By Our Reporter
Six months is neither long enough to transform a country nor too short to judge the direction of a government. Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s government has now chosen this point to present its own scorecard, listing achievements ranging from administrative reform and infrastructure to electricity, diplomacy and public services. The timing matters. The report comes as the government faces growing questions over whether the promise of a different style of governance has translated into visible change.
Publishing a six-month progress report is, in itself, good practice. A government should periodically tell taxpayers what it has done, how public money has been used and where its policies are heading. It also gives citizens, Parliament and the media something concrete against which to measure promises. But a progress report prepared by the government is inevitably selective. It tells us what the government wants counted. It does not necessarily tell us what has failed, stalled or fallen behind.
That distinction matters particularly for this government. Shah came to office amid high public expectations and a wider demand for a break from traditional politics. Six months later, expectations have begun colliding with the slower realities of governing. Releasing a long list of achievements therefore also looks like an attempt to counter the argument that the government has failed to deliver as quickly as promised.
Some achievements deserve recognition. Reducing ministries from 22 to 18 sends a useful message about cutting administrative duplication. Reviewing boards, committees and projects with overlapping functions is also sensible, provided the exercise eventually produces actual savings. The “Zero Pending Files Week”, the 100-point governance reform agenda and performance agreements with secretaries suggest an effort to make the bureaucracy more accountable.
Public service reforms are perhaps easier for ordinary people to appreciate. Allowing passport and citizenship services from any district, expanding home delivery of passports to 75 districts and connecting birth registration, citizenship and national identity databases can reduce the time and frustration involved in dealing with government offices. Automating labour approvals can similarly help thousands of migrant workers.
Infrastructure and energy figures also show movement. The Nagdhunga Tunnel has entered trial operation, the Kathmandu Tarai/Madhesh Fast Track has crossed 50 percent physical progress, bridges have been completed and 161 MW has been added to electricity generation capacity. Electricity exports have brought in around Rs 10 billion in foreign currency.
Yet the report also exposes a familiar problem in Nepal: governments often claim ongoing projects as achievements without explaining how much progress actually occurred during their tenure. A tunnel breakthrough or another percentage point on a long running highway cannot automatically be treated as a new government’s accomplishment. The meaningful question is whether this administration accelerated construction, removed obstacles, controlled costs or improved completion schedules.
The governance claims deserve similar scrutiny. Announcing organisational reviews and performance agreements is easier than proving that public offices have become faster and cleaner. Implementing reports on public land and cooperative irregularities matters only when investigations lead to recovery of property, prosecution or compensation for victims.
Nor can infrastructure statistics alone capture the condition of the country. Recent floods and landslides have again exposed weak roads, bridges and disaster preparedness. Economic pressure, unemployment, outward migration and public frustration cannot be answered simply through a catalogue of administrative decisions.
The six-month report therefore has merit, but it should be treated as a progress sheet rather than a victory lap. Shah’s government can reasonably argue that institutional reform takes time. Its critics can equally ask whether announcements are moving fast enough into implementation.
The harder test begins now. After six months, the government can still talk about systems being changed and foundations being laid. As it moves deeper into its term, people will increasingly judge it by something simpler: whether government works better, corruption becomes harder, projects finish faster and daily life actually improves.
Login to add a comment