By Our Reporter
The first 100 days of any government rarely determine its full legacy. They do, however, offer valuable clues about priorities, governing style and political direction. For the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) led government, the first three months have produced mixed signals. While the administration came to power promising clean governance, institutional reform and a break from old political practices, growing questions are emerging about transparency, accountability and decision making.
The government’s rise was built on public frustration with traditional parties. Millions of voters supported RSP because they believed it would govern differently. The promise was not merely about changing faces at the top. It was about changing how power is exercised.
That expectation has made the government’s early shortcomings more visible. One of the most frequently raised concerns relates to transparency in decision making. Major decisions have often appeared concentrated within a small circle around the leadership. In several instances, advisers and unelected officials have appeared more influential than formal institutions. Such perceptions may not always reflect the complete reality, but politics is often shaped by public perception as much as by facts.
A government that campaigned on openness cannot afford to create the impression that important decisions are being made behind closed doors. Questions have also emerged regarding accountability. Democratic systems function through institutional checks and balances. Parliament, constitutional bodies, the civil service and independent agencies each have defined roles. When governments attempt to bypass or overshadow these institutions, concerns naturally arise.
The challenge is particularly significant for a party that positioned itself as a defender of institutional reform. Citizens expect stronger institutions, not governance that revolves around personalities. When power becomes excessively centralized, transparency suffers and accountability becomes weaker.
The government’s anti-corruption campaign illustrates this dilemma. Few would disagree with the need to tackle corruption. Public anger against corruption remains one of the strongest forces in Nepali politics. However, anti-corruption efforts must be guided by evidence, due process and institutional independence. When investigations appear selective or politically charged, even legitimate actions can lose credibility.
A government committed to good governance should focus on strengthening investigative agencies, improving procurement systems and enhancing public oversight rather than creating perceptions that political pressure influences legal processes.
Foreign policy has also generated debate during the government’s initial months.
Nepal’s geographic position requires careful diplomacy. Relations with India and China demand consistency, predictability and strategic clarity. Mixed messages on sensitive issues can create unnecessary complications. Investors, development partners and neighboring countries closely watch the government’s statements and actions.
A successful foreign policy does not require dramatic gestures. It requires steady communication, clear national priorities and careful management of sensitive issues.
Economic management remains another area where expectations have outpaced results.
The government inherited structural economic challenges that cannot be solved within 100 days. Sluggish private investment, weak industrial growth, declining business confidence and limited job creation are long standing problems. Yet many entrepreneurs argue that uncertainty remains high.
Businesses generally welcome accountability and regulation. What they fear is unpredictability. Investors need confidence that laws will be applied consistently and that regulatory actions will be based on clear legal standards rather than shifting political considerations.
The government’s approach toward the private sector therefore requires balance. Strong oversight is necessary, but so is policy stability.
Public service delivery has similarly fallen short of the high expectations created during the election campaign. Citizens were promised faster administrative reform, improved service delivery and greater efficiency. While some initiatives have been announced, visible improvements remain limited.
This does not mean the government has failed. One hundred days is too short a period to deliver sweeping transformation. But it is long enough to establish a governing culture. That is where concerns are beginning to emerge.
The most important lesson for the government is that public trust cannot be sustained through rhetoric alone. Citizens supported RSP because they expected a different model of governance. Maintaining that trust requires transparency in decision making, accountability to democratic institutions and openness to criticism.
The government should publish more information about major decisions, strengthen parliamentary oversight, respect the independence of constitutional bodies and ensure that advisers operate within clearly defined roles. It should engage constructively with critics rather than treating dissent as hostility.
The first 100 days have shown both the possibilities and the risks facing the government. The promise of reform remains alive, but early signs suggest a growing gap between expectations and performance. Closing that gap will require less emphasis on political messaging and greater focus on transparent, accountable and institution-based governance.
The public did not vote merely for a new government. It voted for a new way of governing. The next phase will determine whether that promise can still be fulfilled.
Login to add a comment