By Rabi Raj Thapa
The credibility of a government is assessed by examining its trustworthiness, stability, and ability to honour its commitments. Domestically, people judge a government by its governance, particularly how it treats its citizens and upholds the law. Internationally, its credibility is measured by its conduct and behaviour on the global stage.
Nepal’s incumbent Foreign Minister appears to be faring much better than three other major political actors: Prime Minister Balen Shah, Home Minister Sudan Gurung, and Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) Chairman Rabi Lamichhane.
The first major problem with the Balen government is its tendency towards sudden policy reversals and arbitrary actions. The most alarming aspect is its unpredictability and the Prime Minister’s apparent inclination towards knee-jerk responses rather than consistent, carefully considered decisions. Nevertheless, some of his actions represent bold initiatives that previous prime ministers of Nepal might not even have contemplated. However, these initiatives could have been pursued more effectively and through better-planned procedures.
The Balen government’s unexpected and swift actions could potentially mark one of the largest anti-corruption drives in Nepal’s history. However, the unexpected police summons and detention of a former chief justice of the Supreme Court, the suspension and dismissal of the second-in-command of the Armed Police Force, and, most importantly, the move against Deepak Bhatt—a powerful businessman and alleged power broker who has long wielded considerable influence over successive governments—have not received the full public recognition they might otherwise have earned.
These developments have exposed serious cracks and loopholes in Nepal’s judicial system, raising concerns that go far beyond the political infighting within and among the country’s political parties.
Prime Minister Balen Shah continues to enjoy a degree of popular appeal because of his anti-corruption agenda. However, the government’s institutional credibility is showing signs of erosion due to policy missteps, perceived authoritarian tendencies, and apparent disregard for established parliamentary procedures.
Despite the positive aspects of the Balen government and its stated commitment to reform, it must base its rule on policy consistency, legal certainty, and respect for contractual obligations. Such credibility can be sustained only when the government itself respects the rule of law, institutional checks and balances, and safeguards against arbitrary exercise of power.
For months, India’s Election Commission (ECI) has faced opposition allegations of “vote chori” (vote theft) and rejected claims that its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls imposed an unconstitutional burden on vulnerable citizens. Similar questions of credibility arise in Nepal concerning the judiciary and the criminal justice system.
The criminalisation of politics and the politicisation of crime dominated Nepal’s political landscape for decades. Whatever its shortcomings, the two-day Gen-Z movement stripped many political godfathers of the power and influence they had long enjoyed. The movement raised hopes that political patronage would no longer protect individuals accused of criminal activities and that the nexus between politicians and alleged criminals would finally be dismantled.
However, Nepal’s political and institutional landscape remains troubled. Since the formation of the Balen government, concerns have arisen over the appointment of a relatively junior judge as the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, allegations surrounding an alleged conspiracy involving former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana, and controversies that have fuelled comparisons with Colombia’s political environment during the era of Pablo Escobar.
When the executive interferes with the judiciary, while judicial ambitions extend into the political sphere in an attempt to make or break governments, public confidence in the entire system inevitably suffers. Such a dangerous contest for power undermines the prospects of establishing a credible, stable, and durable government.
If the executive, judiciary, and security institutions become entangled in competing power struggles, the country risks institutional paralysis, political instability, and a breakdown of law and order. When crime and corruption within the judiciary are allowed to grow unchecked, the resulting crisis can threaten constitutional governance and encourage attempts to destabilise or topple governments, including those genuinely committed to fighting corruption.
The dismissal of the second-in-command of the Armed Police Force adds another layer of uncertainty to this already troubling situation. Meanwhile, the controversies surrounding former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana have cast a shadow over the Supreme Court and raised further questions about the credibility of Nepal’s judicial and political institutions.
Ultimately, the central question remains: can the Balen government restore public confidence by ensuring that the fight against corruption is conducted transparently, consistently, and in accordance with the law? Its long-term credibility will depend not merely on bold actions or dramatic announcements, but on its willingness to respect institutions, follow due process, and apply the law equally to everyone.
Login to add a comment