By Our Reporter
Political rhetoric in Nepal has never been gentle. Fiery speeches, exaggerated promises and public threats have long been part of the political landscape. Yet recent remarks by Infrastructure Minister Sunil Lamsal mark something more troubling. They reflect a growing tendency among some leaders to confuse aggression with leadership, intimidation with accountability, and public outrage with effective governance.
Within weeks, Lamsal has twice landed in controversy. First, he declared that contractors who failed to complete projects on time should have their legs broken. Now he says provincial ministers who fail to perform will be jailed, while mayors who neglect the public will face action. On the surface, the comments appear to reflect frustration with poor governance. Many Nepalis are equally frustrated with corrupt contractors, inactive ministers and local leaders who fail to deliver. But ministers are not elected to echo public anger. They are entrusted with upholding the law.
That distinction matters. A minister carries constitutional authority. Every public statement shapes how citizens perceive the rule of law. When a cabinet member speaks the language of threats instead of legal process, he weakens the very institutions he is supposed to strengthen. Even if such remarks are intended as political theatre, they normalize the idea that power comes before procedure.
This is not an isolated incident. Nepal’s political culture increasingly rewards leaders who sound tough rather than those who govern well. Social media amplifies short video clips filled with outrage, while measured policy discussions rarely attract attention. Politicians know this. Some deliberately cultivate the image of fearless enforcers who can cut through bureaucracy with brute force.
The danger lies in mistaking populism for leadership. Breaking contractors’ legs is not infrastructure policy. Threatening to jail provincial ministers without explaining the legal basis is not administrative reform. These statements may generate applause at public gatherings, but they solve none of the structural problems holding back governance.
Contractors delay projects because procurement systems remain weak, political patronage influences contract awards, supervision is poor and penalties are rarely enforced. Provincial ministers fail because accountability mechanisms are ineffective and political parties often protect their own. Mayors who neglect public service should certainly face consequences, but through established legal and constitutional procedures, not public threats from another minister seeking headlines.
Ironically, the minister’s latest remarks also raise constitutional questions. Nepal operates under a federal system where local governments and provinces have constitutionally protected jurisdictions. A federal minister cannot simply order provincial ministers jailed or dictate action against elected local officials. Such measures require investigations, due process and decisions by competent authorities. Suggesting otherwise risks misleading the public about how the state actually functions.
The broader concern extends beyond one minister. The current government came to power promising a break from old political habits. Many voters expected professionalism, competence and institutional reform. Instead, some ministers appear increasingly drawn to sensational statements that dominate news cycles but contribute little to better governance. Tough language cannot substitute for policy delivery.
Nor is Lamsal alone in blurring the line between activism and constitutional office. Home Minister Sudhan Gurung has also cultivated an image of a leader who prefers dramatic public gestures over institutional restraint. Soon after taking office, he publicly ordered the arrests of former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and former Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak over the crackdown on the 2025 Gen Z protests, a move that immediately triggered accusations that criminal investigations were being driven as much by politics as by due process.
Gurung’s public style has often projected the message that ministers can personally deliver justice. He has announced that old criminal files would be reopened, including the Narayanhiti Palace massacre, and has repeatedly framed himself as someone who would bypass bureaucratic inertia through personal intervention. While reviewing unresolved cases is within the government’s policy domain, such announcements risk creating the impression that criminal investigations depend on ministerial will rather than the independence of investigative agencies.
The irony is that Gurung himself resigned earlier this year after questions emerged over his financial dealings and share investments. Although a government inquiry later cleared him and he returned to office, the episode demonstrated that ministers are equally accountable to public scrutiny. Before threatening others with legal consequences or projecting themselves as enforcers, they must first uphold the highest standards of transparency in their own conduct.
Taken together, the conduct of Lamsal and Gurung reflects a worrying trend. Instead of allowing institutions to function independently, ministers increasingly present themselves as the institutions themselves. They announce arrests, threaten imprisonment, promise punishment and speak as though executive power rests in personal authority rather than constitutional process. That may produce viral headlines and social media applause, but it gradually erodes public understanding of how a democratic government is supposed to function.
Prime Minister Balen Shah cannot ignore this pattern. Leadership is measured not only by policy outcomes but also by the standards expected within the cabinet. Ministers should be reminded that they serve under constitutional limits, not personal authority. Public frustration with corruption and inefficiency does not give elected officials licence to glorify violence or casually threaten imprisonment.
Parliament, too, has a responsibility. Lawmakers across party lines should insist that ministers uphold the dignity of public office. Parliamentary committees exist to hold the executive accountable, not merely to debate legislation after controversy erupts.
Nepal needs ministers who inspire confidence through competence, not fear through rhetoric. Citizens deserve leaders who enforce contracts through stronger institutions, discipline public officials through due process and restore trust by respecting the law they have sworn to uphold.
The country suffers from a shortage of strong institutions. Ministers should spend less time making threats and more time strengthening the systems that make such threats unnecessary.
Login to add a comment