By Our Reporter
The first 100 days of any government are more about direction than destination. They offer the public an early glimpse of priorities, work culture and political will. No administration can transform a country in just over three months. But it can demonstrate that it knows where it is headed and how it plans to get there.
Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s government, which completed 100 days in office last Saturday, entered office with exactly that promise. It unveiled a 100-point action plan packed with commitments, from governance reforms and anti-corruption measures to digital services, economic recovery and political accountability. The document projected confidence. It suggested that this government would move faster, govern better and break away from the habits of previous administrations.
The results tell a more complicated story. According to the government’s own assessment, only 38 of the 100 commitments have been completed. Nearly two thirds remain unfinished, delayed or are still moving through the bureaucracy. That does not automatically make the first 100 days a failure. Most governments struggle to achieve ambitious targets within such a short period. The bigger question is why so many commitments failed to move beyond announcements.
One explanation lies in the government’s own planning. The action plan tried to cover almost everything at once. It promised reforms across governance, infrastructure, agriculture, education, health, public service and the economy. Such ambition may have looked impressive on paper, but it ignored a basic principle of governance. Governments with limited resources cannot successfully pursue dozens of major reforms at the same time. Without clear priorities, ministries end up chasing too many targets while delivering too few.
Another weakness was execution. Several commitments simply missed their own deadlines. Others were quietly pushed back without clear explanations. Instead of openly telling the public why delays occurred, the government often chose the easier route of extending deadlines. That approach weakens public confidence. Citizens are usually willing to accept delays if governments explain the reasons honestly. Silence creates the impression that deadlines were never realistic to begin with.
Coordination has also emerged as a serious problem. Some ministries have moved quickly while others appear stuck in routine bureaucracy. That uneven performance suggests the Prime Minister’s Office has struggled to ensure that every ministry follows the same pace. A 100-point agenda only works when every ministry treats it as a shared responsibility rather than its own separate workload.
Financial constraints cannot be ignored either. Many projects require funding that was never immediately available. Others depend on parliamentary approval, legal amendments or cooperation from provincial and local governments. Political resistance is equally inevitable, particularly for reforms that threaten established interests. Those realities explain some delays, but not all of them.
Still, it would be unfair to dismiss everything the government has achieved. Digital governance stands out as one of its strongest areas. Expanding online public services, improving grievance handling and reducing the backlog of driving licenses are practical reforms that directly affect ordinary citizens. Unlike grand political promises, these changes improve everyday interactions between people and the state.
The government’s anti-corruption efforts also deserve cautious recognition. Establishing a high-level commission to investigate unexplained wealth signals that corruption remains on the political agenda. Whether that initiative succeeds will depend entirely on its independence. If investigations target political opponents while protecting allies, the commission will quickly lose credibility. If it applies the law equally, it could become one of the government’s most significant achievements.
Small cooperative depositors have also started receiving refunds, offering relief to thousands of families who had lost hope of recovering their savings. That progress shows the government can deliver when it focuses its attention.
The brighter side of this government is its willingness to attempt reforms that previous administrations often postponed. It has shown greater interest in digital governance, transparency and public service improvements. Those intentions matter because they indicate that the government understands where Nepal’s governance problems lie.
But good intentions are only the starting point. The government’s handling of informal settlement evictions exposed the gap between planning and implementation. Its own action plan promised registration and resettlement before relocation. Instead, demolition came first. The Supreme Court intervened, exposing poor coordination and weak preparation. The episode contradicted the government’s promise of lawful and people centred governance.
Economic reforms have also progressed slowly. Businesses continue waiting for meaningful policy support. Agriculture, despite remaining one of Nepal’s largest employers, has seen little progress in irrigation, market access or farmer assistance. Several governance reforms, including civil service performance-based promotion and broader administrative restructuring, remain unfinished.
The government also needs to improve how it communicates with the public. Publishing a scorecard after 100 days is not enough. Citizens deserve regular updates explaining what has been completed, what remains pending and why delays have occurred. Accountability is not simply about reporting success. It also means being honest about setbacks.
The next phase will matter far more than the first 100 days. The government should narrow its priorities, focus on reforms that produce measurable results and stop treating deadline extensions as routine administrative exercises. Parliament, rather than ordinances, should become the main platform for difficult reforms.
The first 100 days offered evidence of both promise and limitation. The administration has shown that it can deliver in selected areas. It has also revealed weaknesses in planning, coordination and execution. Governments are not remembered for the promises they make. They are remembered for the promises they keep. The real test of the Shah administration begins now.
Login to add a comment