By Our Political Analyst
Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s reliance on ordinances raises a question: why does a government with a commanding majority in the House of Representatives repeatedly choose temporary executive lawmaking? Eight ordinances in its first six months, followed by Cabinet approval of three more proposals, suggest a preference for governing through shortcuts. That deserves scrutiny, even when the reforms themselves have merit.
Article 114 permits ordinances when both houses are not in session together and circumstances require immediate action. They carry the force of law but must be tabled in both houses and face constitutional expiry provisions. The power exists to meet urgent needs during parliamentary recess. Whether a particular ordinance meets those conditions requires examining its circumstances, rather than simply counting how many the government issues.
Nevertheless, the breadth of Shah’s early measures invites doubt. Changes involving procurement, universities, money laundering and public appointments shape institutions for years. They deserve evidence, consultation and scrutiny. When a government ends a short parliamentary session and soon introduces sweeping changes through ordinances, citizens can reasonably ask why elected lawmakers were denied the first opportunity to examine them.
The government’s defence has some force. Outdated laws can obstruct decisions, and citizens want results. Parliament can waste time through disruption, repetitive speeches and poorly managed committees. But these weaknesses require better legislative management. Avoiding Parliament leaves the weaknesses intact while shifting more authority to ministers and officials whose proposals receive less public examination.
One qualification matters: Shah’s lower-house majority does not mean he controls the National Assembly. Opposition parties dominate the upper chamber, complicating legislative approval. However, ordinances also require approval by both houses to continue. They can postpone negotiations, but cannot provide a lasting escape from them.
That makes early engagement the more practical route. Ministers should consult upper-house leaders before introducing major bills, identify objections and negotiate changes that preserve the policy’s purpose. Accepting a useful opposition amendment is ordinary lawmaking. It can also make legislation more durable than a measure pushed through amid distrust.
The easiest path begins with preparation. The government should publish a legislative calendar, rank bills by urgency and complete drafting before sessions open. Each bill should explain the problem, anticipated costs, implementation arrangements and reasons for changing existing provisions. Well-prepared proposals give committees less repair work and give lawmakers a clearer basis for decisions.
Committees should agree on reasonable deadlines, hold focused hearings and examine clauses rather than allow discussions to drift. Parliament can schedule additional sittings where necessary. Ministers must attend, answer questions and respond to amendments. Speed comes from organised work and political engagement, not from reducing scrutiny to a formality.
Urgent disaster measures may warrant different treatment from permanent land, forest or institutional reforms. If waiting would cause demonstrable harm, the Cabinet should publish a specific explanation and keep an ordinance narrowly focused. It should prepare replacement legislation immediately, rather than leave implementation dependent on uncertain approval.
Restoring Parliament’s dignity also demands restraint from the opposition. Members should challenge weak provisions, propose alternatives and explain delays. Obstruction for its own sake helps the government portray democratic scrutiny as an inconvenience. Both sides owe citizens a legislature that works.
Shah received a mandate to govern, including the responsibility to persuade, explain and submit proposals to examination. His majority gives him an opportunity to make Parliament productive. Using that strength to build dependable laws would demonstrate greater leadership than repeatedly reaching for temporary powers. Citizens need reforms that survive scrutiny and serve them beyond the next political confrontation. The government should measure success by that standard.
Login to add a comment