By Our Reporter
Barely 100 days into office, the Balendra Shah led government is facing a challenge it did not expect to confront so soon. The promise of change that swept the Rastriya Swatantra Party into power is now being tested not only in Parliament but also on the streets. Teachers, doctors, farmers, civil servants, journalists, business owners, students and landless settlers have all staged protests in recent weeks. More significantly, several demonstrations have forced the government to withdraw or revise its own decisions.
That pattern tells an important story. The problem is no longer simply public dissatisfaction. It is the growing perception that the government is announcing policies before fully understanding their consequences or consulting those affected. The irony is difficult to ignore. RSP came to power by criticizing previous governments for being disconnected from ordinary citizens. Today, it faces similar accusations. The difference is that expectations were much higher. Voters did not elect the party merely to replace old leaders. They expected a new style of governance, one that listens before deciding and responds before frustration spills onto the streets.
Many of the protests are rooted in problems that long predate this government. Nepal’s education system has awaited comprehensive reform for years. Farmers have struggled with fertilizer shortages through successive administrations. Civil servants have demanded federal civil service legislation since the federal system was introduced. Hospitals have long suffered from staff shortages and unsafe working conditions. Businesses have endured years of weak demand and policy uncertainty.
Yet inherited problems do not shield a new government from political responsibility. Governments elected on promises of rapid reform are judged by their response, not by the age of the problems they inherit. That is why anger that accumulated over years is now being directed at a government that has been in office for only a few months.
What makes the current situation more concerning is the government’s repeated need to retreat under pressure. Several policies have already been softened, suspended or revised after protests from affected groups. While correcting mistakes is better than defending flawed decisions, repeated backtracking creates another problem. It raises doubts about the quality of policy preparation inside government. Citizens begin to ask whether decisions are based on evidence or simply announced first and reconsidered later.
This is becoming a credibility issue. Effective governments are not those that never change course. They are those that build enough consultation into policymaking that major reversals become the exception rather than the norm.
The education sector illustrates this challenge clearly. Teachers wanted implementation of long promised reforms, not new uncertainty over transfers, school leadership and employment status. Contract teachers, Early Childhood Development teachers and school staff are asking for predictable careers rather than temporary fixes. Educational consultancies oppose tighter regulations because they fear losing their businesses. Student groups continue demanding better university governance. These are different demands, but they all reflect one complaint: policies are being introduced without adequate engagement.
The same pattern extends well beyond education. Farmers want fertilizer on time rather than repeated assurances. Businesses want stable policies instead of uncertainty. Civil servants seek clarity over career progression. Journalists are pushing back against policies affecting media revenues. Landless settlers demand rehabilitation plans before eviction, not afterward. Healthcare workers want safer workplaces instead of promises of future reform.
Each protest appears separate. Together, they reveal a government struggling to convert political goodwill into administrative effectiveness. The government’s anti-corruption agenda remains one of its strongest assets. Many citizens continue to support efforts to clean up public institutions and hold powerful figures accountable. But anti-corruption alone cannot sustain public confidence. People also judge governments by everyday governance: schools that function, hospitals that operate, farmers who receive fertilizer, businesses that can invest and ministries that implement decisions without confusion.
One concern increasingly raised by policy observers is the government’s decision-making process itself. Several ministers have privately acknowledged that policies sometimes move forward without sufficient consultation with stakeholders or even within government. Faster decisions may project decisiveness, but reforms imposed without consensus often generate resistance that delays implementation even further. This is where the government faces its biggest political test. Public protests should not automatically be treated as opposition to reform. In many cases, they reflect demands to be included in the reform process. Listening to affected groups before announcing major policy changes is not a sign of weakness. It is good governance.
The public has not abandoned its faith in the RSP government. Expectations remain high because many voters still believe it can deliver meaningful change. But political capital is not unlimited. Every unnecessary confrontation, every policy reversal and every delayed commitment chip away at that trust.
Login to add a comment