. The government has time to act. Legal deadlines have not yet passed. But political time moves faster than legal time. Expectations have already been set. The commitment paper created a clear benchmark. Meeting it will require more than statements. It will require decisions that may be uncomfortable but necessary.
The party has the numbers, the public support, and a defined agenda. What remains uncertain is whether it has the consistency to follow through. For now, the test is simple. Start with what was promised first. Publicly disclose assets. Then move forward. Everything else will be judged from there.
Login to add a comment