By Our Political Analyst
The Rastriya Swatantra Party came to power on a tide of anger, frustration and hope. Large numbers of voters, especially young people, had grown tired of Nepal’s old political class and wanted something that felt different. For many of them, Balendra Shah and Rabi Lamichhane represented change, not politics as usual. That public mood helped the party rise with remarkable speed and secure an overwhelming parliamentary mandate.
But winning power and governing a country are not the same thing. Nepal is now beginning to confront that reality.
The biggest concern surrounding the government today is Prime Minister Balen Shah’s growing distance from parliament. Since taking office, he has not directly addressed the House even once. During discussions on the government’s annual policy and programme, lawmakers raised serious concerns, yet Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle responded on the Prime Minister’s behalf. Opposition parties have seized on this absence, calling it disrespectful to parliament and to the parliamentary system itself.
The problem goes beyond a single speech. At its core, this is about accountability. Nepal operates under a parliamentary system where the executive is expected to face lawmakers regularly, answer criticism and defend its decisions in public. When a prime minister consistently avoids parliament, it sends a troubling message that institutions matter less than individual authority. In a democracy already weakened by distrust and instability, that perception can become damaging very quickly.
Discomfort over the issue is no longer limited to the opposition. Even leaders within the RSP have begun voicing concern. Party lawmaker Amresh Kumar Singh recently warned in parliament that dismantling every old political practice in the name of “new politics” could end up weakening the parliamentary system itself. His remarks reflected a growing unease within the ruling party over whether the leadership is relying too heavily on popularity while neglecting institutional discipline.
Former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal recently reminded the government of this reality during parliamentary proceedings. He warned that no majority lasts forever and that political arrogance has brought down many powerful governments in the past. The warning carried weight because it came from a politician who has personally experienced both dramatic political rise and decline.
Much of the debate now centres on Balen Shah’s governing style. His supporters view him as decisive, bold and action-oriented. They argue that traditional parliamentary culture has become slow, theatrical and disconnected from ordinary citizens. Many younger voters still admire his direct communication style and his willingness to bypass political rituals that they see as empty formalities. Humans do love a leader who appears to “cut through the system,” right until the system starts cutting back.
Still, running Kathmandu Metropolitan City is very different from leading a federal parliamentary government. A municipal leadership style built around executive decisions, quick directives and strong personal branding does not easily translate into national governance, where coalition management, legislative negotiation and institutional consultation are unavoidable. National politics demands patience, compromise and constant engagement with parliament. Ignoring those realities risks isolating the government politically.
Critics have also begun questioning the growing influence of bureaucratic and security institutions around the Prime Minister. Political analyst Bhim Bhurtel argues that the government at times appears more administrative and centralised than parliamentary in character. He points to rapid legal changes, selective public engagement and appointment patterns involving individuals with security backgrounds. These remain political interpretations rather than established facts, but perceptions matter greatly in politics. Once a government begins appearing distant from democratic institutions, suspicion tends to spread quickly.
The RSP also faces a deeper structural challenge. The party was built largely on public emotion and the popularity of two individuals. It still lacks strong ideological foundations, organisational depth and experienced political networks across the country. That makes internal discipline and institutional development even more important. If leadership tensions grow or public trust begins to weaken, the party may struggle to maintain unity.
The solution itself is not particularly complicated, though politics has a talent for turning basic responsibilities into impossible philosophical puzzles. Balen Shah needs to engage directly and consistently with parliament. Regular question-and-answer sessions with lawmakers should become standard practice, not an occasional obligation.
The government must strengthen collective decision-making within both the Cabinet and the party instead of relying too heavily on personal charisma. RSP also needs to develop second-tier leadership, clearer policy direction and a stronger internal democratic culture if it hopes to survive beyond the force of public emotion.
Login to add a comment